Not to be accidentally invective with my question here...

Not to be accidentally invective with my question here, but does anyone here actually try to pay close attention to the policies that the Trump administration is trying to alter or pass, including through the lesser known departments and agencies? Additionally, putting the policies of the Trump administration on a comparative scale with the previous presidents would be constructive on top of that (to liken Trump with George W. Bush's 'establishment' presidency, etc).
Throughout the time I've spent on different political boards, I've found this sort of news and discussion to be very underappreciated, even as it offers many opportunities to better articulate and politically agitate for propaganda, and so on.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017
theintercept.com/2017/11/13/epa-michael-dourson-nomination-republicans/
twitter.com/RT_America/status/935307568154542081
whitehouse.gov/legislation/hjres38-disapproving-rule-submitted-department-interior-known-stream-protection-rule
sba.gov/advocacy/regulatory-reform

Bump

Yuropoor here, not too familiar with American politics. What did his administration do so far?

To be honest, no. I don't think much of the board does either.
The thing is, we already kinda know what they'll do. On the custodial level, the Trump administration is a bog standard Republican regime, staffed with all the kinds of people you would expect there. Trump's had no kind of political machine, so he's entirely relying on existing Republican infrastructure. And that's a well oiled machine, honed at the state level. What they will do, is what they have been doing in dozens of state houses: implement ALEC style legislation, appoint ideologues and cronies, and so on. And without real political power, there is exactly zero you can do. No amount of hot takes will stop them.

Besides the obvious things, in no particular order, like climate change (leaving the Paris Agreement, nomination of Pruitt, Zinke, Perry), net neutrality (its destruction), further attempted and partial curtailment of immigration (travel ban), accelerated Republican warmongering and saber-rattling (his unprecedented answer to destroy North Korea, and declaring to outright commit Bush-esque war crimes for the "next" opportunity), bolstering the industries and lobbies (coal, private prisons, etc) with corporate and military-industrial complex figures throughout the Cabinet, warranting and possibly expanding the surveillance state, justifying trickle-down economics as if this were in the Reagan admin, appointing bat-shit judges, trying to wreck education (via DeVos), being scandal-ridden because of possible collusion with mobstersā€¦ (There's far more.)
there is apparently some degree of slick and typical Republican maneuvering and competence, despite Trump's own infamous incompetence, within the executive branch and throughout the fed. Elucidating on this may help with the problem of liberals often being too conciliatory and even whitewashing the specific Republicans that are not in power.

Trump is actively weakening America's empire for his and other small time pokies' profits. It is hilarious.

Not being american no.
Trump discussion alway degenerate in how's

I think we are selling criticism, and criticism as praxis, short. Like learning about Marxism in the first place, I believe that

Discussion like this would also be pretty good.

All Americans here should see this page
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_by_Donald_Trump
It's mostly accelerationist-tier establishment and (fewer) Obama-tier establishment people

Yes, I actually keep a fairly close eye on the things they are doing to watch for important developments.
For example, Turkey is currently claiming that Trump said to them that the US would quit providing the Y P G with weapons. Go check the ro j a va thread for more on that.

Trump is quietly packing courts while causing a daily media shitstorm and and few are talking about this, so I would say he has a better understanding of the power structure of the USG than one would think. Why talk about court packing when you can talk about LaVar Ball?

Trump's "culture wars" still deserve media coverage, if much more concise and actually critical. If this coverage is mostly shallow and stretched unnecessarily to the point of being a cheap spectacle, like the Russian investigation, then part of it must be because of what is commonly assumed about the relation between news-media and viewership in America within and outside the news-media industry. But to the first point, the possibility that these are deliberate moves (or not) to pander to his "base", as a sitting President, is definitely worth some critical attention.

I'm assuming he has a bunch of aides and advisers to do most of the research for him, and that he must be merely presented these names to confirm them to nominations.

Why would I do that when every single media outlet and liberals yell about or go over each controversial thing that Trump does?

What a stupid post.

They're somehow managing to fuck that up by being too eager to take him down and because of that they aren't reporting on the major things that go unnoticed.

The word of the turkroach is worthless.

At the moment, the Kurds are the United States's biggest chip in the Iraq/Levant geopolitical game. If they can get the Kurds to agree to block an Iranian oil pipeline from going through northern Iraq and/or Syria, (which was their real purpose for involvement in the region), they've already won.

Bump

I love Ayn Rand, she's the greatest anti-imperialist fighter of all time and not enough people on this board recognize it.

Only good post in the thread. Trump as a phenomenon may herald the breakdown of the neolib/neocon antipopulist bi"partisan" pseudoconsensus politics of the last 4 decades, but Trump as an actual administration in power is a completely generic Republican attempting to enact the same factory-farmed pork agenda as Bush, Reagan, or Nixon.


Meme, the Paris Agreement has, like Kyoto, accomplished jack and shit.
Meme, it was predictably overturned, and even if it hadn't been, the impact on immigration would've been negligible. Before you bring it up, the meme wall is concentrated on illegals (who make up only a small fraction of total immigration), and its "great big beautiful door" is likely to increase rather than decrease legal immigration.
Unprecedented except for calls during the Bush AND Obama administrations to declare war on NK with the shellings of certain small islands and the sinkings of certain ships as justification, accompanied by massed firstretaliatory strikes.


What a load of bass ackwards horseshit. GG reached out to Milo, because everyone else refused to cover it with even the slightest degree of sympathy, Milo was initially unsympathetic as well, but we argued him into giving us a fair shot. Breitbart did not instigate any of this, either, as Milo had only recently joined Breitbart after working at various other outlets in the past, and when his GG stories became unexpectedly successful, he convinced his bosses to give him his own section of the site, Breitbart Tech.

By the time Republicans caught up to what was happening and tried to exploit it instead of cranking out their usual "the chiiiiildren" scaremongering against games, years had passed since the onset of GG.

The Trump Administration has not faced the circumstances that the Bush or Obama administrations have [and for as long as they did], so we can't definitively say that "Bush is worse" or even that Trump is "generic", but for now we can surely assume that the Trump Administration would respond to different matters relatively worse than Bush's, and it has already been apparent through the responses given in policy as well as in Trump's personal excesses, for if they appear half-assed measures or "generic" then that owes partially to bourgeois-mandated constraints applied to every President via the federal system.
A lot of these arguments to trivialize so-and-so about the Trump admin as "memes" or "[Other candidate] would have done the same" mostly originate in left-liberal circles to theoretically justify their opposition to Hillary Clinton around and after election season, but this simplistic view has mostly lead to mystifications and anachronistic and ahistorical idiocy like this rather than helping anyone analyze the current situation as faithful historical-materialists.

bump

...

Great post, liberal imbecile.

Two critical tax bill votes are coming up.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017

Oh, Trump DOES have one difference compared to Bush or Obama. Namely, the fact that Democrats and Republicans are united in REEEEing autistically at most everything he does, preventing them from passing anything worth caring about, unlike the lockstep political machine Shrillary or Guacbowl would've slotted neatly into.

I'm not some sort of "drown da gubmint" lolbert, and this paralysis has certainly had some bad consequences (emergency aid to American citizens of Puerto Rico amounting to a fraction of the pathetic Katrina response, for instance). But gridlock under Trump, while Berniecrats and the (rapidly disintegrating) alt-right knock apart establishment politics in time for 2020, is IMHO better than any electoral outcome I could've dreamed about years ago.

What exactly are you talking about? That is a drastic stretch of a statement if you looked honestly at either the Congressional or rank-and-file Republicans. All the public discontent present among the Republicans is relatively minute to the Democrats in Congress from (obviously) tax legislation to (even) Russia, this relative lenience being the perk of being their nominal head.
There is some truth in this, because presumably Clinton (likely more so owing to the Republican majority Congress likely doubling-down on their strategy on Obama) or Jeb Bush may have possibly attempted a less partisan discussion in Congress. It is just more likely that the gridlock you accredit to the controversy that is Trump's presidency compared to the hypothetical Clinton (disregarding the absurd campaign Republicans use to bastardize the catastrophe of inter-bourgeois war in Libya headed by Secretary of State Clinton to instead bolster patriotic insecurity over an incident not exclusive to Clinton's tenure and private server use for emails, and assuming that such stupidity didn't continue/worsen) or Bush presidency is fairly exaggerated, as intra-party disagreement (like the two Republican votes [plus McCain either for Trump's ridicule of him and his bout with cancer] on the Obamacare repeal) was to be expected in any normal given situation. You've said nothing about my previous post.

bumping

*as opposed to Trump's currently hardline stance on getting exclusively Republican legislation through

Wanna throw in any more buzzwords there bucko?

Sorry, but America since the 1970s is a hollow shell composed entirely of buzzwords. There can be no other suitable description.

bump

bump

bumping

To emphasize the importance of this, one can look back at Marx and Engels' writings in which they wrote at length on the administrations and governments of their times. Just look at some of the Marx Engels Collected Works, for example.

Bump

Fun fact: The Department of Labor under Trump is now honoring Ronald Reagan next to Eugene V. Debs. The latter image is an official DoL portrait of Debs. Interestingly, this blatant contradiction didn't even need an acelerationist Secretary Andrew Puzder (a likely timeline if he hadn't been under suspicion for exploiting immigrant labor) but just some university president Republican.

From the point-of-view of the 'official' labor movement in the United States - the AFL-CIO and its appendages like the AFLAID, the Free Trade Union Committee, the National Endowment For Democracy, and the ex-Trotskyist ideologues who supported these things - it's perfectly rational to honor Reagan and Debs alike.

Isn't that pic & "turkcroach" pushing it a little bit, comrade? I mean I know >le memes, but come the fuck on. You are using typical dehumanizing genocidal language to portray a whole people.

This guy is a real gem


theintercept.com/2017/11/13/epa-michael-dourson-nomination-republicans/

Yeah, it's a shitpost that didn't have to be.

This must be, like, the fourth Republican senator to (potentially) vote against a Trump nominee, out of a total of 54 Republican senators after a hundred or so senate-confirmed nominees?

It think she'll make it 7 but a few of them threw up opposition votes only after they knew the vote was a lock.

Bump

bumping

Not to sound like a lib, but thank Newt Gingrich for the new kind of lockstep politics he taught his flockā€¦

Are you suggesting acelerationism?

twitter.com/RT_America/status/935307568154542081

Not proposing it, noting that it already happened. With minimal discipline, a political party can run roughshod over all these supposed institutional safeguards inherent in the American system.

Bump

They are fucking terrible.

whitehouse.gov/legislation/hjres38-disapproving-rule-submitted-department-interior-known-stream-protection-rule

sba.gov/advocacy/regulatory-reform
This page all seems to be some recent neolib Trumpery.

bump

...

That is untrue.
Or rather, it's true in the sense that they keep yelling about the things Trump does, which mostly consist of saying and tweeting something dumb or combative.
Meanwhile, you really need to pay attention and specifically look for all the important details about what his administration actually does. And they're getting nowhere near the outrage and hysteria that Trump himself gets. It's almost as if liberal media writ large weren't particularly concerned with actual policies, just the personality, identity and political affiliation of their ruler.

What the fuck is this brainlet reply? I would be embarrassed if I was as dumb as a sack of shit like this.

this.
Also, I get why the news fixate on every Russia-related rumor and thing that comes out of the investigation, but it also just feels bizarre seeing them so interested in every detail as opposed to most other things. The viewership for such a tediously drawn out schedule of coverage seems to be partly artificial even for the issues that it entails.

The Russia narrative has been going on for over a year and it really scares me. Not because of the content of the scandal, which is just run of the mill corruption much less serious than anything originating from the US government itself, but because of the fever pitch of nonsense from the media and political elites. They're speaking their own language of babbling idiocy about RUSSIA while the world spins out of control and the environment collapses. As bad as they've been in past decades at least they weren't creating their own elaborate fictional world where Russian agents are in the top 100 problems in America.