Posted On: Tuesday - April 11th 2017 3:42PM MST
In Topics:   Trump  The Neocons  Deep State
To address the 1st concern from the post yesterday "What is wrong with Trump?", we'd like to discuss what possesses this president to be a warmonger in the continuation of policies of the "commanders-in-chief" of the last 3 decades (or so).
It may have been written here (search features coming some time!) that during the presidential campaign (before PeakStupidity had seen the light of day) Trump just had qualities that would make him hard to bribe or blackmail. That is, he was already famous - on TV and in NYC, he was very rich, and he never claimed to be a straight-arrow. The 1st 2 qualities mean that he was not in this thing under someone else's control, say donors for some specific cause. The last quality would be something that could be used against a Jim Baker TV-evangelist or any of the candidates that claim the moral high ground as one of the primary issues. Everyone should figure Trump is a playboy type, he's on his 3rd wife. If there were pictures of his cheating out there, I don't think that his voters would have cared a bit about it.
I don't think the same could be said for most of the US senators. The more you learn about specific ones, the more your realize it's mostly a depraved bunch of people. It is to be noted that almost all of these people leave the senate as multi-millionaires. Many of them don't start off that way, so ....
So, what's the deal? What could the CIA or anybody else with access to NSA data, which is basically any communications, purchases of goods or services via anything but cash, and almost anything one does outside in the city limits these days. Oh, I forgot to add, probably one's location at any point in time since he purchased his first smart phone. I guess one could come up with something, but I'd thought Donald Trump was a pretty tough guy - tough enough to handle a bit of shame. In fact, it seems he enjoyed arguing about the hypocrisy of the big brouhaha about his locker-room talk during the campaign, for example. Could you bribe this guy? How much more money does he need? He lost a decent amount just by committing to the campaign, due to silly boycotts by the SJWs and assorted opponents. I think he couldn't be bribed.
It could be that some threats were made to the effect of "Look what happened to JFK" or "We already put old Ronnie in his place the 1st year - we may choose a larger caliber than .22 this time". It makes me really wonder what happened during the Ross Perot campaign in summer of '92. To me, Mr. Perot was the closest thing we had to a Donald Trump in the recent past. I should say, Mr. Trump was the closest thing to a Ross Perot. Mr. Perot, if you recall, or bing it, dropped out of a fairly successful campaign due to concerns about the safety of his family. This was a business leader/entrepreneur with about the order of magnitude of wealth as Donald Trump. You don't seem to hear much about what really happened in July 1992, and Perot, after re-entering the race received almost 19% of the popular vote.
OK, this was going to be a short post, but it's not happening. I'm just to the next question: Is this guy irresponsible enough with his power to take advice from his daughter. The story is that Ivanka Trump saw pictures of (allegedly?) gassed children and her distress made Mr. Trump decide to DO SOMETHING. Well, listen, it's terrible for innocent children to die period, but it sure doesn't help the lot of them to start a war. How many have died but just didn't appear in pictures in wars started by our commander-in-chiefs before in wars that are not in defense of this country? This rule-by-emotion crap is not acceptable! We ran into this with the pictures of some drowned kid washed up on the beach in southern Europe. "Oh, we must help these people invade our lands more safely!" was the response to that photo. I don't guess thinking emotionally and making irresponsible policy based on photos takes into account some rapes of kids in Germany by Moslem invaders, does it? That's the problem with this feminine rule-by-emotion. Compassion is only for short-term events, but there is no compassion for the long term terrible effects on lives and future lives when no masculine logical thinking and judgment is involved.
Nancy Reagan was always criticized back in the 1980's for using horoscope data to influence Ronnie in making policy, but there was no evidence that the man listened to her. With Trump this may not be the case. I don't like it.
Lastly, the son-in-law of the president, Jared Kushner is known to be not just a neocon, but in good with the big neocons. Is this guy influencing his father-in-law? Trump may need a Bannon type to lay down rules to him - "get this would-be power couple the hell out of the White House. Go see them on weekends at the golf course and come to their baby showers or fashion shows, but that's all!" Trump has seemed wise enough, as described in the previous post, to pick the right people to guide him in the past. However, he may have just not trusted his instincts and judgment and is letting the powerful neocon and MIC crowd make him doubt that he has been right - "we can't be the world's policeman anymore". I would add, "due last but not least that we are broke beyond all recognition", BBAR, FUBAR, whatever.