Sunday, July 24, 2016

Some insight on Turmp

A long but good read from McKay Coppins at Buzzfeed. Gives good insight into some of what might drive The Donald. Personally, I found the writing hilarious, in a Matt Taibbi-like sarcastic style. I have to say that even though I would never vote for Trump myself, and I dont think he has the temperament to do well as USA Inc CEO.  His decades long drive to stick it to the snobby elite that look down on him is something I can relate to and respect. And what the fuck do I know about what makes a good president anyway? And who can really know how he might do on the job? We're all just guessing.  At least he doesnt seem to have a rigid ideology like slick professional ideologues Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan, who are far more dangerous IMHO. Anyways, hope some of you all enjoy the article as I did.

"From political power brokers to the entire island of Manhattan, a varied cast of taunting insiders has inadvertently driven Donald Trump’s lifelong revenge march toward the White House. This is what it’s like to be one of them."


Matthew Franko said...

Trump says the #1 thing he tells graduates when he gets invited to speak at commencement ceremonies is "Get even!"....

John said...

Matt, you'd hope he's tailoring his speeches to his audiences. Graduates like that kind of thing. So does the mob. The political and military leader of the most powerful country the world has ever known better have more in his intellectual arsenal than that kind of simpleminded gibberish. Dubya was the last purveyor of simplemindedness, and look at how he left the country, but at least he didn't call the Chinese "motherfuckers", say Brexit was "great", Mexicans are "rapists", etc. The man has, shall we say, issues. He's scarily perceptive on some things (showing that he possesses a very good but underused brain), but totally cuckoo on a lot of things. And he just can't help saying really dumb shit!

Getting even isn't an economic or geopolitical strategy for a president. While it may or may not be just dandy for the everyday life of Joe Schmuck, it's not a particularly useful proposal when dealing with the world's very sharp geopolitical elites, not to mention the very connected, very powerful and very rich corporations at home. Trump really has got a lot to learn.

The Joint Chiefs are going to have take it in turns to pound some sense into him. I really wouldn't be surprised in the years to come to read a lot of leaks to the media that the military has repeatedly refused to take orders from a president they believe to be at the very least unfit to be commander in chief or worse that they believe him to be positively dangerous. After all, swaggering grandstanding, mindlessly boasting that you can do what can't in fact be done is not policy! Or at least not good policy.

Without his daddy's money, he'd be a nobody. With daddy's money, he can blab about how "we don't win anymore" and "how to negotiate". Trump inherits hundreds of millions of dollars and runs around screaming everybody's a bum! Even the guy who co-wrote (or more likely wrote) "The Art of the Deal" came out recently to denounce Trump!

Clearly, Trump is more than just a little unhinged. Clinton unfortunately is so unhinged she's left the room and is on the back of a truck heading for pysychoville. What a choice! Ted Bundy or Charles Manson.

Kaivey said...

One of the reasons the Chinese are not all that impressed by US democracy is that all sorts of crazies can get voted in, if they are rich enough or have enough rich supporters. I'm not saying the Chinese system is better, though. It's swings and roundabouts. If the Chinese get a nutter in it will be hard to remove him. Although they say that's unlikely to happen with their system.

MRW said...


Guess you don’t like Trump.

There’s so much hyperbole and over-the-top assuming in your post, I’m not going to touch it.

For a more informative and down-to-earth assessment and analysis of Trump’s acceptance speech, listen to Michael Hudson on the The Real News Network last Friday, the day after. He can hardly hide his glee at what Trump is doing to the neoliberals and neocons.
MICHAEL HUDSON: "Trump Policy Will Unravel Traditional Neocon"

Greg said...

As Ive said before, Trump is much more dangerous to the conservatives than he is to the liberals (although many on the left fear him inordinately due to his mouthiness). Many of what gets labeled as liberals in this country are conservatives, in terms of not wanting to upset anything. Anyone who truly wants a new path should probably favor Trump. Trouble with him is he has no defined a new path and as of now it looks like a "blow it up and trust ME to rebuild it" type effort, which given Trumps history is not good. Trump is NOT a successful business man. He has started a lot of ventures that have proven to be scammish, extractive and short lasting. A lot of money has passed through his hands but he does not build sustainable enterprises

I understand where Trumps scorn of NY elite comes from and I hope he knocks them down a peg or seven. I agree too that he is much less dangerous than Cruz, Ryan, Rubio, Walker.....

Much of this post reminds of a conversation I had with one of the doctors that hired me years ago. His wife was form New England and he was Harvard trained but an Arkansas kid. He talked about how rich doctors aren't really looked at as "rich" by many of the real rich..... because they still had to work and dirty their hands.

I like people that have to dirty their hands some and I imagine Trump does too...... so in that respect.............. Go Donald!!

John said...

MRW, it's true that I don't like Trump, but I like him more than I like Killary, but that's not saying much. As I've pointed out numerous times on numerous threads, Trump needlessly says dumb shit. He can't help himself - it's a deep psychological flaw. And because of all this mindless blabbering, he's going to lose the general election, handing it on a silver platter to someone itching for war with just about everyone, perhaps even the UK.

In any case, I don't see what's hyperbolic about any of my comments: Trump says dumb shit (true), Killary is a warmonger extraordinaire (true), Trump is handing the election to Killary (true), Trump is unhinged (true), Killary is more unhinged (true), Trump nevertheless would probably be a better president than Killary (true), Americans have an unenviable choice before them (true).

Six said...

"Trump says dumb shit (true), Killary is a warmonger extraordinaire (true), Trump is handing the election to Killary (true), Trump is unhinged (true), Killary is more unhinged (true), Trump nevertheless would probably be a better president than Killary (true), Americans have an unenviable choice before them (true)."

That's a perfect summary of my thinking, John. I live in Texas, where elections go uncontested to Republicans, so I'll probably vote green to make a "statement" that will go wholly unnoticed. If it was a contest here, I'd probably vote for Trump and hope he didn't do anything too weird to the SCOTUS.

Ignacio said...

Kayvey the Chinese system is brutal and ruthless, as much "Game of Thrones"-like as you can believe. Purges and in-fighting are usual, and ending up dead if you are on the losing side is not unlikely.

At the same time it had certain meritocratic features built-in. Trash like Cruz or Ryan (neither Trump) wouldn't have made it very far on the structure. But that was before, with the infestation of Harvard-muppets that the country is probably suffering the system may be undermined very fast if the elites do not fight it back (looks like they may be doing that).

Not a fan of the Chinese system, neither of USA oligarchic system, but both are completely different and probably the first has a better chance to produce better outcomes on aggregate. What was initially thought by the founding fathers for USA does not scale too well IMO. No one can deny the CPC has had to innovate and renew itself constantly under pressure of western powers for many decades.

MRW said...

He’s as canny as a fox, John. He knows no one gets anywhere without winning the currently disaffected in the country. You didn’t have to watch the Occupy movement in Manhattan to figure that out. So he throws them red meat. But he really does like the working class that builds his buildings, the hoi polloi. That isn’t fake. He doesn’t eat steamed lobster and arugula salad with shaved parmesan on his plane. He eats Big Macs and fries.

Watch the Michael Hudson interview. Hudson lives in New York. Hudson’s been around long enough to know the history of things Trump has said, who for example a year before he announced in June 2015 was railing for single payer medical care for everyone “like Canada", but he shut up about it once he announced. I remember Trump as a Democrat until Clinton got into office, then he went independent when Bush came into office. Anyway, Hudson almost cannot contain himself, he’s having so much fun with this election. But he was impressed with the policy considerations in Trump’s acceptance talk. Listen to it. And that was Hudson talking off the top of his head the day after. Hudson is in his 70s. He has a razor-sharp mind, and a great memory. His knowledge of economic history over the millennia is impressive. He and his colloquium pals/fellow experts at Harvard are rewriting ancient history in that regard, just in the last 15 years.

Christ, I’m listening to Clinton right now addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) live in Charlotte NC. She’s a fucking warmonger, and, now, jingoist. Her only job as President is foreign policy; that’s the only job a prez can do as Head of State without asking Congress for permission. That’s in our Constitution. Reason why Nixon showed up in China in 1972, or whenever it was, secretly to open up relations. I was in school then. I remember the shock everyone expressed that day on the news. He took off in the middle of the night in Air Force One from a military base, with Kissinger and Chas Freeman in tow. No one knew. It was unprecedented, but entirely within his purview. In England, you have a PM as Head of Government and the Queen as Head of State. The US Prez is both. I don’t trust what she’d do as Head of State. I seriously believe she would cause WWIII.

MRW said...

And WWIII with Russia would be nuclear. Contrary to American pundits, the Russians wrap rings around our weaponry and missile capacity. The Pentagon has admitted it since SecState William Cohen first said it in 1995 at a private gathering on 57 St in Manhattan. (Their missiles can vaporize--vaporize-- our aircraft carriers with pinpoint precision. Vaporize. The admiral onboard wouldn’t see it coming until it was 500 yards out. Boom.) Their military forces are highly disciplined.

Just google what our Pentagon admitted about their weapon and military developments after the May 9 2016 display.

Six said...

MRW, people say these things when they are lobbying for increased military spending. Give people a scare, and they won't stop spending on security. That's the whole point.

Tom Hickey said...

Historically, the current system in China is a huge advanced over what they have endured previously, either a strong emperor or warlordism.

The West congratulates itself on its moral and political superiority but that is not borne out historically. Liberalism was an 18th century innovation and subsequently several major wars and minor conflicts ensued. In addition, economic liberalism hasn't been the panacea that it is advertised as either.

This is to to say that I'd rather live under the Chinese system, But comparing the US to China very different paths and scales is hardly indicative of anything. Very few think that if so-called democracy would scale were it to replace the current system quickly. And the likelihood of social dysfunction and violence is high.

Change that is imposed is seldom successful. Conditions must first ripen. Then the problem becomes preventing rotting after ripening. Human systems are dynamic, complex and often volatile.

Now America is in the process of exchanging liberty for security.

MRW said...


MRW, people say these things when they are lobbying for increased military spending. Give people a scare, and they won't stop spending on security. That's the whole point.

So few realize that the defense and security industries encompass the 1%. As you say, scare them into abdicating their prosperity.