Well, see, here's the problem. It's now become clear to everyone except the fanatics that the media is hyper-partisan, conspiratorial and unreliable. And an entrenched bureaucracy always uses its accumulated power to fight any and all attempts at reform. Trump was sent to Washington to do a specific job that is bound to be very unpopular with the people there, so everyone knows that severe blowback is inevitable and must be combatted.

And so reports like this get dismissed by most of the electorate, as being just more ruling-class resistance against the people. And it's hard to disagree with that assessment. And that's a problem, because we really don't know what's going on with Trump. To what extent is he carrying out the job he was sent to Washington for? To what extent is he really aware of what that job is? We don't know, because reliable information is scarce. What information sources are trustworthy? Right now, there appear to be very few.

I trust absolutely nothing that I hear coming from the mainstream media outlets. I regard it as about as useful (and less entertaining) than Entertainment Tonight or TMZ. But who can I trust? Breitbart, Pajamas Media, Hot Air, etc., seem to be pretty good, but they all acknowledge that they have a point of view, and it's inevitable that that will color their reporting. (Or even more to the point, it will color what they do and don't report.) There don't seem to be any opposition outlets that aren't in the ruling-class bubble, and aren't foaming-at-the-mouth radicals. (If you know of one, point me to it.) When one of the most readable and reasonable media outlets concerning American affairs is the London Daily Mail, we've got a problem.

So here we are. We've got a loose cannon as a President. That in itself is not a bad thing, because it's going to take a loose cannon to clear these decks, but we've got to make sure he doesn't go over the side and into the water. How can we do that when we can't get any accurate information on where, philosophically, he is? We can either give in to the ruling class, and forfeit our liberty, or we can disregard them and try to get the information ourselves. But that leaves us vulnerable to being led down the primrose path.

Don't pay attention to what is said.

Pay attention to what is done.

I'm not a big Trump fan but its been 3 weeks since he was sworn into office. Can we wait for it to be at least a month before we do the post mortem on the Trump presidency.

You voted for Arnold because of his business expertise?

Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!
Woooolf! Dang it, why isn't anyone listening?

You voted for Arnold because of his business expertise?

Ben at February 10, 2017 7:42 AM

I was wondering about that myself.

Trump asks simple questions. The horror! He hasn't learned yet about the political way. Never admit you don't know something. Always ask complicated questions which signal that your mind is deep and all-knowing.

How I long for Obama. He knew everything without having to ask, and he knew what was better for us all in great detail. Hillary knew even more, and would not have asked any stupid questions.

Or possibly Trump is like Congressman Trey Gowdy, who finds that bureaucrats can't even answer simple questions. Gowdy sticks to simple questions because they are good enough to expose the rot in government work, and they expose gobbledygook answers. Look at YouTube for Gowdy in action.

It is a pleasant thought that the King knows everything. I prefer Trump's approach of hiring good people and supervising them.

Trump's weakness at this time is that he wants to actually do something, now. This is faster than the bureacracy is used to, and horrifying to the progressives who hate his policies.

Trump's policy proposals are mostly correct, and some are wrong. Wanting to restrict trade to "save jobs" is outright wrong and uneconomic. I take some comfort knowing that Trump can be easily impeached if he is really bad, unlike Saints Obama and H.Clinton. We should only elect impeachable presidents.

Arnold came to this country with $20 bucks, and became a millionaire by 22. IIRC he was successful multipe times at multiple things BEFORE he became an actor.

Guy has an incredible story.

My favorite Bill Burr rant on the guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIwEG9xQ-M&feature=youtu.be

"Getting things done in government often takes building coalitions "

Works pretty much the same in business. Very few people can come into a company and make changes without having pre-existing working relationships with others, including vendors. It always amazes me how people think they can boss around a vendor, you're on my eat shit and die list I make you pay for it $$$$$ and make things painfully slow and tedious for you. Works the same in government. People spend lifetimes building reputations and relationships. These guys went to Yale and roomied together even if they are on opposing parties.

So I mentioned the Daily Mail in my post above, and what timing... lo and behold, today we have this.

The real similarity between Trump and Schwarzenegger (and Jesse Ventura, while we're at it) is that the public elected all three, knowing perfectly well that they had no experience in politics -- merely because all three were already celebrities and had significant fan followings.

That's stupidity, all right, but on the part of the public, not the celebrity/politicians.

Thank Ghod Mel Gibson has never felt like running for office. You dopes would elect him too, and deserve the result.

"Thank Ghod Mel Gibson has never felt like running for office. You dopes would elect him too, and deserve the result."

Who we really need for President is someone with a vagina stuffed full of Wall Street cash, globalist cash, Russian cash, and corporate cash who thinks the signer of NAFTA (destroyer of 15 million American manufacturing jobs) would be an excellent choice as her financial advisor as she steers America down the toilet to becoming a cheap third-world labor pool for the wealthy elites.

HRH HRC, for example.

jdgalt, when the professional pols continue to be so corrupt ("I'm part Indian so I'm special.) that continuing their legacy is just awful why not.

What have we (the common man) got to lose. See Dems support for charter schools at home vs. their votes for not supporting charter schools at Washington. Really. Which personality do you believe?

As a take-off to Andrew Garland's comment aabove, I bet D J Trump is having a few WTF moments of his own.

"thinks the signer of NAFTA (destroyer of 15 million American manufacturing jobs)"

I'm beginning to think I'm the only pro NAFTA pro TPP person left. Both the right and the left seem rabidly against free trade.

Manufacturing is becoming rapidly automated. So is farming. So whenever someone tells me NAFTA killed American jobs I just think about this:

"Chinese factory replaces 90% of human workers with robots. Production rises by 250%, defects drop by 80%"

http://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/china-factory-robots-03022017/

I am also pro free trade, and am also typically pro free trade agreements. But I have a big problem with TPP:

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/beware-tpps-investor-state-dispute-settlement-provision/

First of all, Jonah Goldberg is a lefty hater. Please see his published works, especially Liberal Facism. Also, he is a Never Trumper, but his objections don't come from some nonsensical idea that "Hillary is better bc she is an adult." Finally, if you are going to quote him, make sure you also note that he has been supportive of many of Trump's choices lately. He has said repeatedly that he has been surprised by the high quality of Trump's picks and that even though this policy was bungled; Trump is in fact adhering to the law and to the inherent limitations that come from governing a democracy. Please his G-File from today.

I too was a Never Trumper right up to Election Day, but then I realized I live on planet Earth and elections have consequences. So far, the good out weighs the bad. Time will tell if that continues to be the case, but more than 3 weeks data will be needed before I decide whether I regret my choice.

Wrote Andrew:

I take some comfort knowing that Trump can be easily impeached if he is really bad, unlike Saints Obama and H.Clinton. We should only elect impeachable presidents.

Why do you think Obama and Clinton were unimpeachable?

Look at it this way: the worst case scenario with Trump is that he spends the next four years in a pissing contest with Congress, the judiciary and the bureaucracy, and doesn't get anything done. The worst case scenario with Clinton would have been that at some point she got a Democratic majority in Congress, the result of which I'll leave to your imagination.

Kevin: where have you been, Mars? You either haven't paid any attention whatsoever or the cult of personality has immunized you from critical thoughts of a personal hero.
Look back, as well. Andrew Garland continues to post the highest content/syllable of anyone here.

Thanks to his insane alcohol-induced rants, I doubt Mel Gibson would stand a chance if he ran for office. At various points throughout his career, he's made is hatred for just about everyone pretty plain.

In fact, if he had made statements like how Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world and how he hopes his girlfriend gets raped by a pack of niggers early on his career, I don't think we'd know who he is today.

PS - any chief in the Navy knows that simple questions are all you need to ask, as they cover all the issues that arise on the subject.
On a submarine, more complicated than anything you are likely to operate, the questions are even pre-programmed for watch turnover. The oncoming Engineering Watch Supervisor is told "Normal Full Power Lineup" in one line about the electric plant, and that covers at least two turbines, 4 motor-generator sets, a few converters, a dozen support system motors, a diesel and shore power provisions without saying one thing about the maintenance histories of each, their peculiarities and endless trivia, about which the junior enlisted are supposed to obsess.
When everyone knows this sort of question will be expressed periodically, they move to make the answer positive.
Don't tell me you want a micromanager. If you got one, Politico, you'd whine about that.

Kevin: where have you been, Mars? You either haven't paid any attention whatsoever or the cult of personality has immunized you from critical thoughts of a personal hero.

Good Lord. Who is my personal hero? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? No.

It's a basic question: What makes either of them unimpeachable?

Among congressmen and senators, the Democrats hate Trump, and a majority of Republicans dislike him. Trump had to oppose much of the Republican establishment to be nominated and elected. If Trump went wild, enough Republican senators would vote him out, supported by all Democrats.

My impression is that Democrats are extremely loyal to party, while Republicans will sometimes vote on principle, or possibly spite against Trump.

Hillary had Democratic support despite a miserable record in office and the obvious corruption of collecting $250K speaking fees from foreign interests. Again, extreme Democratic loyalty would prevent her impeachment.

Obama could do not wrong in Democratic eyes, and so was not impeachabable.

"Kevin," he said, as though speaking to a stranger, "Obama is black, and any criticism of him can only be due to racism. Hillary Clinton is a woman, and any criticism of her can only be because of sexism. This position has been demonstrated repeatedly over more than ten years, and since impeachment would seem to be somewhat critical of its target, impeachment could only be imagined by racists and sexists for the two people mentioned."

You might recall (probably not) a period in which an obvious philanderer abused women serially, through his governorship and Presidency. Eventually, he was impeached for having lied to a grand jury - something that would put you, a mere citizen, in jail - and having been convicted of this is a felon. Stayed President.

Some animals are more equal than others.

Though he did remain President, the philanderer in question was impeached.

Rad, you are trying to talk honestly and sensibly to Kevin. Have you paid attention to him before? You are wasting your time. He'll just come back with a 'bbbbut maybe maybe sly snide inference'. He fully understood that neither Obama or Hillary was going to be impeached no matter what they did. He just doesn't like people saying it.

"I'm beginning to think I'm the only pro NAFTA pro TPP person left. Both the right and the left seem rabidly against free trade."

What makes you think NAFTA is about "free trade"?

Did you notice that it provides that any tax revenue lost as a result of passing it must be made up elsewhere?

Do you approve of "free trade" playing a role in moving GM plants to Mexico, and Ford to Canada?

-----

Thanks, Ben. I don't remember him.

Rad, you are trying to talk honestly and sensibly to Kevin. Have you paid attention to him before? You are wasting your time. He'll just come back with a 'bbbbut maybe maybe sly snide inference'. He fully understood that neither Obama or Hillary was going to be impeached no matter what they did. He just doesn't like people saying it.

Not in the least. I think HIllary Clinton would have been eminently impeachable had she won the presidency, particularly with a GOP majority in both houses of Congress. I would argue that her ethics seem to be far dirtier than those of her husband, and he was impeached.

Radwaste wrote:

"Kevin," he said, as though speaking to a stranger, "Obama is black, and any criticism of him can only be due to racism. Hillary Clinton is a woman, and any criticism of her can only be because of sexism.

I know the point you're making, but I don't agree. It didn't shield Hillary Clinton from the Benghazi hearings, for instance.

"I know the point you're making, but I don't agree. It didn't shield Hillary Clinton from the Benghazi hearings, for instance."

Please, please pay attention. Ben is right about you. I wasn't sure because I'm not familiar with you like Rad. Benghazi would have (hopefully it hasn't) ended much differently if she was impeachable.

Benghazi would have (hopefully it hasn't) ended much differently if she was impeachable.

Impeachment is a process, not a determination. Are you saying that the Congressional panel investigating Benghazi came to its conclusion based on the fact she was a woman, and that a man — given the same evidence — would have been incriminated? I find that hard to believe.

If it was someone other than Hillary Clinton, yes there would have been a different result. Her being a woman is irrelevant. Same thing with the FBI investigation of her illegal server. Almost anyone other than Hillary would be in jail. This is blatantly obvious.