Home | About | Donate

When Donald Trump Makes Sense


When Donald Trump Makes Sense

Mike Lofgren

Despite the fact that modern technological civilization is supposed to be founded on empiricism and rationality, most of our attitudes spring from emotions, indoctrination, or appeals to authority.


"And far from adopting the goal of a nuclear-free world, the Obama administration is pursuing not only a modernization of its nuclear arsenal, but also a replacement of the bombers, missiles and submarines to deliver them."

...because so many more 'Murkans die from Russian ICBMs than rotting 'Murkan infrastructure...


A broken clock makes sense twice a day.

Many take Trump to be more extreme in policy than Cruz or Rubio or Clinton because he makes such a fool of himself tossing around his unadorned bigotry. His statements of policy are less less extreme, though perhaps partly by virtue of incoherence.

Would it not make sense to discuss why the policies of his Republican and Democratic opponents make no more sense (Sanders excepted).


This article states:

Trump .. suggested that in light of North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling, South Korea and Japan would do well to consider getting nuclear arms themselves ..

From "Orwell (and the President) Come to Hiroshima" by Joseph Gerson (in today's CD):

Twenty years ago the lead author of Japan’s military doctrine repeated to me that for thirty years its military had understood that Japan’s constitution permits the military to possess tactical (Hiroshima-size) nuclear weapons. It was, he said, simply a right that they had yet to exercise. Last week, Abe’s cabinet reasserted this right. In the wake of President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit, the Abe Cabinet reaffirmed that right to possess – and thus use – nuclear weapons.

So Japan is already well past "consider getting nuclear arms themselves" ..


Sounds like cause for the Nobel Prize Commission to rescind the Peace Award prematurely given to Obama. Think what a spectacle such a RECALL would be... and mean to citizens of good conscience everywhere who morally oppose M.A.D.:

"And far from adopting the goal of a nuclear-free world, the Obama administration is pursuing not only a modernization of its nuclear arsenal, but also a replacement of the bombers, missiles and submarines to deliver them. The 30-year cost of this project will be at least $1 trillion. Considering the Pentagon’s record of staggering cost overruns, the final price tag may be substantially more."

I am all for Democracy when whatever is generated in the way of consensus comes to that status by HONEST--as opposed to false stories and sophisticated propagandistic--means.

Therefore, this is an apt statement from Mr. Lofgren:

"Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the public will become aware of these facts – that is, if the corporate media’s stunning lack of due diligence in interpreting his statement on nuclear policy is anything to go by."

In my view, the following quoted material is NOT because of its insistence upon the "OUR" frame when citizens, if they consent to these horrors do so on the basis of tainted evidence or no evidence at all. In other words, it's the textbook definition for Noam Chomsky's explanation of MANUFACTURED consent:

"There are many other such hypocrisies rattling around like skeletons in our closet. Over the last decade and a half, the Improvised Explosive Device – the IED – was responsible for more U.S. casualties than any other cause. The national security establishment holds it to be a uniquely fiendish device, typical of the moral monsters who confront us.

"But what is it, really? It’s a landmine. And the United States is the only First World nation that is not a party to the landmine treaty. Our refusal to sign is shared by such engines of moral improvement as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia."

I don't recall getting to vote on landmine use? I personally oppose it and backed Princess Diana's brave efforts to do likewise.

As "The Page and Gilens' Study" points out, Mr. Lofgren, when it comes to major policies, the PUBLIC is totally removed from decision-making.

I am very tired of having terms like "our," and "we", and "Americans" (to indicate ALL as if there is no diversity of opinion and always 100% consensus) attributed to what is done by THE MILITARY.

There is either Democracy or a Military State. The two are 100% incompatible. In my view, since the demise of W.W. II the U.S has indeed grown into a military state. When it comes to foreign policy (or any threat to the MIC), any show of Democracy is largely done for the purposes of window-dressing.

95% of what the MIC (and CIA & Deep State) does is done UNDER the radar. Let's attribute CAUSE to the responsible ACTORS...rather than the universal us/we/America/Americans.


The fact that the Republican party wants to defeat their front runner seems to me that Trump is his own man and in spite of Trumps political agenda, that is the problem because his rhetoric is saying overtly, what the Republican party stands for, with few exceptions, covertly.

What is laughable is Cruz who is owned lock, stock and barrel by Goldman Sucks and the Republican party bosses is their lying boy of choice! Bernie is right, the Republican party has become a fringe party and here is the good news: Trump could end up destroying the Republican party! They need to go the way of the Whig party and Trump might just be their nail in the Republican party's coffin! That is how Trump makes sense to me.


The msm seems to be attacking Trump with everything they have, the neo-cons hate him, likewise the reich-wing establishment and that all makes me suspicious. He's come out against us imperialism, and trade deals. imo, a solution is to remove nukes from pakistan, india and north korea, not add more, many who support him are racist homophobes I would guess, but not all.


Seeing how the Democratic Party is more right wing than the GOP was forty years ago, the GOP will not be destroyed, it lives on in the Democratic Party.

The "Rockefeller Republican" era GOP evolved into the American Taliban Party (ATP) with Cruz being its preferred 2016 front runner, if only the ATP can figure out how to get him elected.


I wouldn't except Sanders ...


So do you make your decisions on for whom to vote dependent on their positions re, e.g. landmines?


Sounds more like Trump's rhetoric is saying overtly, what BOTH parties stand for covertly.


Makes a good deal of sense .... That's the problem with our politics on "both sides" of the aisle - the need to shoot the messenger when we don't like the message - Trump is a schmuck on so many levels, but he has used his stage to talk about some things that need to be talked about ...


" .. the GOP will not be destroyed, it lives on in the Democratic Party."

And it's new face might well be Sanders ...


Except the fake opposition party is even more surreptitious and covert. Thanks for the link.


Interesting, doncha think? A lot of good discussion could come out of that - but not here, i suspect, too many minefields - like opening Pandora's box (smile)