Carlin and Trump saying similar things

The first intelligent discussion I've seen about Trump.

nine:

My theory is that Trump's interest is in regaining his billionaire status. I'd be very interested in your thoughts on how his actions might be more altruistic.

Grazhdanochka:

He could well indeed be out to achieve that and I see no reason to think not..... It does not however mean he could not be Rational about some Politics and happy to work for that....... What I was getting at earlier is Trump since Day 1 of Electoral Race talked about China - USA Trade and how they were cheating the USA, the USA was losing for lack of Competitiveness...... He also ALWAYS spoke respectfully of Russia (yet he never really commented of Russian Trade).

My Thought is that Trump identified China from early on as the Economic Challenge that has to be beaten, Economics is of course part of Geopolitics and that comes with full Political Spectrum..... He potentially if he was indeed advised by Experts (I bet he was at least advised by some People considered 'Experts' to various degrees, that if one looks at Cold War History Nixon and Kissinger made a very historic and Important Effort to divide China and USSR.

Indeed if one does some research they see that most actually realistic Figures in US Strategic Thinking understand that China + Russia back to Back means a Eurasia continent that is well - very very challenging to deal with...... Trump possibly, very likely considered the Idea that while one needs to confront China - Russia could be brought to the Side of the USA or at least separated from China.

Strategically speaking the US is facing a Disaster, a huge Economic Power (China) with a very solid and large Energy Source (Russia), with Russia's Military Technology/Capability, and an Iran looking for backing...... Russia since at least 1999 has been warning the Western World and the Western World has ignored us.

Dividing the two was elementary Tactics, (Forcing for example China/Russia to secure their mutual Borders from each other and making Energy/Trade more a Question) but indeed since Bush and ESPECIALLY Obama this has gone the Opposite Path.

I think if Trump is to be given any Credit for Brain thinking (He should be given he trashed Clinton), this should be considered as ONE possible approach he had.

I think there i many more - Just I think US Politics is too polarized for well much Logical Debate to get a Chance... It seriously saddens me.

---

Here's another intelligent discussion re Trump.

Disturbing Observations on US Immigration Law

The following is a collection of comments from an online conversation I read this morning. There are some minor edits and organizational changes. Regarding the colorful description of the current administration (ending the first paragraph) I must point out that the previous administrations have been little, if any, better.


The first step Hitler took was deportation of Jews. And now we are arresting Mexicans, Haitians, and Salvadorans and holding them in "temporary" deportation centers where there is no official check on arrivals and departures. Do some go in and never come out? Where are deportees taken? What oversight monitors the process? How can we, the citizens who are ultimately responsible for our government, as the German people were for the actions of the Nazis, confirm that it is genuinely an honest and aboveboard deportation process and not becoming the cheaper and more expedient process of mere elimination? And can we seriously expect a misogynistic, racist, bigoted administration to undertake such an essentially inhumane project with due respect for human rights? Seriously?

There is a place for democratic "consensus." For that citizens require time, commitment to citizenship (a belief in its value), appreciation for discussion and debate and knowledge. In the absence of something that resembles "consensus" (which might only be the fullest possible public disclosure of disagreement), decisions are made that seem mysterious, that one can't account for. Immigration policy, and every nation must have one, whether permissive or the opposite, seems to have fallen from the skies rather than rendered more transparent via public input or, better, construction. Witnessing, at the very least, would be nice. The immigration policy decisions were made outside of any possible public legitimating process. I am speaking now of that last 50 years. One feels differently about a policy that in some regard is "my own," even if that means not fashioned without my conscious dissent, as against one that seems to "come from elsewhere." In fact, it is so "elsewhere" that I doubt there are many Americans who could say what immigration policy includes, say something of its existence in law.

There is an instinctive response to human excrement, defecation and putrefaction. We turn away. We hide it. We cover it. Our daily discourse avoids mention of it. In situations like this, something that people instinctively know is kaka, is the foul odor of pure moral wrong, to treat in the same way. It involves exactly the same mental faculties, I think. And so on every hand, in every context, this foul smelling underbelly of the process remains unobserved.

A public sphere of democratic discourse must demand that grotesque sausage-making be more public. The adult changes the child's diapers despite the crap. That is, if the adult has any love for the child.