TRUMP, THE INSURGENT, BREAKS WITH 70 YEARS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
No need to read the story…it’s just another boilerplate neocentrist attack on Trump. If you’ve read one you’ve read them all.
But the word!!!
“Insurgent”…popularly used these days to designate violent revolutionaries pitted against a powerful central government.
That sound that you hear? It’s the neocentrists’ gloves dropping. Watch. The U.S. supports any number of satrap regimes in their fight against them dirty insurgents, by fair means or by foul.
Cain’t have none ‘a them insurgents gettin’ inna way of real business, now can we?
Nope.
Watch.
And now…the beginnings of a new domestic insurgency to worry the controllers:
Cruz Agrees With Bernie on Tax Cuts, Asks Him to Cosponsor Legislation
UH oh!!!
What happens if the “NeverTrump” Republicans ally with the “NeverHRC” Democrats!!!
Hoo boy!!!
Hell to pay!!!
What has happened militarily when the U.S. has had to fight too many “insurgencies” simultaneously?
Failure, that’s what.
The political Neos gonna have their hands full this year!!!
Watch.
AG
P.S. I have been predicting this (admittedly uneasy) political meeting of the fairly far right and the fairly far left in the U.S. for several years now. Will it happen?
Could be…
The center will have yet another battle to fight in order to stop it from happening, that’s for sure.
Lieutenant General In Charge of Media Horseshit!!!
Get on this!!!
Get alla them horseshit shovelers ‘a’workin’!!!
Now!!!
Watch.
From the article, just these sentences about Iran …
Mr. Trump has pulled out of trade and climate change agreements and denounced the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
The president takes credit for eradicating the caliphate built by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, though he mainly accelerated a battle plan developed by President Barack Obama. His aides say he has reversed Mr. Obama’s passive approach to Iran, in part by disavowing the nuclear deal.
○ CIA-backed aid for Syrian rebels frozen after Islamist attack – sources | Reuters – Feb. 21, 2017 |
Very little attention to Iran conflict, adding sanctions and threats.
Nothing at all is written about Turkey and Erdogan. Both Iran and Turkey are key players to solve the ethnic crisis in Syria. However both nations have been talking to and meerting with Russia’s Putin who played better chess than former president Barack Obama.
Both Turkey (Muslim Brotherhood and linked to Hamas and Qatar) and Iran are in a power struggle with the Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia. The war in Yemen and the change in Pakistan leadership will determine the near future of the region. Most likely US diplomacy will be absent which offers greater incentives for both Russia and China to become key players in the ancient Near East.
Conclusion: poor analysis and badly written article.
Oui…
See my reply to Tarheel below.
AG
Name names. Who are the “Never Trump” Republicans? Who are the Never HRC Democrats? Whatever do they have in common on positive policy? I don’t think either Cruz or Sanders can bridge that gap.
I don’t see any common ground between Sanders and Cruz on tax cuts. That’s mostly because Cruz has not shown an ounce of trustworthiness yet. Talking and agreeing are not the same things.
Insurgent is not necessarily a good thing. In the case of Trump, it is the disruption of a tyrant, not the disruption of a rebalancing.
Tarheel…
In a clickbait world, headlines tell the tale.
The rest is just filler for almost all U.S. citizens.
Sorry, but there it is.
Why is Trump doing as well as he is in polls? (Not all of them, but enough.)
Twitter is headlines.
He has forced his opponents…Dems as well as Repubs…to fight on Twitter.
He is better at it than are they.
End of story.
So far…
AG
Exactly. The loudest never-Trump cheerleader is Bill Kristol who remains firmly planted with the war-mongering neo-liberals. His beef with Trump is that he doesn’t bow down low enough at the alter of war-mongering neoliberalism (or unlike Palin — who he introduced to team McCain — isn’t as easy to manipulate).
The other right-wing never-Trumpers are the libertarians (CPAC crowed) that believe ‘anti-government’ is the mantra that will make themselves filthy rich. They’re mostly ignorant boobs bereft of the cognitive thinking skills of an average sixteen year old.
Cruz is just once again overthinking in his search for the ‘secret sauce’ that elected Trump and not him. A search because he remains as clueless as to why a large chunk of the fundies went with Trump instead of him as Hillary can’t fathom why a large chunk of progressives much preferred Sanders. Cruz and his fundie daddy may be authentic religious nutcases, but both have a creepy persona that turns off some he expected to be in his fold. That’s never going to change and there are simply too few anti-corporate GOP primary voters to make up the difference. In a limited GOP field (unlike 2016), a more traditional Republican (most of whom hate Cruz, such as Kasich or even Jeb, would beat Cruz. But in the interim, it’s fine if he wants to join a Sanders effort to poke Trump in the eye.
Marie:
Again…I was not speaking of Cruz’s electoral possibilities nor the odds on Cruz and Sanders hooking up.
On the first count, I personally think that in presidential politics, image is all. Cruz simply looks…and acts…too much like a stock cartoon villain to win a national election.
On the second idea? On the plentiful evidence of Bernie Sanders’s entire career, I really do not think that he would be willing to make the many ideological compromises necessary to ally himself with Cruz on any important level.
But I wasn’t talking about rational “reality;” I was talking about…about “A Couple Of Telling Headlines Going Into 2018.” About the power of the clickbait media to move weak minds…weak minds whose votes count just as much as say Noam Chomsky’s…with headlines and images. Both the so-called liberal NY Times labelling Trump “The Insurgent” and the so-called conservative Townhall floating a Cruz/Sanders alliance are symptoms of a new effort…a new context of effort…to get rid of Trump. It’s just a beginning, but it says to me that both the NeverTrump right and the pro-HRC/DNC left are beginning to doubt the possible positive outcome of the Mueller probe in ridding the center of Trump.
“The Insurgent” is a new tack for the left. Until now…right on through Trump’s rise to power…the main clickbait aim has been to label him as a fool and a clown, with a subtext intimating that he is batshit nuts. I fought against this labelling here and lost, but I maintain that it was a tactical mistake all along. Now? Suddenly he is “The Insurgent?” That has a sort of heroic…or at best, anti-heroic…ring to it. “Insurgents” are most often portrayed in this culture as people fighting a heroic battle against a negativist power of some sort. People who actually have a chance to succeed, or at least people that the media outlet involved wants to portray as having at least some chance of winning. I doubt the NY Times ever labelled…oh, say the Black Panthers or any U.S.-based far right wing organizations…as “insurgents.” Too heroic a label by far for the subtle old Grey Lady and her wise old editors to drop on systems that they want to portray as criminal. But here it is being attached to Trump.
HMMMmmm…
They run shit up the flagpole and see if anybody salutes. Media 101. That’s the way it works.
The question remains…why are they running this particular shit up their headlining flagpole now? My own best take is that there is some sort of doubt growing in uniparty/neocentrist circles that Mueller’s efforts are going to succeed in deposing Donald Trump, and they are settling in for the long haul to 2020.
Anyway…that is what I was trying to say with this post.
On with the show…
AG
Good points but I still think Trump is more puppet than puppeteer. So who is the puppeteer? I dunno. He doesn’t like the limelight which marks him as smart.