Tag Archives: donald trump

As we start a new era, see the similarities between Obama and Trump

Summary: America has begun a new era with a new president. The similarities between Obama in 2008 and Trump today are remarkable. More precisely, between how we saw Obama and see Trump, with the Left and Right swapping roles. Perhaps another 4 or 8 years of crushing disappointment will teach us lessons we failed to learn from Obama. Then the reform of America can begin.

“It’s agreed. Different presidents, same script for America!”

Trump and Obama

Tens of millions of Americans believed Obama was not a legitimate President, being born outside the USA (Wikipedia). Tens of millions of Americans believe that President Trump is not a legitimate President due to Russian interference in the election; large numbers believe Trump is an agent of Russia (stories have him compromised in a variety of different ways).

The parallels go deeper. Obama won the presidency campaigning as The One bringing “hope and change”. Trump won the presidency (with a minority in the popular vote) making a wide range of big populist promises — many of which will be difficult or impossible to fulfill (e.g., boosting employment in manufacturing, and rebalancing trade with China). Neither entered office with a plan to fulfill their promises.

A look at the Obama administration

Obama delivered on some of his promises, most notably by enacting ObamaCare, expanding the war in Afghanistan (unsuccessfully), and various Leftist social policies. On some he failed to deliver, such as closing the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. He betrayed his followers on many key issues: the banker-friendly bailout (esp. allowing mass foreclosures using perjury and forgery, illegal assassination of an American citizen, increased illegal domestic surveillance, and the promised “most transparent administration” (staging an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers, including use of the Espionage Act).

The Right went bonkers during the Obama years, with fantasies about Obama as Hitler — and the horrific deeds he would do. Sales of firearm soared during Obama’s years, as they prepared for Obama’s mass confiscation of guns.

About the coming Trump era

“Remember that the first person Donald Trump killed due to his presidency was Sharon Jones.” {Source.}

— She died on November 18 at age 60 of pancreatic cancer (NYT). The source of the rumor was an LAT story: “Jones, Roth said in an interview Saturday, suffered a stroke on Nov. 8 — election night — as she was watching the returns. …’She told the people that were there that Trump gave her the stroke,’ said Roth, laughing.”

Both aspects of these aspects of the Obama era are likely to repeat in the next four years, with Left and Right swapping places in this dance. Those hoping for populist reforms are dreaming. People are policy in Washington, and Trump has appointed a bog-standard far-right wing team. Meanwhile the Left has gone bonkers, screaming fantasies of a fascist revolution — including Trump’s mass imprisonment of his enemies and calling off the 2020. Every day their fantasies get wilder, doubling down on the fear barrage the failed so spectacularly during the election campaign.

“When one starts with ‘issuing a new decree’, it’s clear one has neither understanding nor respect for Constitutional separation of powers.” {Source.}
— Every President has used executive orders as a powerful tool (they are “decrees”).

What will happen if the Left’s forecasts of fascism prove false, and we get traditional conservatism? Will they be discredited after their years of wild unsupported predictions? They have wagered their credibility.

Experts say Trump has a narcissistic & authoritarian personality!

psychiatry

“On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

“The ‘Goldwater Rule’” in The Principles of Medical Ethics: With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, 2001 Edition.

The Goldwater Rule: Why breaking it is Unethical and Irresponsible.”

By Maria A. Oquendo, M.D., Ph.D. at the American Psychiatric Assn website.
3 August 2016. Red emphasis added.

“Since 1973, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have abided by a principle commonly known as “the Goldwater Rule,” which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on someone they have not personally evaluated. The rule is so named because of its association with an incident that took place during the 1964 presidential election. During that election, Fact magazine published a survey in which they queried some 12,356 psychiatrists on whether candidate Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP nominee, was psychologically fit to be president. A total of 2,417 of those queried responded, with 1,189 saying that Goldwater was unfit to assume the presidency.

“While there was no formal policy in place at the time that survey was published, the ethical implications of the Goldwater survey, in which some responding doctors even issued specific diagnoses without ever having examined him personally, became immediately clear. This large, very public ethical misstep by a significant number of psychiatrists violated the spirit of the ethical code that we live by as physicians, and could very well have eroded public confidence in psychiatry.

“We live in an age where information on a given individual is easier to access and more abundant than ever before, particularly if that person happens to be a public figure. With that in mind, I can understand the desire to get inside the mind of a Presidential candidate. I can also understand how a patient might feel if they saw their doctor offering an uninformed medical opinion on someone they have never examined. A patient who sees that might lose confidence in their doctor, and would likely feel stigmatized by language painting a candidate with a mental disorder (real or perceived) as “unfit” or “unworthy” to assume the Presidency.

“Simply put, breaking the Goldwater Rule is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.

For More Information

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about the Obama years, about Trump and the new populism, and especially these…

  1. Three big things to expect from the Trump era.
  2. See the warnings about Trump’s infrastructure plan. It’s betraying populism.
  3. The Left goes hysterical over Trump, giving him a free ride as President.
  4. Trump assembles a Strategic and Policy Forum to better hear the 1%.
  5. Trump is the next logical step as America becomes a plutocracy.
  6. The Left sees President Trump and goes mad.

Stratfor: Trump risks a trade war with China that cannot be won

Summary: Trump’s big promises won him the Presidency, much as Obama’s promises of “hope and change”. Here is a second article by Stratfor looking at Trump’s ability to do better than Obama at delivering on them. Will Trump fail gracefully, like Obama, or catastrophically?Stratfor

A Trade War That Cannot Be Won

Stratfor, 11 January 2017.

Forecast

  • Protectionist trade policies toward China would do little to achieve the incoming U.S. administration’s stated goal of reviving U.S. manufacturing.
  • Beijing would use various means — in particular, harassing U.S. companies that operate in China and depend on the country’s growing consumer market — to retaliate against protectionism in the United States.
  • President-elect Donald Trump’s administration will likely focus on curbing Chinese steel imports, a policy that could boost U.S. manufacturing without doing much damage to China’s economy.

Analysis

The trade relationship between the United States and China is a cornerstone of the global economy and a linchpin of the economic, social and political order in both countries. But in recent years, and particularly during the runup to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the partnership has come under fire in the United States. Leaders such as President-elect Donald Trump have criticized Washington’s trade ties with Beijing as unfavorable, since China’s exports to the United States exceed its imports from it. Trump has decried the negative effects of this trade imbalance and promised to correct it, for instance by imposing a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. Despite the backlash that such a drastic measure would invite from Beijing, Trump argues that the United States is better poised to weather a prolonged trade dispute than is China, thanks to their lopsided trade relationship.

A closer look at U.S. trade activities with China casts doubt on this idea, however. Changes in the composition of Chinese exports to the United States, the structure of manufacturing supply chains and the aims of U.S. corporate investment in China have evened the field between Washington and Beijing. As each side tries to achieve increasingly contrary political and economic goals, neither would be immune from the fallout of a trade war. China has just as many options to retaliate against protectionist U.S. policies as the United States has to punish Beijing. The challenge is to understand which tactics the countries’ leaders are likely to choose — and to what end.

Continue reading

Deciphering the scandalous rumors about Trump in Russia

Summary: Stories about the Trump-Russia scandal continue to roil the media. It might dominate the vital start of the Trump administration. Even if it does not, these events are rich with lessons about hidden aspects of America’s politics. Here is an expert’s analysis, a follow-up to Here are the facts so far about the Trump-Russia file.

Poster of Trump and Putin in Vilnius

Ints Kalnins/Reuters.

The story of the Trump-Russia file is among the most significant news of 2017. Not because it is yet another disreputable story about Trump (credulously believed by the Left). Not because of its salacious details (which so excite the Left). The involvement of US intelligence agencies makes it important. We can only guess at their motives for publicizing this unverified information. They move like the sandworms in Dune, giant beasts visible only by their wake on the surface.

As usual with scandals (real or imagined), the British press have covered this more closely than their US cousins. Mostly by speculation, but the better elements have presented intriguing analysis. Such as this in yesterday’s London Review of Books: “How to Read the Trump Dossier” by Arthur Snell — a veteran of the UK Foreign Office, now a managing director of corporate intelligence firm PGI Intelligence. This provides the strongest case I have seen for taking the Trump-Russia file seriously. It goes off the rails at the beginning.

“None of the claims made in the dossier has yet been verified, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it seriously. Intelligence is information, from a privileged source, that supports decision-making. It is seldom verifiable because that information is rarely in the public domain.”

Why should we take this file seriously if it has no verification? Here is the closest Snell gets to an answer. It’s quite daft.

Continue reading

Here are the facts so far about the Trump-Russia file.

Summary: The Trump-Russia story creates a situation without parallel since Watergate (Iran-Contra was a sideshow). The news gives us the usual confusing mish-mash. Here is an outline of the story, with links and pointers to the best analysis I have seen so far. Read, decide for yourself —  and watch this story evolve. See the follow-up: Deciphering the scandalous rumors about Trump in Russia.

Donald Trump covering his ears

Contents

  1. The story so far.
  2. Follow-ups to the story.
  3. Analysis of the story.
  4. Updates.
  5. Conclusions.
  6. For More Information.

(1) The story so far.

Christopher Steele, former SIS (aka MI6) agent and director of London-based Orbis Intelligence Ltd., gathered a file of dirt about Trump — first paid for by Republicans opposing Trump, then by Democrats opposing Trump (details here; the clients carefully concealed themselves). Steele gave the file to the FBI in August 2016 (others did so later). With no visible results from the FBI, Steele gave it to others (e.g., David Corn, who wrote an October article in Mother Jones). They passed it to others (e.g., to Senator McCain, who gave it to the FBI). See The Guardian for details.

At some point US intelligence agencies took it seriously, in combination with information from other sources. The file consists of memos dated from 20 June to 13 December 2016. The memos have misspellings and minor errors. For example, it says that Michael Cohen, Trump’s attorney, visited the Czech Republic. That was a different Michael Cohen.

On January 10 CNN broke the story, saying that Trump and Obama were briefed about their concerns about Trump’s ties to Russia (including allegations in the file) by four senior intelligence directors: James Clapper (DNI), James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA), and Mike Rogers (NSA).  NBC said Trump was not briefed, and might not have received the two page summary. Some members of Congress also received the summary. Later that day Buzzfeed published a story about it, including the full 35-page file.

Update: Wednesday night James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, released a statement that punctured the fevered speculation by Democrats about the Trump-Russia file. The key lines…

“The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.”

Continue reading

"Plutocracy" bumper sticker

Trump is the next logical step as America becomes a plutocracy

Trump is just the next step in the natural evolution of America into a plutocratic state. The US — like the rest of the West — was sliding along this path until the great depression and WWII destroyed that regime.

Our elites have spent several generations rebuilding their institutional power. Now new technology and massive immigration are further increasing their power, shifting the balance from labor to capital. The US public is gullible, apathetic, passive.  Easy prey.

“If God didn’t want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.”
— Calvera, bandit leader in the movie “The Magnificent Seven” (1960).

Both parties are owned by our plutocratic elites. Campaign 2016 revealed this, for those who wish to see. Hillary was supported by the war industry (i.e., neocons, military-industrial complex, senior elements of the national security complex, geopolitical “experts”) and Wall Street. Six weeks after the election, we learn that they just as eagerly support Trump.

Both parties hide this simple fact through misdirection. Rather than show that Team Trump consists largely of plutocrats and their servants, much of the Left touts Trump as Hitler. Rather than point to Obama’s loyal service to Wall Street and the MIC, the right said touted Obama as Hitler. In this respect both Left and Right are the anything but the truth parties.

Continue reading

A German general explains how to understand Donald Trump

Summary: Trump has been called an authoritarian, a fascist, and another Hitler. What is his true character? The question becomes more important as Trump approaches the White House. An interwar insight from a German general can help us evaluate him. The answer helps explain why Trump did so well on November 8, despite his many obvious faults.

President Donald Trump

“For all Trump’s bluster, missteps, foibles and crassness, nobody can question his astonishing energy.”
— An interesting comment posted by Bernie.

Is it good that Trump has “astonishing energy”? For a perspective on this we can turn to an insight attributed to a German General, Freiherr (baron) Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord.

“I divide my officers into four classes as follows: The clever, the industrious, the lazy, and the stupid. Each officer always possesses two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious I appoint to the General Staff. Use can under certain circumstances be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy qualifies for the highest leadership posts. He has the requisite nerves and the mental clarity for difficult decisions. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be got rid of, for he is too dangerous.”

Continue reading

See the Left’s mad response to Team Trump (they’re plutocrats, not fascists)

Summary:  How much Trump accomplishes will depend in part by how effectively the Left opposes him. A few on the Left have seen the essential element for success, but overall their early responses suggest that the Left will remain dysfunctional. Perhaps a few years in the political wilderness will bring new insights to them. But they are some hopeful signs out there…

The Left’s response to Trump is fantasy, making effective resistance impossible.

Trump as Hitler

To see the Left’s (broadly speaking) response to Trump, look at the social scientists writing at Lawyers, Guns, and Money. It suggests that the Left will be incapable of mounting an effective defense. For a start, there is refusal to accept the election result (as they predicted Trump would if he lost).

“In other words, by taking full advantage of various combinations of judicial skullduggery, journalistic malpractice, and foreign intrigue the GOP has pretty much flat-out stolen two of the last five presidential elections …”
— “The fraud against America” by Paul Campos (Prof of Law, U Co – Boulder).

How will they follow-up? By doubling-down on the tactics that failed in the election. Such as accusing Trump of being another Hitler (as was Bush Jr. and Obama). See “Do Something” by Erik Loomis (asst prof of history, U RI).

“We have two choices in the Trump era. You can fight back. Or you can live your everyday life and acquiesce. People have long wondered how the German people let Hitler take over their nation. We are living how it happened. Too many people just decided to put their heads down and go on with their daily lives. You must not do that.”

I respect Professor Loomis and his work, but this comparison of Trump with Hitler is absurd for two reasons. First, Hitler did not just walk into Berlin. He took power in 1932 after 12 years of development. The Nazi party was founded in 1920. Hitler staged the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 and published Mein Kampf in 1925. This is unlike anything in Trump’s history.

Second, there is little basis for these claims. Experts have debunked claims that Trump is like Hitler and that he is a fascist. Trump’s appointees are neither revolutionaries nor fascists. They have standard conventional backgrounds and typical conservative (often right-wing) views; most are either rich, CEOs, generals, or elected or appointed officials of the Federal government. They look nothing like the experienced revolutionaries that Hitler brought with him into the Chancellor’s office.

Continue reading