Monday, January 23, 2017

The Left Has Wanted to Kill the TPP Ever Since We Heard of It

Trump has killed the TransPacific Partnership so he chalks up a score on this one for something we wanted.  He also gets something of a validation credit for something Clinton would not have done.  We know that because she said so ... unless she later changed that to something else for the crowd.

The efforts toward delegitimatizing Trump only serve toward delegitimatizing democracy and there's no need to flog it since the regulars see it already.

The focus here is solely on what he does and it has been from the start.  More than ever, we regard pundits as no more than mealworms for feeding to squirrels and it's so damn cute watching a monkey eat them.

Ed:  monkeys are exotic animals and should never be pets.

That was lifetimes ago as young people when such things were not so clear.  Most were naive and did not realize how many of the monkeys did not survive transportation to America.


In terms of anything regarding Trump, if it doesn't come from he or Spicer then I don't believe it nor do I have a reason to believe it.  The glut of hearsay on Twitter is just an insulting embarrassment to anyone with a brain bigger than a peanut.


So far I have seen Trump is chalking up major demerits faster than he gets wins with such things as killing TPP.  The savagery against Yemen has not stopped; he wants to kill Obamacare but doesn't have the promised replacement; he's also got a hanging offense in unqualified endorsement of the CIA.

Pundits are trying to make high drama out of this but there really isn't any.


I cannot hang Trump for killing abortion since he has not done that.  In my view, he would be one prize fool if he did but he's not.  I do believe there's a valid question as to whether he will go through with it.  Until such time, a judgment is pointless.  The Woman's March gave a taste of what comes if he does go through with it but only a taste since only provocation elicits change and that means heads will get cracked.  You know how it goes when the state turns vicious so will people have the stomach for that.

The Woman's March was nice but it wasn't civil disobedience since there was no opposition to them or not much.  Gandhi said specifically the purpose is to provoke a reaction but it must always be done in a non-violent way or the state pulls out the guns.  There was no reaction to the women as they marched so, in that respect, it wasn't civil disobedience but rather a parade but the hats were cool.

BlackLivesMatter is a specific example of non-violent civil disobedience since they provoked rage just about anywhere they went and there were many threats of death including running them over with cars for blocking the roads.  In only rare cases did the BlackLivesMatter people use violence and the state lost every time when it used violence against them.  That's true insofar as the violence by the state gave a tactical victory but a strategic loss since it only made the opposition stronger and further united it.


There are multiple women grandstanding and calling for a Civil War but that's showing a remarkably glib lack of knowledge of how the Civil War was one of the worst and bloodiest America ever fought.

What should the outcome be.  What is your purpose.


There's way too much artificial drama afoot and it appears there's a whole lot of money behind it.  I observe as they stoke it with only one question in mind, what is your real purpose.

No comments: