Donald Trump and US politics

"

Xavderion wrote:

Dude this is the internet, feel free to shamelessly steal and never give credit :D I stole it from Reddit.

On internet I'm a tall muscular handsome guy and I drive a ferrari. Actually I have to fly my Helicopter at the end of my Parking to get my Ferrari... yeah my Ferrari collection is THAT big.

I'm in the Meth business, and I'm a super hero by night fighting crime.

OH! You are a superhero too! Small world!

Sorry but the world I live in is filled with people that get triggered if you use a picture of a flower they took.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj4L5Pgz9Qc


a very interesting video that some people should watch over.

I looked at roll call and noticed that big mouth Peter King of NY (you know the one that is constantly talking a great game on news shows about his conservatism blah blah and how Trump is quite perfect, best thing since sliced bread, OMIGOD the way this fatass goes on!) voted against the sanctuary cities bill (not the other one, surprisingly). He is the congressman in my old district before I moved so I still keep up with him. He's one of the ones I think of when someone says "term limits".

I wonder why he voted against the sanctuary cities bill?!?! Doesn't he know that Trump supports both bills?

ROFLMAO

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

The only truth I was confronted with was a paywall.

I think we can agree that the concept of a unified Illuminati is a myth based in power fantasy. I think we can agree that people who claim "they" without a name or at least a clue as to identity are grasping at straws. But the Deep State concept is not like that, at least not once the tinfoil is removed.

There are people in unelected, "nonpartisan" positions of considerable power and influence within governments. While such people serve at the pleasure of an elected official (the President in the US), it is expected that they aren't replaced as a matter of course simply because one political party captures power from another. The goal of these unelected officials is to protect and ideally expand their power. To do this, such people, through their organizations, hoard comprising information or, barring that, compromising narratives, and develop plans to weaponize those narratives as both threats and as retaliatory attacks directed at their bosses. This acts as a defense against both whim and oversight that could threaten their power. Almost always, these plans involve media in some form; Deep Staters seek people within prominent and trusted media outlets to be part of their personal information war, delivering manufactured rumor with the veneer of truth.

Nothing about the previous paragraph is conspiracy theory. You can see ALL of it in how former FBI Director James Comey handled direction and criticism from the White House. In fact, you can see it twice — once under Obama when Comey saw that Clinton wouldn't be indicted, and under Trump when Comey saw his firing imminent. In both cases Comey manipulated the media to achieve a result in opposition to his President. Comey wasn't partisan; he saw his place in the FBI as answerable to no White House, regardless of party affiliation. Of course, he was not immune and was fired anyway — but not without a fight.

These aren't supernaturally powerful Deep State positions with supernaturally sinister media alliances and a supernaturally deep hatred of democracy. These are real people in real positions with messy and complicated relationships with both elected officials and people in media. It's not all perfect, and the Deep State is vulnerable. But with a president perhaps truly desiring drastically reducing government, obviously the federal bureaucracies would have cause for revolt, in defense of their accumulated power and budgets. So they did.

I am sorry about the paywall. I cannot see which articles are free when I read them and just copied the link. I expect that the article will go public in a few days. Other news sites are carrying the story/article.

Nice post. Thanks. Referring back to the italicized paragraph above, the unbolded part is typical of most bureaucracies. They work to preserve themselves and change can be slow and evolutionary as administrations change and staffers move on or retire. The bolder section seems more speculative and I think more connected to elected officials than civil service employees. So I'd like to see at least some evidence of such a network of media involvement. It is easy to say civil servants use the media to spread fake news, but I would think that such a thing was less than common.

Whose interests do deep staters represent? Are Deep staters at Dept of Defense aligned with the Deep staters at Dept of Ed? DOE? Dept of Interior? FDA? Commerce? If all of those groups are aligned, who is in control? If not, then all of those different deep states would have their own agenda. Occam's razor would tell me that there is no centralizing force and it's just normal bureaucratic perpetuation.

So you are saying that Comey is a deep state, to whose drum is he marching? FBI Deep State? CIA deep State? Koch Brothers Deep State? Who has benefited from Comey's actions at each step along the way?

Mods are repressive here. Freedom is natural state unless someone takes it from you. They take a lot. Anyway best answer I can give without ban and censorship is Media has lied from day one. from 17 intel agencies saying Russia did interference to 3 say so today. Intel agencies all lie too. Thats false "intel" got us into Iraqi briar patch. So I dont believe what either say. Basically you lie to me even once I write you off. Lifes too short to deal with or believe in scoundrels. Have a good day.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

I think we can agree that the concept of a unified Illuminati is a myth based in power fantasy. I think we can agree that people who claim "they" without a name or at least a clue as to identity are grasping at straws. But the Deep State concept is not like that, at least not once the tinfoil is removed.

There are people in unelected, "nonpartisan" positions of considerable power and influence within governments. While such people serve at the pleasure of an elected official (the President in the US), it is expected that they aren't replaced as a matter of course simply because one political party captures power from another. The goal of these unelected officials is to protect and ideally expand their power. To do this, such people, through their organizations, hoard comprising information or, barring that, compromising narratives, and develop plans to weaponize those narratives as both threats and as retaliatory attacks directed at their bosses. This acts as a defense against both whim and oversight that could threaten their power. Almost always, these plans involve media in some form; Deep Staters seek people within prominent and trusted media outlets to be part of their personal information war, delivering manufactured rumor with the veneer of truth.

Spoiler

Nothing about the previous paragraph is conspiracy theory. You can see ALL of it in how former FBI Director James Comey handled direction and criticism from the White House. In fact, you can see it twice — once under Obama when Comey saw that Clinton wouldn't be indicted, and under Trump when Comey saw his firing imminent. In both cases Comey manipulated the media to achieve a result in opposition to his President. Comey wasn't partisan; he saw his place in the FBI as answerable to no White House, regardless of party affiliation. Of course, he was not immune and was fired anyway — but not without a fight.

These aren't supernaturally powerful Deep State positions with supernaturally sinister media alliances and a supernaturally deep hatred of democracy. These are real people in real positions with messy and complicated relationships with both elected officials and people in media. It's not all perfect, and the Deep State is vulnerable. But with a president perhaps truly desiring drastically reducing government, obviously the federal bureaucracies would have cause for revolt, in defense of their accumulated power and budgets. So they did.

Nice post. Thanks. Referring back to the italicized paragraph above, the unbolded part is typical of most bureaucracies. They work to preserve themselves and change can be slow and evolutionary as administrations change and staffers move on or retire. The bolder section seems more speculative and I think more connected to elected officials than civil service employees. So I'd like to see at least some evidence of such a network of media involvement. It is easy to say civil servants use the media to spread fake news, but I would think that such a thing was less than common.

Obviously such plans would necessitate media involvement — how else would one deliver compromising material on an elected official such that the electorate sees it? I guess naive elements of the media might be unaware they're being used, or perhaps a Deep Stater relies primarily upon non-mainstream media. But media, certainly.

I guess the question to ask yourself is: among the oldest and most established institutions in the media, how naive do you think they are? If they are neither loyal nor mercenary presstitutes for the Deep State, surely they are aware they could be if they desired it.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

Whose interests do deep staters represent? Are Deep staters at Dept of Defense aligned with the Deep staters at Dept of Ed? DOE? Dept of Interior? FDA? Commerce? If all of those groups are aligned, who is in control? If not, then all of those different deep states would have their own agenda. Occam's razor would tell me that there is no centralizing force and it's just normal bureaucratic perpetuation.

So you are saying that Comey is a deep state, to whose drum is he marching? FBI Deep State? CIA deep State? Koch Brothers Deep State? Who has benefited from Comey's actions at each step along the way?

The major flaw in most Illuminati-style conspiracy theories is that they strangely assume that within the world of villainy there is easy peace, that everyone gets along in their efforts to screw over the everyman. The truth is the opposite — the more a group (or individual) narrows the scope of whom "the good" serves, the more enemies they naturally induce, and alliances between bureaucracies are rarely long-lived and often unstable.

The one thing which may unite the various members of the Deep State is ideology. Fiscal conservatism is antithetical to the Deep State's interests, so the only politicians they like are Democrats and RINOs (Republicans in name only). Any real small-government budget-cutter is an existential threat to them.

So it's not accurate to pretend Trump was advocating other policy goals and the Deep State had a problem with any one of them and decided to intervene, declaring war on Trump. Instead, with his paleocon-inspired platform and calls to "drain the swamp," Trump declared war on the Deep State, inciting them to band together in defense. Trump shot first.

The centralizing forces which have unified the previously disjointed Deep State like never before are the campaign promises of Donald Trump. It's going to be more difficult from here on out deciphering whether a particular action is in organizational self-interest or in service of a broader (potentially flimsy) Deep State alliance.

Usually I like fantasy stories.

Trump needs to shitcan all RINOs is all I know. campaign and oust warmongers like McCain and that dude who refuses to come out of closet Graham (his whole life is a lie how can you trust him?) and ditch socialists like Ryan and Amash. Would make him stronger. If he's really a conservative.