TRUMP vs the American political establishment 'elite'. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14933210
Today was the day that President TRUMP 'Trumped' his detractors in the Washington establishment.

They have maligned him since the election, by accusing him of various 'un-American' actions, without a scintilla of evidence.

Today, we hear that America is to charge 12 Russians with manipulating the internet(Hacking) to bring about a TRUMP election victory vs Hilary CLINTON & by 'stealing' CLINTON's e-mails.
Remember, CLINTON used a covert e-mail account to hide her own questionable actions(pot-calling-the-kettle-black).

TRUMP is 100% CORRECT in taking a huge swipe at the 'legal'(read- POLITICAL)action by the Justice Department's political indictment against the said Russians.

They use 'intelligence' to bring about the indictment-NOT- evidence, it is an 'allegation', as yet, WITHOUT foundation.

Remember IRAQ with BLAIR-BUSH 'Weapons-of-mass-destruction', based upon 'INTELLIGENCE' to launch a joint UK-US attack against Saddam HUSSEIN?

BLAIR used the 'dodgy dossier' to stand up in Parliament & 'LIE' about the existence of such weapons.
That was after Hans BLIX concluded that NONE existed.

Let me tell you how the political 'establishment' in WASHINGTON close ranks behind their President when their 'Leaders' wish to abuse their power & declare war on their 'PERSONAL' enemies.

I repeat this, 'PERSONAL' enemies.

BUSH snr failed to depose Saddam HUSSEIN & I have a 'theory' on what happened subsequently.

It goes like this, BUSH jnr was having a family dinner with his father at his father's home & he asked him a simple question.

'Pa, Do you have any regrets'?
'YES' son, I do, I regret not finishing the job on IRAQ'.
'Don't worry Pa, I will 'FINISH' the job for you' says junior.

The rest is history as they say, including 'handling' BUSH junior's willing 'partners-in-crime'(BLAIR -et al), since 'decriminalised' by the Conservative government in the UK, who are the political 'brethren' of the Republican Party in America, some would say, 'poodles'.

BLAIR was doing a THATCHER over Iraq, THATCHER was 'rewarded' for being 'used' by America, by receiving the 'Congressional Medal of (Dis)Honour, an invite to speak to Congress & an invite to the American 'Lecture Circuit', a device to reward foreign stooges, for abusing their position of power, receiving 'blood money' over the dead bodies of UK servicemen & women in that instance.
Just as THATCHER was 'looked after' by the corrupt payments of the American establishment, so too was BLAIR , who received virtually identical 'favours'.
The net result was that BLAIRS family became suddenly very wealthy indeed, AFTER becoming an American 'patsy'.

When he came to office, he said that he would sue anyone making allegations against him, now, in the UK, under the TORIES, when in power, they had a system called, "Cash-for-questions", under New Labour, it morphed into, "Cash-& NO questions asked".

One may conclude from this that there is no longer(if ever there was)any trust between people & those they elect.

That's why 'democracy' is a SHAM, it's also why I back TRUMP vs the 'Intelligence' probe.
#14933569
blackjack21 wrote:FYI, nobody gets a CMO but American soldiers serving in battle. They aren't given to foreigners or civilians.


I stand corrected, it was the Medal of Freedom that was awarded to THATCHER(07/03/1991) & BLAIR(13/01/2009).

BLAIR also received the 'Congressional Gold Medal' By BUSH in 2003.

In all other respects the speeches to Congress & the 'Lecture Circuit' 'blood money' was correct.

I also strongly suspect that JP MORGAN were deeply involved in 'slush fund' payments to the recipients.

Is it right in any 'democratic' country, that leaders can wage 'personal' war against a foreign leader, in what is arguably, an abuse of power, with considerable cost in lives & treasure?

In the case of BUSH, a half baked cake in IRAQ.

In the case of the FALKLANDS, THATCHER ordered the sinking of the BELGRANO, a cowardly act against a vessel heading away from the area of conflict which should have had legal consequences at the UN.

Typically, the FALKLANDS was a British military disaster, because the military force could not even defend itself from Argentine air attacks, in particular, it was a naval fiasco.
#14933622
Nonsense wrote:Remember IRAQ with BLAIR-BUSH 'Weapons-of-mass-destruction', based upon 'INTELLIGENCE' to launch a joint UK-US attack against Saddam HUSSEIN?

BLAIR used the 'dodgy dossier' to stand up in Parliament & 'LIE' about the existence of such weapons.
That was after Hans BLIX concluded that NONE existed...

...One may conclude from this that there is no longer(if ever there was)any trust between people & those they elect.

That's why 'democracy' is a SHAM, it's also why I back TRUMP vs the 'Intelligence' probe.


You've identified perfectly reasonable premises (politicians are lying thugs) and come up with a perfectly unreasonable conclusion ('I back TRUMP'). Why back one lying thug in favor of another lying thug? This makes no sense. BTW, people who believe Trump is a disrupter or anti-establishment are smoking crack.
#14933626
Nonsense wrote:In all other respects the speeches to Congress & the 'Lecture Circuit' 'blood money' was correct.

I also strongly suspect that JP MORGAN were deeply involved in 'slush fund' payments to the recipients.

I don't "disagree" per se, but I have some different opinions on the matter.

In the interest of disclosure, at the time I was a strong Bush supporter, including maximizing FEC-allowed personal campaign contributions, encouraging others to donate, etc. Back in the early 1990s, I was a "Young Republican," walked precincts for Congressman Bill Baker, etc. I was a Republican until about 2006, and it was the establishment's position on illegal immigration that caused me to leave the party, not the Iraq War. Having supported Bush, and both of my sisters meeting Bush Sr as well, I felt a need to defend, in a legal sense, W's conduct in the war on Iraq. I didn't agree with a lot of his positions, such as prescription drug coverage for Medicare, for example. I could "explain" his position, but there were a lot of efforts of people online in opposition to Bush who tried to sway me against Bush over the Iraq War. Similarly, I did not agree with Bush Sr.'s ADA bill, raising taxes, etc. Bush Sr. essentially slit his own throat by going along with the Democrats. Socially, the Bush family is lovely, but that can be said of a lot of people. Politics is a separate question.

One faction of the so-called "elite" in the United States is a Janus-type two-faced faction consisting of the neoconservatives and the neoliberals. The neoconservatives have a media front that consists of people like Irving Kristol, his son Bill Kristol, the late Charles Krauthammer who was previously among the neoliberals, etc. Their politicians included people like George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, etc. On the neoliberal side, the media front included outlets like Slate, the Huffington Post with writers like Michael Kinsley, Paul Krugman, Ariana Huffington, etc. Their politicians included people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. However, they ultimately answer to the same banking establishment. JP Morgan is among that establishment, but the senior bank is Goldman Sachs. Ethnically, many of them are Jews. They are all member banks of the Federal Reserve, and effectively control it.

A similar situation exists in the UK with the Bank of England, Lloyds, Barclays, now defunct Barings, etc.

This elite definitely pays off politicians, media talking heads and reporters, academics, and other people that they consider as "authority." When I say "authority," I mean it in the sense of Scientific Management. Authority

- Positional Authority
- Coercive Authority
- Expert Authority
- Referent Authority
- Reward Authority

When you study business, this is the sort of thing you learn. It is an academic discipline, which is to say that it is a lot more than what can sometimes be thought of as useless erudition. It is how they operate, and much of it is "above board."

Nonsense wrote:Today was the day that President TRUMP 'Trumped' his detractors in the Washington establishment.

They have maligned him since the election, by accusing him of various 'un-American' actions, without a scintilla of evidence.

You are correct. The reason that anybody believes them at all has to do with identifying people demographically, psychographically, etc. and trying to corral them into either the neoliberal or neoconservative aspects of their otherwise single-minded faction. When they have to operate together, you will hear them use the term "bi-partisan" quite a bit, as though there were essentially only two major factions and both agreed on some particular policy, position or initiative.

Many of the people who are attacking Trump have some sort of "authority." For example, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and others have positional authority. So getting them to attack Trump is done to get those who identify as "Republican" to side against Trump and with the establishment Republicans. You will notice that the loudest of the attackers are people like Paul Ryan, John McCain, Senator Bob Corker or Senator Jeff Flake. They are all heading for the exit, and they will be rewarded by Reward Authority, which will take the form of speaking fees.

Nonsense wrote:Today, we hear that America is to charge 12 Russians with manipulating the internet(Hacking) to bring about a TRUMP election victory vs Hilary CLINTON & by 'stealing' CLINTON's e-mails.
Remember, CLINTON used a covert e-mail account to hide her own questionable actions(pot-calling-the-kettle-black).

Your pseudonym is apt considering the subject matter. The Russian bogeyman was their goto, because Putin and Russia are not playing with the Bank of England, the ECB or the Federal Reserve. At least one problem they face is that they can no longer wage a moral argument, because their attempt to create a world government means they have to acquiesce to the demands of wealthy factions like the Arab oil cartels, who embrace some aspects of materialism but reject hedonism, atheism, modernism, etc. The Saudis, for example, find it utterly laughable the Western contention that men and women are equal. This assertion may come from low sexual dimorphism among the so-called elite. Many of the women in it are "man-like" in their thinking. There are also a lot of homosexuals and left-handed people in their ranks. The homosexual faction is refusing to hide their sexual orientation, making it increasingly difficult to reconcile global ambitions with major factions like Islam.

Nonsense wrote:TRUMP is 100% CORRECT in taking a huge swipe at the 'legal'(read- POLITICAL)action by the Justice Department's political indictment against the said Russians.

They use 'intelligence' to bring about the indictment-NOT- evidence, it is an 'allegation', as yet, WITHOUT foundation.

It's not that hard to get a grand jury to do what the establishment wants, since they only have to present probable cause. I think this is part of why they are failing today. This is a conflation of coercive authority (Mueller) and expert authority (CIA/FBI) to try to establish the ludicrous notion that Russia was able to get Trump elected and somehow controls Trump. Hell, even Trump is barely in control of Trump.

Nonsense wrote:BUSH snr failed to depose Saddam HUSSEIN & I have a 'theory' on what happened subsequently.

It goes like this, BUSH jnr was having a family dinner with his father at his father's home & he asked him a simple question.

'Pa, Do you have any regrets'?
'YES' son, I do, I regret not finishing the job on IRAQ'.
'Don't worry Pa, I will 'FINISH' the job for you' says junior.

It's quaint, but way too simplistic.

Hussein was a loose cannon. He would not accede to Anglo-American demands. Instead, he flirted with ambitious factions within Europe, most notably Jacques Chirac. France and Germany would sell technology to countries like Iraq in exchange for political/military fealty. In effect, they would attempt to strengthen their position vis-a-vis the United States and the United Kingdom as its junior partner (albeit, the Fed and Bank of England are essentially controlled by the same faction, as is their client state, Israel).

By contrast, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman were allied with the United States and/or the UK. Hussein was manipulated by the West (again, US and UK played a significant role) in attacking Iran (an erstwhile client state that fell to Islamic extremists--their preferred outcome over falling to the communist Tudeh party). The French and the Soviet Union provided Iraq with its military footprint--i.e., T-60 and T-72 tanks, SCUD missiles, MiG 19s, MiG 21s, MiG 29s, Dassault Mirages, Exocet anti-ship missiles, and so forth. The US provided financial support for non-military goods, and others provided financing.

There was also a bit of double-dealing. Iran was a former US-UK client state and had US military hardware like F4 phantoms and F-14 Tomcats. In exchange for hostages, the US indirectly sold Iran the parts and know-how it needed to maintain fighters in its war with Iraq, and used profits from the proceeds to fund anti-communist factions in Central America, primarily the Nicaraguan Contras. The Iran-Iraq war ended in a stalemate, significantly weakening both countries. Iraq owed considerable war debts.

Saddam Hussein decided to fund his war debts by invading Kuwait and stealing their oil reserves. In the process, Hussein also attacked Saudi Arabia, crossing the Saudi Border and taking the town of Khafji. This triggered a long-time US war plan to station US troops in Saudi Arabia to defend its oil supplies.

Following the war, Saudi Arabia wanted US troops out of its country, but the US wouldn't budge. So they were complicit in the attacks on 9/11, which was followed up with a diplomatic blitz from Saudis. It was a very difficult situation for the US military strategically. In order to pull out of Saudi Arabia, the US needed to neutralize Saddam Hussein. While al Qaeda types traversed Iraq, Hussein didn't plan or participate with Al Qaeda in 9/11. However, he unwisely celebrated the attacks. The US created a quasi fiction of WMDs in the hands of terrorists as a pretext for invading Iraq. With Hussein gone, they could then meet Saudi demands to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia.

Tony Blair seized the opportunity, because as the US was pushing an anti-terrorist narrative, Blair noted that most of the funding for terrorism in the UK came from the United States to the Irish Republican Army. Blair's price for participating in an invasion of Iraq was that the US would have to use the FBI to cut off funding to the IRA. Ironically, one of the people involved in doing that was Robert Mueller (i.e., his relationship with Whitey Bulger). Whitey Bulger was the FBI's second most wanted person, right after Osama bin Laden.

I distinctly remember at this time that prominent American Irish Catholics of different political factions all began to oppose the Iraq War--William F. Buckley, Pat Buchannan, Ted Kennedy, etc. Later Irish-Americans who supported it would turn; most prominently, John Kerry and John Murtha.

Nonsense wrote:The net result was that BLAIRS family became suddenly very wealthy indeed, AFTER becoming an American 'patsy'.

As did the Clintons after Bill Clinton's term. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton put the "regime change" policy in place in 1998, which is when France decided to bail on the coalition.

Nonsense wrote:One may conclude from this that there is no longer(if ever there was)any trust between people & those they elect.

That's why 'democracy' is a SHAM, it's also why I back TRUMP vs the 'Intelligence' probe.

Since I was pretty close in Republican circles, I suspected that in the early 2000s and started piecing together legislative histories, etc. I knew that when John Kerry displaced Howard Dean (another media collaboration to destroy a rising politician who had strayed from the neoliberals), the fix was in. Bush would win in 2004. If by some chance he didn't, his fellow bonesman would succeed him. I admit I was blindsided by Obama. I figured that when Obama won the primaries, that Hillary's loss meant that McCain would win. However, I recall laughing my ass off after the election when Obama started naming his national security adviser, etc. I admit I was fooled, but had become pretty cycnical at that point.

Nonsense wrote:In the case of the FALKLANDS, THATCHER ordered the sinking of the BELGRANO, a cowardly act against a vessel heading away from the area of conflict which should have had legal consequences at the UN.

Typically, the FALKLANDS was a British military disaster, because the military force could not even defend itself from Argentine air attacks, in particular, it was a naval fiasco.

While this was a military victory for the UK, it showed that the Royal Navy would not stand up to French Exocet missiles. By contrast, modern US warships proved more resilient. The USS Stark was hit by the French-made Iraqi Exocet missile 5 years later, and survived just as the USS Cole survived the attack by Al Qaeda during Clinton's term. The loss of the HMS Sheffield was the first Royal Navy ship sunk since WWII.
#14933730
quetzalcoatl wrote:You've identified perfectly reasonable premises (politicians are lying thugs) and come up with a perfectly unreasonable conclusion ('I back TRUMP'). Why back one lying thug in favor of another lying thug? This makes no sense. BTW, people who believe Trump is a disrupter or anti-establishment are smoking crack.



I 'backed' Trump because the premise by the establishment is that PUTIN is an enemy of the USA(proof required),also, that the charges against Trump are based on 'intelligence', of which, I think that Tony BLAIR, whom, very , very many people in the UK believe, lied about WMD's in Saddam HUSSEIN's possession, is a classic example of 'intelligence' dressed up as 'evidence' & presented as 'fact'.

Hans BLIX the UN investigator proved that the proposition of the existence of such weapons in HUSSEIN's hands, was 'FAKE' news.
That did not stop BLAIR in parliament deciding otherwise in his making the case for war against HUSSEIN, anybody capable of reading a persons facial expressions when they are lying, would concur that BLAIR was doing just that.

You are right of course, ALL politicians are like peas in a pod, they lie out of their back teeth whenever it suits their needs.
#14933864
quetzalcoatl wrote:You've identified perfectly reasonable premises (politicians are lying thugs) and come up with a perfectly unreasonable conclusion ('I back TRUMP'). Why back one lying thug in favor of another lying thug? This makes no sense. BTW, people who believe Trump is a disrupter or anti-establishment are smoking crack.


All of this.

Although the "Liberal Democrats" of America, like the other rightwing party are absolutely mental with this Russia shit; the libs with the dumb assumption that Russia colluded to get any US president into power and the other team acting like the US and Russia are frands.

:hmm:
#14936636
Good video ^^^

While stylistically, Trump is kind of odd for a politician, he uniquely understood the anger people have toward the so-called "elite" establishment--exceedingly arrogant people that make a lot of money tied to the government and Wall Street that have done little to earn their keep while they hold the rest of society in contempt. This is why Trump's brusque style, when directed to the so-called "elite", is welcomed with open arms. For all that they have done to malign him, they must be utterly bemused to see poll numbers like this:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.
The daily polls are a fairly short snapshot. His monthly numbers are at 46%. That is basically where he was on election day.


Acosta on Facing ‘CNN Sucks’ Chant at Trump Rally: ‘It Felt Like We Weren’t in America Anymore’
This is sort of funny. The left has bashed FoxNews regularly for almost two decades now. Yet, the MSM is finding it un-American to have done to them what they've championed against FoxNews as well as conservatives like Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others.

Acosta said, “I mean, honestly, it felt like we weren’t in America anymore. I don’t know how to put it any more plainly than that. Americans should not be treating their fellow Americans in this way. But unfortunately, what we’ve seen—and this has been building for some time since the campaign—I’ve been talking about this as an issue since the campaign. When the president, during the campaign, referred to us as the dishonest media, the disgusting news media, liars, scum, and thieves, and so on, and then he rolled that right into the Oval Office, and started calling us the fake news and the enemy of the people, he is whipping these crowds up into a frenzy, to the point where they really want to come after us.”

This is a man so oblivious to what his job is and the implications of it, that he doesn't realize that nobody believes the official cover of "reporter" for what is obviously a political operation. CNN has used the tagline, "the most trusted name in news." It is no longer that by a very long shot. In the US, the most trusted names in news are BBC America, FoxNews and PBS News Hour. Everything else is considered highly unbalanced.

The reason Acosta is saying "it needs to stop" is because they are losing, and they are beginning to realize that now. With over a decade of debating politics online, I've noticed the left tries to sue for peace when they are losing. I hope the right doesn't give them any quarter. In my experience, it is always a mistake.

We have not forgotten that the left does this even to establishment politicians. We did not forget that CBS was responsible for the Bush AWOL story, including using sources they knew were fake to push that narrative. Dan Rather--another most-trusted name in news type--lost his career in 2004 for that stunt. Yet, it was a grass roots group of Swift Boat veterans that took the hardest swipe at John Kerry--not Bush himself, which is so typical of establishment Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney would couldn't land a punch on Barack Obama, or Jeb Bush who couldn't even survive South Carolina with $150M in the bank. Trump has exposed these people as empty suits. It's awesome.

The Democrats are trying to hide their own Tea Party movement simultaneously. Barack Obama Releases List of Dem Midterm Endorsements (See If You Can Spot Ocasio-Cortez), which is trying to take them far to the left.

In California, I'll vote for Kevin De Leon just to help them unseat Diane Feinstein. Why? They won't allow a Republican on the ballot, because that's what one-party rule in California has wrought. So we just have to vote for communism in the Democratic Party in California until the Republicans are back on the ballot, because communism scares the wealthy elite. They are more scared of it than fascism, although they would never let you know that.

Or maybe because Zionists are full of shit and som[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A good discussion here with Norman Finkelstein and[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]