Fall Guy - (Another big to-do).
Regarding all this huff about Michael Flynn chumming up to Russia before the election, and getting Putin not to retaliate against the USA...
First of all, even before Russia decided not to retaliate in 2016, I either wrote here, or planned to write here, that Putin would clearly win if he chose NOT to retaliate, like a good chess player. The simplest reason to do so would be that Trump would soon be in office. The more sophisticated reason would be that such a move would be a wise move in game theory - a moderation of tit-for-tat, which is the winningest strategy - as opposed to M.A.D., and the like.
I was disappointed to hear that Putin planned to retaliate. Then, my menopausal hormones were thrown for another loop, when I heard that Putin had changed his mind, and decided NOT to retaliate. "Praise Allah!" I shouted in secret facetiousness, "Wisdom can be found in politics!" Actually, Putin supposedly never changed his mind, but actually rejected the advice of a subordinate. But, there was still a question as to why this decision delay occurred, and was not hidden from the news. It gave the appearance of possibly being a mistake or a shift.
I considered that Putin may have gotten suggestions from someone associated with Trump, at the time - in real time. (I work in real time, folks - I don't wait for the news to tell me what to think, now or three months from now). IF Putin had been persuaded by someone associated with Trump, that was fine with me, although shady. Shady is an aspect of Trump, who has dallied with mobsters in the past. In politics, decisions are always made because of the wrong reasons or means - so it is great when some wise decision sometimes happens.
Flynn violated the Logan Act. Another great scandal to obsess over for the next week. And - Trump probably knew about it, btw. The Logan act exists for a good reason - kinda like that Senate law prohibitting Senators from saying bad things about each other, eh? Kinda like the law against presidential conflicts of interests. Good laws, of good intentions, for some relevant occasions - but not for all. If a NAZI leader orders you to kill Jews, and it is law, would you do it? No, because it is no longer any kind of good law. If Russia is preparing to launch nuclear weapons upon our cities, and you had a chance to persuade Russia not to do this, would you go ahead and violate the Logan act? Yes, you probably would.
And, if you were Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, or Bradley Manning, would you commit the crimes that you did, considering the unfair power of the state, with all its illegality? I am hoping you would say yes, if you indeed had the ability. My number-ONE hero of all time is Henry Thoreau, who wrote, "On Civil Disobedience," which inspired all subsequent great and lesser protest movements. I therefore look with a forgiving eye on Jesus, Socrates, Martin Luther, the Founding Fathers, Gandhi, MLK, Kennedy's, OCCUPY, and others. I do not see all protesters or whistle-blowers as correct, of course, but I am biased in their favour. Since corporations are people and money is speech and power is RIGHT, I am biased in the favour of those voices who beg to disagree.
Therefore, while I am pro-law-abidance, I am willing to give Flynn and Trump a little leeway on this issue. You see, I think it is a good thing if Russia can be made a friend. I think it is a good thing if we stopped screwing Russia in the ass. I think it is a good thing if, even if we sanctioned them, they did not sanction us and/or withdraw diplomats. What is this, an insistence that the USA be harmed?! Are we now insisting that petulant proto-warfare is a moral imperative, all else be damned? The hell with that crap.
"Oh, no! We cannot violate protocol! We must preserve status-quo interests! Must be legally correct! Because it is our ladder to success. And heads must roll!"
Trump asks why there are so many leaks coming out of government? And the talking heads kinda respond like this: "Well, he should have known that there would be so many leaks, or he should never have become president! It's his own fault!" Whether it was Bernie or Trump, or Stein, the outsider is landed into a hornets' nest, and every breath invites a swarm of stings. That does not mean that the president, whomever, is wrong. It means that the system is wrong.
Apparently, someone, or two, in the administration believes that whistle-blowing or leaking, in and of itself, is am inherently good thing. That goes beyond Thoreau, more into the fall of Rome. Do you want to know who is the person who is spilling these leaks? I will tell you. It is (Reince Priebus, the former head of the GOP. as part of the tragic deal with the GOP devil, (like the deal with Goldman-Sachs), Trump had to hire Priebus into his administration. And there Priebus sits, wiht others, like a parasite, working for the old interests of the status-quo, Bush-Clinton, McCain-Lindsey, FAUX MIDDLE.
When I argue like this, I sincerely have to ask myself if I might not be wrongly rationalising ends-before-means. I do not approve of many ends-before-means actions, such as BLM protesters attacking politicians where they stood, (which somehow worked against Bernie but helped Hillary). But I do know that when the powerful wield a weapon at you, you can wield a weapon back. (Ends-before-means generally ignores or hurts the OTHER, and ultimately becomes a weapon).
We all argue ends-before-means, as we also argue means-before-ends - just as we need both deduction and induction to think. But, it is dangerous to put ends-before-means in politics or power. And so, I make an effort to ask myself if I might be be going to far or being unfair.
This time, I am pretty sure not. I don't have an agenda here, and I am certainly not pro-Trump. Look behind this post and you will see things like my respect for wisdom and game-theory, and etc. I really don't have an intense opinion on this issue. I am only selecting it as something to focus on. But, I do see that there is a concerted effort by the FAUX MIDDLE to thwart Trump, for such things as the TPP, and so-called racism.
And I also see that it is being thwarted and leaked by Clapper and Brenner.
I see that Obama is clearly involved - and Clinton is still running some kind of campaign...
And, I watch as the media does not scrutinise who is making these leaks against Trump, but instead keeps rolling on this anti-Trump treadmill. I see a lot of fake news being produced by the status-quo media...
I would say as much no matter what president was being rolled. But, the fact is, Trump represents a populist movement that also included Bernie, against the FAUX MIDDLE status quo. And so, despite the idiocy of Trump's wing, and as infested as it is with old-world Republicans, I say that it is alright to speak up for Trump when it is meaningful to do so.
While writing this, I have been listening to three dif radio stations at the same time, as sometimes happens. 1 - Oldies. 2 - NPR. 3 - Alex Jones Show. The latter, in the final hour of the show, had the sub host giving a valid commentary on the Lynch affair. This sub host is either Paul Craig Roberts, or Paul Joseph Watson - I keep getting them confused. If you can find it via infowars.com, try listening to it, even though it is also very anti-Dems. Since I cannot find it for you, here are some infowars links:
Hillary Clinton: Mike Flynn Targeted Over Exposing ‘PizzaGate’
The Real Reason General Flynn Was Forced to Resign
Roger Stone: Republican Leakers Want To Destroy Trump
‘Swastikas’ Uncovered by Sarah Silverman Turn Out To Be Utility Markings
VIDEO
Sometimes, comedians should not be trusted on political issues, because they are a bit off to begin with. On the other hand, some comedians can be a mine of political power, because they resist status quo stupidity. It all depends. All I know is that I have always wanted to be in bed with Sarah Silverman. Because of her large sexual organ, her brain.
Finally - this little issue of people supposedly funding anti-Trump protesters, as denigrated on NPR and mainstream media... I can tell you: IT IS HAPPENING. If you don't think it is happening, then you are a political fool. Kochs funded the Teaparty. Soros initially funded OCCUPY - as well as BLM, and fighters in Europe. IT SERIOUSLY HAPPENS. It is a primary way that the wealthy try to play us off against each other - I am not just whistling Dixie here, y'all dudes! It is happening. End of post, yars.
I don't really know what, "yars," means, but I created it, and I think it speaks some kind of volumes, yars.
I fought against Bush while in office. It took a while, but I fought against Obama - and status-quo Clinton. Have no fears! I have past and future shit to level against Trump! NO DOUBT. But I am not talking about particular people, sometimes. Sometimes, I am just talking about fairness and justice, left or right, y'alls. Yars.
First of all, even before Russia decided not to retaliate in 2016, I either wrote here, or planned to write here, that Putin would clearly win if he chose NOT to retaliate, like a good chess player. The simplest reason to do so would be that Trump would soon be in office. The more sophisticated reason would be that such a move would be a wise move in game theory - a moderation of tit-for-tat, which is the winningest strategy - as opposed to M.A.D., and the like.
I was disappointed to hear that Putin planned to retaliate. Then, my menopausal hormones were thrown for another loop, when I heard that Putin had changed his mind, and decided NOT to retaliate. "Praise Allah!" I shouted in secret facetiousness, "Wisdom can be found in politics!" Actually, Putin supposedly never changed his mind, but actually rejected the advice of a subordinate. But, there was still a question as to why this decision delay occurred, and was not hidden from the news. It gave the appearance of possibly being a mistake or a shift.
I considered that Putin may have gotten suggestions from someone associated with Trump, at the time - in real time. (I work in real time, folks - I don't wait for the news to tell me what to think, now or three months from now). IF Putin had been persuaded by someone associated with Trump, that was fine with me, although shady. Shady is an aspect of Trump, who has dallied with mobsters in the past. In politics, decisions are always made because of the wrong reasons or means - so it is great when some wise decision sometimes happens.
Flynn violated the Logan Act. Another great scandal to obsess over for the next week. And - Trump probably knew about it, btw. The Logan act exists for a good reason - kinda like that Senate law prohibitting Senators from saying bad things about each other, eh? Kinda like the law against presidential conflicts of interests. Good laws, of good intentions, for some relevant occasions - but not for all. If a NAZI leader orders you to kill Jews, and it is law, would you do it? No, because it is no longer any kind of good law. If Russia is preparing to launch nuclear weapons upon our cities, and you had a chance to persuade Russia not to do this, would you go ahead and violate the Logan act? Yes, you probably would.
And, if you were Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, or Bradley Manning, would you commit the crimes that you did, considering the unfair power of the state, with all its illegality? I am hoping you would say yes, if you indeed had the ability. My number-ONE hero of all time is Henry Thoreau, who wrote, "On Civil Disobedience," which inspired all subsequent great and lesser protest movements. I therefore look with a forgiving eye on Jesus, Socrates, Martin Luther, the Founding Fathers, Gandhi, MLK, Kennedy's, OCCUPY, and others. I do not see all protesters or whistle-blowers as correct, of course, but I am biased in their favour. Since corporations are people and money is speech and power is RIGHT, I am biased in the favour of those voices who beg to disagree.
Therefore, while I am pro-law-abidance, I am willing to give Flynn and Trump a little leeway on this issue. You see, I think it is a good thing if Russia can be made a friend. I think it is a good thing if we stopped screwing Russia in the ass. I think it is a good thing if, even if we sanctioned them, they did not sanction us and/or withdraw diplomats. What is this, an insistence that the USA be harmed?! Are we now insisting that petulant proto-warfare is a moral imperative, all else be damned? The hell with that crap.
"Oh, no! We cannot violate protocol! We must preserve status-quo interests! Must be legally correct! Because it is our ladder to success. And heads must roll!"
Trump asks why there are so many leaks coming out of government? And the talking heads kinda respond like this: "Well, he should have known that there would be so many leaks, or he should never have become president! It's his own fault!" Whether it was Bernie or Trump, or Stein, the outsider is landed into a hornets' nest, and every breath invites a swarm of stings. That does not mean that the president, whomever, is wrong. It means that the system is wrong.
Apparently, someone, or two, in the administration believes that whistle-blowing or leaking, in and of itself, is am inherently good thing. That goes beyond Thoreau, more into the fall of Rome. Do you want to know who is the person who is spilling these leaks? I will tell you. It is (Reince Priebus, the former head of the GOP. as part of the tragic deal with the GOP devil, (like the deal with Goldman-Sachs), Trump had to hire Priebus into his administration. And there Priebus sits, wiht others, like a parasite, working for the old interests of the status-quo, Bush-Clinton, McCain-Lindsey, FAUX MIDDLE.
When I argue like this, I sincerely have to ask myself if I might not be wrongly rationalising ends-before-means. I do not approve of many ends-before-means actions, such as BLM protesters attacking politicians where they stood, (which somehow worked against Bernie but helped Hillary). But I do know that when the powerful wield a weapon at you, you can wield a weapon back. (Ends-before-means generally ignores or hurts the OTHER, and ultimately becomes a weapon).
We all argue ends-before-means, as we also argue means-before-ends - just as we need both deduction and induction to think. But, it is dangerous to put ends-before-means in politics or power. And so, I make an effort to ask myself if I might be be going to far or being unfair.
This time, I am pretty sure not. I don't have an agenda here, and I am certainly not pro-Trump. Look behind this post and you will see things like my respect for wisdom and game-theory, and etc. I really don't have an intense opinion on this issue. I am only selecting it as something to focus on. But, I do see that there is a concerted effort by the FAUX MIDDLE to thwart Trump, for such things as the TPP, and so-called racism.
And I also see that it is being thwarted and leaked by Clapper and Brenner.
I see that Obama is clearly involved - and Clinton is still running some kind of campaign...
And, I watch as the media does not scrutinise who is making these leaks against Trump, but instead keeps rolling on this anti-Trump treadmill. I see a lot of fake news being produced by the status-quo media...
I would say as much no matter what president was being rolled. But, the fact is, Trump represents a populist movement that also included Bernie, against the FAUX MIDDLE status quo. And so, despite the idiocy of Trump's wing, and as infested as it is with old-world Republicans, I say that it is alright to speak up for Trump when it is meaningful to do so.
While writing this, I have been listening to three dif radio stations at the same time, as sometimes happens. 1 - Oldies. 2 - NPR. 3 - Alex Jones Show. The latter, in the final hour of the show, had the sub host giving a valid commentary on the Lynch affair. This sub host is either Paul Craig Roberts, or Paul Joseph Watson - I keep getting them confused. If you can find it via infowars.com, try listening to it, even though it is also very anti-Dems. Since I cannot find it for you, here are some infowars links:
Hillary Clinton: Mike Flynn Targeted Over Exposing ‘PizzaGate’
The Real Reason General Flynn Was Forced to Resign
Roger Stone: Republican Leakers Want To Destroy Trump
‘Swastikas’ Uncovered by Sarah Silverman Turn Out To Be Utility Markings
VIDEO
Sometimes, comedians should not be trusted on political issues, because they are a bit off to begin with. On the other hand, some comedians can be a mine of political power, because they resist status quo stupidity. It all depends. All I know is that I have always wanted to be in bed with Sarah Silverman. Because of her large sexual organ, her brain.
Finally - this little issue of people supposedly funding anti-Trump protesters, as denigrated on NPR and mainstream media... I can tell you: IT IS HAPPENING. If you don't think it is happening, then you are a political fool. Kochs funded the Teaparty. Soros initially funded OCCUPY - as well as BLM, and fighters in Europe. IT SERIOUSLY HAPPENS. It is a primary way that the wealthy try to play us off against each other - I am not just whistling Dixie here, y'all dudes! It is happening. End of post, yars.
I don't really know what, "yars," means, but I created it, and I think it speaks some kind of volumes, yars.
I fought against Bush while in office. It took a while, but I fought against Obama - and status-quo Clinton. Have no fears! I have past and future shit to level against Trump! NO DOUBT. But I am not talking about particular people, sometimes. Sometimes, I am just talking about fairness and justice, left or right, y'alls. Yars.