Amerika du hast es besser

[Peiresc]

Flynn will anscheinend aussagen, falls er Immunität erhält:

Da gibt es noch ein hübsches Ornament zu. Ihm wird zugerufen, ,,dann hast Du wohl was zu verbergen!"

Trump wirft sich in die Bresche:

And in a twist of irony, Flynn's own words during the presidential campaign have come back to haunt him. In a late September appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Flynn answered a question about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's email scandal by telling host Chuck Todd that "when you are given immunity, that means that you have probably committed a crime."

[Peiresc]

Der Budget-Entwurf schafft den öffentlichen Rundfunk (Public Broadcasting Service, PBS) ab. Nicht kürzen, sondern schlicht abschaffen.

[Peiresc]

Der Muslim Travel Ban ist die reine Symbolpolitik, just for show. Wenn er durchkommt, kann Trump krähen, wie er gewonnen hat. In der Praxis ändert er nullkommagarnichts. Das ist nämlich gar nicht nötig:

The 2017 African Global Economic & Development Summit, put together by a firm called the Global Green Development Group and hosted on the University of Southern California campus, took place in earlier this month.

No one from Africa attended.

About 100 people were slotted to come to the conference from Africa — from filmmakers to government officials, from Guinea to Ethiopia to South Africa. But all of their visas to come to the US for business travel were rejected. Every. Single. One.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/31/14985324/visa-denial-why-trump-change-vetting

Was wollten denn die ganzen Neger auch im sonnigen Kalifornien. Weiße Frauen vergewaltigen.

[Peiresc]

Andrés Miguel Rondón gibt aus seiner langen Chavez-Erfahrung heraus eine andere Antwort auf die große Frage unserer Zeit als unser Blog. Ich gebe zu, sie hat etwas Bestechendes:

But this [gemeint hier: die Trumpisten seien dämlich] is beyond offensive: It is intellectually lazy. It attempts to explain the Trump phenomenon only by the supply-side of the equation—with what he was proffering. What about the very human demand he tapped into? It is not an army of gullible slouches and racists on sofas with guns, smartphones and a brief vocabulary who brought Trump to power—but rather a large, disenfranchised, chunk of society that was promised meaning through social mobility, got none of it, and after almost a generation of stagnating wages still had no clear, coherent answer to the question: Why, after so many years of work, am I still suffering?

Trump's Republican primary contenders couldn't answer that question. Hillary Clinton couldn't either. And certainly none of them proposed a fix—or a new ethos to replace the flailing "American Dream" ideal. Trump did all of the above—constructing an alternate reality that gave his supporters a concise answer to their question, and the hope of a solution. It doesn't matter that it's all bogus. To Trump voters, a fake reality—especially one laden with obvious enemies and golden promises—is better than nothing, or more of the same.

***

"Why am I suffering?" It is this question that has always prompted the disheartened to search for faith. For most of our history, religion gave them the answer they needed (i.e. "I suffer because I am sinful"). But modern populism in the vein of Trump and Chávez can do the same. When citizens ask these leaders why are they suffering, they too get a simple answer: "I suffer because of them."

Like religion, populism asks for blind allegiance, dismisses truth as the unconditional value of meaning and arises from a certain unverified, mythological coherence. And like religion, populism promises a distant resolution—one that never comes, of course, but is constantly dangled in front of its supporters, who are soothed by the expectation.

[...]
I've seen this all before. [...]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/donald-trumps-fictional-america-post-fact-venezuela-214973

Es ist natürlich keine vollständige Antwort. Aber vielleicht ein sehr wichtiger Aspekt. Zutiefst pessimistisch:

Remember: Delirium is contagious. It is self-enforcing. It feeds through the natural channels of society's networks effects. Looking through history one can find many examples of civilized nations being rhetorically driven unto dementia and total war. Like Venezuela, yes. But also, like Russia in the early 20th century. And yes, like Germany in the 1930s. Reasonable people in these countries thought they'd be able to resist the irrationality. They couldn't. Do not assume the United States will not be next.

[Peiresc]

Der Präsident eilt von Sieg zu Sieg:

The White House has unveiled Melania Trump's first official portrait as first lady.

[Groucho]

Der Präsident eilt von Sieg zu Sieg:

The White House has unveiled Melania Trump's first official portrait as first lady.

Es ist doch mal gut, wenn sich ein Präsident der USA endlich mal um die wirklich wichtigen Sachen kümmert. Weiß gar nicht, was Du hast.

[Peiresc]

Hier mal eine sehr einfache Erklärung für Trumps Wahlsieg, die aber einen gewissen Charme hat:

Trump's tendency toward chaos -- creating it if it didn't exist or reveling in it when it did -- served him well as a candidate. It kept his opponents -- in both the Republican primary and the general election -- off balance. Hillary Clinton learned the hard way how challenging it is to run against someone whose only guiding light is unpredictability. Because Trump never did anything by the book, it was incredibly tough for Clinton to ever get her feet under her; she was forever second- and third-guessing what to do and when to do it.

And, because the American public tends not to pay terribly close attention to the nitty-gritty of a campaign, Trump's one-liner confectionaries were a perfect fit. People ate them up because, well, it was more fun than what the other candidates were saying. Would you rather watch Trump attack "Lyin' Ted" Cruz or "Little" Marco Rubio or spectate a dry policy discussion about tax reform? Be honest.

Nun wieder ernst:

The problem for Trump is that while his embrace of chaos fit a campaign perfectly, it's turned out to be far less beneficial for him since he's entered the White House.  [...]
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/03/politics/trump-chaos-cillizza/index.html

[lanzelot]

Donald Trump: Richard Dawkins nervt
http://de.richarddawkins.net/articles/donald-trump-richard-dawkins-nervt

[Peiresc]

Russia:  Where POTUS is dangerous, due to malice.
North Korea:  Where POTUS is dangerous, due to incompetence.

The worry that POTUS may lead us into an inescapable dead end is mounting. Consider the following potential series of events...
1 - POTUS meets with Xi this weekend in Mar-a-Lago. POTUS insists on isolating meeting from aides who try to reel in his reckless nature.
2 - POTUS tries to negotiate w/ Xi re: North Korea from a position testosterone. Xi is put off, China decides to avoid involvement.
3 - W/O China "solving" NK problem, POTUS becomes even more bellicose and reckless toward NK, trying to scare them into submission.
4 - Kim Jong-Un becomes (correctly?) convinced POTUS planning military action against their ICBM program, attacks US/SK. Possibly Japan too.
5 - China decides US was warmongering all along, due to POTUS' bellicose behavior at Mar-a-Lago. Pledges to back NK militarily.
6 - US ends up in war against China, superficially appearing like a victim, but all b/c POTUS was too incompetent to avoid antagonism.
7 - All the meanwhile it becomes all too easy to lose sight of the real winner in the scenario:  Russia.

Rückfrage:

How would they attack the US? They have no long-range missiles and almost no navy...

Antwort:

We have a presence in South Korea.

Ich halte es hier mit Tillerson: no comment.

[Peiresc]

Der geopolitische Stratege heute:

President Trump on Tuesday said a deadly gas attack in Syria carried out by forces loyal to Syrian leader Bashar Assad is a "consequence" of former President Obama's approach to the country's civil war.

Selbiger geopolitischer Stratege 2013:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
3:20 PM - 5 Sep 2013

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
3:21 PM - 7 Sep 2013

Ich habe gerade keinen kühlen Sarkasmus parat. Wenn das ein Einzelfall wäre, könnte man vielleicht zur Verteidigung vorbringen: kann ja mal passieren. Es bleibt "unbemerkt", weil sein ganzes Verhalten so ist – der Comedian LouisCK wird gerade mit den Worten zitiert, T. sei "a lying sack of s—t".  Die lässige Schamlosigkeit dieses Präsidenten, dem Publikum so etwas zuzumuten, ist empörend. Die Geduld des amerikanischen Volkes, so etwas hinzunehmen, ist bedrückend. Die Bereitschaft des Kongresses, solches Verhalten zu decken, um eigene Pläne nicht zu gefährden, ist zynisch.

[Typee]

Ach nee:

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2017-04/trump-zieht-berater-bannon-aus-nationalem-sicherheitsrat-ab

Es darf spekuliert werden. Die beiden wahrscheinlichsten Erklärungsvarianten:

1. Ivanka mag ihn nicht.

2. Man kann man nicht gut gleichzeitig im nationalen Sicherheitsrat und in einer Betty-Ford-Klinik sitzen.

[Peiresc]

Meine Spekulation:

Prinz Jared, minister for all and everything, ist gerade vom Militär auf einen Trip nach Irak mitgenommen worden. Sie haben ihm vermutlich irgendwie begreiflich gemacht, dass die Sicherheit der Vereinigten Staaten und von Daddy nicht dem Chefstrategen anvertraut werden sollte. Oder vielleicht hat man his Trumpness verklickern können, dass die Korea-Angelegenheit heiß genug ist, von Profis gemanaged werden zu müssen.

[Typee]

Na gut, dann noch zwei ernst gemeinte Varianten:

1. Steven-the-red-nose-Bannon droht eine Bloßstellung in der Russland-Geschichte und muss dringend aus der Schusslinie.

2. Es drohten Rücktritte im Kreise der noch am ehesten brauchbaren, zentral wichtigen Ressortleiter - hauptsächlich des praktisch unersetzlichen SecDef, falls der Chef-Anarchist nicht abgelöst würde.

[Peiresc]

2. Es drohten Rücktritte im Kreise der noch am ehesten brauchbaren, zentral wichtigen Ressortleiter - hauptsächlich des praktisch unersetzlichen SecDef, falls der Chef-Anarchist nicht abgelöst würde.

Die Version von RoguePOTUSStaff ist ähnlich:

Rogue POTUS Staff‏ vor 4 Stunden
Giving McMaster control was plan from beginning. Now, McMaster put his foot down, ready to resign. After Watnick POTUS had no choice.

(Watnick ist der Flynn-Satrap, den McMaster nicht aus dem Sicherheitsrat rausgekriegt hatte: "McMaster tried to fire him, POTUS overruled.")

[Typee]

Die Version von RoguePOTUSStaff ist ähnlich:

Rogue POTUS Staff‏ vor 4 Stunden
Giving McMaster control was plan from beginning. Now, McMaster put his foot down, ready to resign. After Watnick POTUS had no choice.

(Watnick ist der Flynn-Satrap, den McMaster nicht aus dem Sicherheitsrat rausgekriegt hatte: "McMaster tried to fire him, POTUS overruled.")

Oder McMaster, auch gut nachvollziehbar. Ich will nicht unken, aber mit solchen Frontbegradigungen steuert die Grump-Administration ganz langsam in die Richtung, die mir ganz zu Anfang als die wahrscheinlichste erschien: eine wohl stramm konservative, aber gleichwohl professionelle, halbwegs entideologisierte und ziemlich phantasielose Bürokratenherrschaft, die sich über die Zeit bis zu den nächsten Wahlen wurstelt, und ein Grimassenschneider für die Laune vornedran.