Post inauguration Trump:

[David]

What worries me is that he seems to presume that, because his crazy, bull-in-a-china-shop approach to international relations seems to have worked out ok one time in one context, doing the same in a completely different one will have the same result. At best, it's all empty posturing and will be seen as such on both sides; but what really worries me is whether this sudden aggression against Iran will empower the hardliners and see Iran take a more aggressive approach in turn. Let's not forget that Rouhani, for all his own belligerent rhetoric at times, is the moderate in the Iranian political context.

[roar]

You can tell he is feeling the pinch when he starts threatening other countries. For some reason, war gets enough Americans excited to reinstate the sitting President. Hopefully, Trump starts feeling comfortable again, otherwise we could well see a war start.

[David]

What with his sabre-rattling against Iran, and the Democrats' sabre-rattling against Iran's sponsors, Russia, this is a pretty dangerous situation all round.

[swoop42]

Trump is merely doing what he always does when he is receiving negative headlines of a personal nature and that is to create even bigger world headlines.

[Mugwump]

[Jezza]

US Growth hits 4.1%, Fastest Since 2014, in Win for Trump

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-27/u-s-gdp-growth-hits-4-1-fastest-since-2014-in-win-for-trump

[Mugwump]

[Pies4shaw]

So, he’s doing the best economic job by any President since the last President?

[David]

The most brutal and brilliantly argued takedown of “Russiagate” that I’ve read yet.

https://overland.org.au/2018/08/scoundrel-time-from-the-rosenbergs-to-russiagate/

[Jezza]

Good article.

It's not often we agree politically David, but I agree with you on "Russiagate" 100%.

[HAL]

Glad to hear it.

[Mugwump]

“Brilliantly argued” ? I could not see much actual argument in there at all, just a series of statements which fit almost any set of circumstances which resulted in Trump winning. The premise of the article is that the public’s disillusion with “managerial neoliberalism” (a rather vague term which probably means something like “anything except Sanders” to the author) is the real reason that Trump won, and any other explanation is just hiding that fact. The argument thus seems to be “here is my explanation, and any other reasons you adduce are just deflections from my master-key. This master key, by the way, cannot be disproved”. It’s a pretty classic Marxist gambit.

I happen to agree that “managerial neoliberalism” seems an increasingly threadbare philosophy. I also think that the characterisation of Russia in the West is often a little hysterical. However, if there is evidence that Trump’s campaign actively colluded with the Russian security services to damage Clinton, then this is a legitimate matter of concern and a serious discredit to Trump’s legitimacy. That, surely, is the real point.

[Jezza]

[Mugwump]

I think you make a different point, Jezza,which is that it may not be true. Quite a different point to this article.

As regards foreign interference, well, I think you are being a bit ahistorical. The Us did interfere in other nations’ government, at a time when it was in a power struggle with a despotism called the Soviet Union which was very much in the same business, but with far greater coercive, imperialist intent once it established a foothold. The US was right to get involved in actions to block the spread of Warsaw-pact style tyranny. It was wrong to do so in Iraq, because Saddam was not a threat to the democratic world in the way that Soviet Russia was.

However, the fact that the Us played this role elsewhere does not mean that it should not resist that role being played within its own democracy. If that invovles double standards, then what single standard would be acceptable ?

[pietillidie]

I personally agree with the bits about Nefarious Russia and managerial Democrats, but that doesn't eliminate reality as it exists in the heads of vast swathes of mainstream America.

From that POV, after decades of deranged bleating about Russia, the Republican Party is in bed with someone who has conspired and would conspire with anyone anywhere in a heartbeat. To frame this as conspiracy theory when both Trump and this sort Russia paranoia have been mainstream American TV for decades is nonsensical.

Of course you've got to attack the bastards on this front, especially when they've just signed tax cuts into existence that will destroy social mobility for a generation. But it's only one front, and certainly no substitute for a serious policy platform.