Trump meets with Democratic leaders. This is often known as “bipartisanship”. Trump uses the word “bipartisan”. The media reminds voters, at every election, that they, the voters, want “bipartisanship”. If Republicans aren’t “bipartisan”, so the media reminds voters, then the Republicans will lose power.
So, Trump met with Democrats. He made some deals. He clarified where he wouldn’t back down. The Democrats felt like he understood them. For that, the news now thinks it is the end of both political parties.
Trump’s election was always going to spell D-O-O-M for both Republican and Democratic parties, but not for him being bipartisan. This may actually preserve those parties longer. The problem Trump brought to both parties was that he would outshine Republicans for Right Wing values and outwork Democrats on Left Wing talking points. He is preserving borders, simplifying and lowering taxes, and building infrastructure. That is progress by both Left and Right standards—progress “big time”.
But, of course the best news has to be re-labeled the worst news. Most of the news this past week was gossip. Most of the news from the weekend was about movie awards, at which Trump held center stage without even being in attendance.
The only other main news included Google being sued for the same topic the “Google Manifesto” author wanted to have more open-ended communication about. Ironic, how a Leftist company suppresses a Conservative employee’s opinion, fires him, and in the wake of the fallout gets sued for not having enough Leftist non-discrimination values.
But, the Left media doesn’t want to talk about that. They also don’t want to talk about how the ongoing investigation on part of the FBI into Russianewsgategate only seems to let Trump off the hook. If Trump did do anything bad with Russia, the Left completely failed to prove it.
So, the president acted in a bipartisan manner, finally. For that, we are told that both parties are doomed.
Donald Trump, Jr. was asked by the Russians to look at information that could indite the Clintons. He agreed, contacted some peers, met and listened, then decided it was a dead end. The New York Times made the first disclosure about this information, but not their source of the information.
There is no crime here so far, at least not among Trump parties. Listening once is always good. Yet, opposition claims that Trump received “contributions” AKA “money”, that Trump initiated in reaching out to the Russians, that Trump covered-up this meeting, and that “listening once” surmounts to “collusion”.
Many people in America do seem to think that hearing someone out is “collusion”, which is part of why so few Americans listen to each other.
Many political candidates do receive money illegally, questions come up in surplus regarding the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign contributions.
Many politicians have tried to cover up their meetings, memos, and communiqués in the past, even deleting them when those communiqués and memos are under a subpoena.
It’s all normal behavior—for some people’s value system, but not everyone’s.
Many questions arise about how the New York Times obtained information that hadn’t been released concerning a family under FBI surveillance. Perhaps, since the FBI was watching, they might know who told the New York Times, but maybe not if they can’t get their iPhones to work.
More questions come up about the Russian lawyer and why she was allowed in by the DOJ during Obama years after she was flatly turned-down for a visa. Involvement in the bickering between Obama and Putin come up, her lobbying for Russian objectives in Congress. It smells of Obama-style “organizing”—creating chaos that interrupts his goals while he asks for more power to achieve those goals he interrupts, which failed in the end for Obamacare—or did it? Regardless, at the end of the Russianewsgategate scandal remains the question of ties to Russia, but not Trump’s as much as Obama’s.
According to legal opinions, the specific accusations against Trump about the meeting with Russians so far look false. The concerned activities are not illegal. And, both the concerned activities and the thus-far-false accusations have happened with other political figures who were not pursued as Trump is.
Why is there such imbalance of attention?
While the very suffix “-gate” and many other statements have compared this scandal to Nixon’s Watergate cover-up, one fundamental difference remains: Nixon’s wrongdoing happened under his great power as sitting president as he sought dirt to fight political opponents during an election. Though this happened during an election, and it concerned attempts to uncover dirt between political opponents, Trump wasn’t the sitting president with the greater power, someone else was and that someone else’s use of that greater power is also being called into question. Another difference from Nixon’s Watergate is that it is too late for that someone else to resign and thereby receive a full pardon from his successor.
Perhaps that is why such unbalanced attention focuses on Trump instead of the more fitting Nixonian counterpart. But, we don’t know why this is happening. Wagons are circling. And, whenever the wagons circle, it’s not a good sign of the times.
There is no point in pursuing a dead end. The Trump dissent from the far Left, therefore, does not think it’s a dead end. They seem to hold that some sort of information exchanged happened between Trump and the Russians that was not disclosed. That’s the most sense to make of it all. But, that further illustrates how the Right and Left of America think differently. The Left doesn’t understand the Right’s value system: Listen to everyone once, be fair to enemies, don’t do anything dishonest in the process. In the mind of the far Left, dishonesty and power go together by definition and listening before having an opinion isn’t even a consideration. The far Right doesn’t understand how the far Left doesn’t understand that. Each side of America looks down and shakes its head over the actions the other.
There may be no conspiracy against Trump. This may be happening because a few powerful people in mass media and politics normally drop a few words, hit at a few ideas, and a candidate fails as if on cue. Those methods failed on Trump and those powerful few don’t know how to handle their first-time failure. Young Democratic voters latch on to these fruitless efforts because they also don’t know how to deal with their first-time election defeat.
This situation is dangerous for the nation, not because Trump has done anything wrong, but because shining the spotlight on fruitless pursuits is distracting the nation from the long-lasting laws Trump already has progress with.
Obama had the House and Senate, but lost them. His signature health care law was as such that he himself suspended enforcing it, the opposing party won six elections on a campaign to “repeal and replace”, and that “repeal and replace” is under way. He issued many executive orders which were thrown to the wind the day he left office. And, most importantly, he failed on the primary pro-government argument of the American Left: building roads and bridges. Obama didn’t build and maintain the roads and bridges; Trump is building and maintaining them instead. In fact, Trump is doing everything Obama didn’t.
But, the nation isn’t watching what Trump does. Trump has zero accountability from the press or the public on his work as president. Instead, all of Trump’s opposition are chasing imaginary ghosts in the closet, monsters under the bed, and using convincing fake rhetoric to talk about it. God forbid Trump, as president, actually do anything that’s genuinely wrong—no one would notice.
Democratic Senators Feinstein, Franken, and others plan to vote for Trump’s nominee for FBI Director. Their reasons included that he will follow the Constitution, not serve the will of the President, and follow due process. Feinstein did not mention when she changed her position since the last time she voted on nominees. But, that change is finally coming.
WikiLeaks’ time ran out. So has a lot of people’s.
Extraditing Julian Assange for “rape” charges to Sweden, where he can then be extradited to the US, would reduce all future “sexual” allegations to being a potential fake tool in all future cases all over the world. The media made sure we are to that threshold. If the charges are real, then the extradition order would include clauses that he be returned to Ecuador once the case is cleared and any sentence served, but that probably won’t happen because that is probably not what is happening.
As we can see with the media’s assault against Trump, sexual charges have already been reduced to a mere means of a more deeply-motivated political assault. Remember, this happened after WikiLeaks attacked the incumbent’s political party during October Surprise season—but not back in September, after the FBI revealed that Obama was chatting with Hillary pseudononymously on her server. That’s curious. What is also curious is the incidentally well-coordinated release of emails from both the FBI and WL.
WikiLeaks may view their mission as holding governments accountable with conspiracy, which was never going to last, but the greater achievement is accountability to competence.
As with Snowden, the best response from governments would have been to ignore and deny. To attack is to notarize. Those seeking to prosecute Assange and Snowden are the real leak—proving they don’t know how to keep secrets, thinking that prosecuting the ones who outsmarted them would make up for the fact that they failed in their main task: to keep secrets secret. By prosecuting Snowden, the NIA pleads “guilty” to incompetence in front of the world. If the FBI director doesn’t know the simple Apple backdoor that any high school student knows, prudence says he won’t tell the press. But, we’re not looking at prudence—not from governments, not from WikiLeaks, not from big Internet companies, not from anyone.
If Trump wins the White House, he should honor Snowden and Assange. Notwithstanding that they both helped him get elected, they exposed the guards of government secrets as being too out of date for the tech age. Annoying, yes, but Snowden and Assange showed the US that the digital age needs tech-savvy people calling the shots where Intelligence is concerned. Anyone who saw public statements from the brass at NIA or FBI concerning Snowden or iPhones knows that they are being run by tech incompetence. Due to incompetent leadership, Snowden and Assange did not have high security clearance, but were given high-access information anyway, somehow; they told the public in public; they did not tell enemies in secret; they should receive honors as Good Samaritans.
WikiLeaks, however, was never going to last. It was always going to be a kamikaze mission. It was always going to be the focus of every attack. Everything seems to become a tool of something else, these days. If WikiLeaks lasted too long, it would become a tool of conspiracy and therefore no longer be useful.
More importantly, WikiLeaks is simply no longer necessary for its own purpose. Rather than having a web space or URL, the mases can use searchable tags. Publicizing WikiLeaks has already turned WikiLeaks into a meme, thanks to Federal action.
The entire topic opens up the discussion of news itself. While big media companies are consolidating, the clear results are that media outlets are multiplying. Even Verizon wants in on film making.
Anyone can have a YouTube channel. Anyone can have a blog. Private or public, corporate or individual, anonymous or identified, hacked or honest—anyone can post information. WikiLeaks gave the public an idea, the government validated it, now WikiLeaks has worked itself out of a job.
All WikiLeaks needs now is to get shut down, thereby promoted to eternal and immutable martyrdom, and then thousands of uncontrollable, less scrupulous, dangerous, and devious copycats will spring up across the globe. Everyone got more than he bargained for. WikiLeaks’ mission will soon be over-accomplished, thanks to the incompetent fogies managing the State who seem all to willing to help WikiLeaks with that last, vital promotion to godhood. By not understanding the notoriety of martyrdom, the all-time secret that all press is good press, and the basics of how technology works, responses from the State-media duo has handed the next election to Trump on a golden platter. This time, most of that news will be reported by individuals.
Tomorrow is Super Tuesday. If Trump doesn’t secure 51% of RNC delegates, and if we therefore have a brokered convention—where delegates are not bound to their votes—the establishment will turn on Trump and he will go third party. That might push Sanders to do the same thing. Then we have four main candidates for president—making us more like Israel in their elections.
All these donors who gave big money to people like Jeb are going to have to rethink future donations.
You read it here first: People like Trump because of what Jesus called the Kingdom of Heaven as a “kingdom of violence and the violent take by force”. Vox tries to understand it by labelling it “authoritarianism”.
Cruz and Rubio are self-destructing—Cruz like a churchboy who only knows how to be slimy in a fight, Rubio like one of the cool kids who only knows to laugh at his opponent when he’s getting his butt kicked for the first time.
The FBI, having reportedly told the county authorities to reset the iPhone’s ID, destroyed whatever way Apple had to help—including everything the FBI is asking for now. If the FBI’s incompetence is disproven, that could pave the way for a case involving obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence. But, there are many more details we don’t know. Kasich was right, this should not be discussed in public.
There is a geek factor over which Limbaugh disagreed with all RNC candidates, even Trump, on Apple, with a footnote on Kasich. So it seems, neither the candidates nor the FBI understand how much the FBI messed up and the coding abomination of desolation the FBI is asking Apple to make. Getting all the info would have been super easy had the FBI followed instructions. Then, there were extra options at the FBI’s disposal because the phone was a government phone, already providing back doors to the government that didn’t even require a warrant. But, the FBI messed up so badly that Apple would have to redirect resources to a special team to create the ultimate weapon—making Apple and the FBI a hacking target of every government and crime organization. Spare Kasich, the candidates and the FBI all come across like an adult who doesn’t know how to use a mouse. They also seem inept in business terms over the fact that no terrorist would by an “FBiPhone”. And, as Kasich mentioned, this should not be in the public eye. Now, either way, terrorists will know which phones are more and less secure. Apple’s mistake is talking only about customers, without much mention that Apple customers include governments. While the FBI lectures too much and listens to little, Apple doesn’t know enough of its own customers well enough.