27-04-2018, 04:18 PM
The above statement is that "if Trump has National Security State people in his administration, then that proves he is part of the National Security State".
This reasoning, to me, is very discouraging and depressing. It reveals just how resistant the public is to recognizing what goes on in their government.
I don't know how anyone can watch the news about the Robert Mueller investigation (and Comey) and not get the picture of what is going on?
I know so many people these days who don't have any motivation to seek after the truth for truth's sake. I can only attribute this to in influence of so many third-world people coming to our country in positions of influence (especially in Silicon Valley).
America has always operated on the concepts laid down in the Enlightenment of the 18th Century. This involved learning from people like Thomas Jefferson who themselves had gone to great lengths to learn everything they could possible learn from reading and education.
We forget that third-world countries never went through the Enlightenment. So people in these countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Vietnam, etc. don't see any value in the truth for the sake of truth. Sadly, for these people, if it serves your interest best to lie, then you lie. Even the Ten Commandments only prohibits "bearing false witness." It does not prohibit lying as such. And, although I believe in the Ten Commandments as far as they go, they were at their inception, a Third World document.
If you say that if Trump has National Security State people in his administration, that this proves he is part of the National Security State, then you are either deliberately turning the facts on their head, or maybe one does not even have the simplest understanding of the National Security State.
The National Security State is a group of positions and entities that was set up in 1946 and 1947 with the express goal of limiting or even destroying the legal power of the President. These entities and their members ARE INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT by definition.
Trump having members of the National Security State in his government is like a person living in a house that has a huge infestation of termites. Termites, by definition, live in the inner-walls and the interstices of houses. Sometimes they are even seen in the open.
The above comment about Trump is like saying if you have termites in your house, that proves you love termites. Or that you are a termite collector.
In appointing people, Trump has to pick from among the available candidates. Generally, most people beat down the door of the White House to get a job inside. Bolton, Pompeo, General Mattis, etc. were chosen from among the available people. Trump has no way of knowing what the feelings are of his nominees regarding the National Security State. That's not something you have tatoo-ed on your forehead. Trump may, in some cases, be picking people from a list of people ALL OF WHOM HATE HIM! They may be the only experienced or qualified people for certain positions. So then, what does Trump do?
Regarding the entire battleground of Trump vs the National Security State, Trump is fighting against pro-National Security State people who, by definition, are already inside his administration. It seems that Trump, in some (if not most) cases has to choose from among an array of people WHO ALL ARE PRO-NATIONAL SECURITY STATE. People like Exxon Chairman Rex Tillerson, who are not pro-National Security State or who are neutral on the issue, give up and go home. Ditto with Dr. Ben Carson who will probably give up soon.
The war is between "pro" and "anti" National Security State people INSIDE HIS ADMINISTRATION. Just because they are there doesn't mean that Trump had any real choice about them being there.
Some people follow a child-like or simplistic analysis which believes if Trump nominates a person for a position, then that person is really entirely Trump's choice (whom he picks from a multitude of possible candidates). Further, they posit that Trump has a complete and thorough understanding of the people whom he hires and their innermost thoughts and beliefs.
It is like the idea of a labor union. Probably almost nobody who owns a business would go out and seek labor union activists to populate their workforce. But they wind up with union activists in their workforce. That is not their choice. Rather, its a situation that can't be helped.
If Trump winds up with Bolton and Pompeo as his National Security team, that doesn't mean he's part of the National Security State. To miss that point is to misunderstand virtually every major "news item" that has been in the press for the last year and one-half.
Or is it just one of those arguments like "somebody would have talked" which is used (some believe) to disprove the existence of a JFK conspiracy. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just a sentence made up of a few words that can give the vague impression of being an argument. But really, it just fills the space which is vacant because some people are too careless or insincere to deal with the reality of complex and serious issues.
It is with complex and serious issues which the (better part of our) citizenry are currently trying to grapple. Let's not have anybody just be serving as a bad example.
James Lateer
This reasoning, to me, is very discouraging and depressing. It reveals just how resistant the public is to recognizing what goes on in their government.
I don't know how anyone can watch the news about the Robert Mueller investigation (and Comey) and not get the picture of what is going on?
I know so many people these days who don't have any motivation to seek after the truth for truth's sake. I can only attribute this to in influence of so many third-world people coming to our country in positions of influence (especially in Silicon Valley).
America has always operated on the concepts laid down in the Enlightenment of the 18th Century. This involved learning from people like Thomas Jefferson who themselves had gone to great lengths to learn everything they could possible learn from reading and education.
We forget that third-world countries never went through the Enlightenment. So people in these countries such as Egypt, Yemen, Vietnam, etc. don't see any value in the truth for the sake of truth. Sadly, for these people, if it serves your interest best to lie, then you lie. Even the Ten Commandments only prohibits "bearing false witness." It does not prohibit lying as such. And, although I believe in the Ten Commandments as far as they go, they were at their inception, a Third World document.
If you say that if Trump has National Security State people in his administration, that this proves he is part of the National Security State, then you are either deliberately turning the facts on their head, or maybe one does not even have the simplest understanding of the National Security State.
The National Security State is a group of positions and entities that was set up in 1946 and 1947 with the express goal of limiting or even destroying the legal power of the President. These entities and their members ARE INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT by definition.
Trump having members of the National Security State in his government is like a person living in a house that has a huge infestation of termites. Termites, by definition, live in the inner-walls and the interstices of houses. Sometimes they are even seen in the open.
The above comment about Trump is like saying if you have termites in your house, that proves you love termites. Or that you are a termite collector.
In appointing people, Trump has to pick from among the available candidates. Generally, most people beat down the door of the White House to get a job inside. Bolton, Pompeo, General Mattis, etc. were chosen from among the available people. Trump has no way of knowing what the feelings are of his nominees regarding the National Security State. That's not something you have tatoo-ed on your forehead. Trump may, in some cases, be picking people from a list of people ALL OF WHOM HATE HIM! They may be the only experienced or qualified people for certain positions. So then, what does Trump do?
Regarding the entire battleground of Trump vs the National Security State, Trump is fighting against pro-National Security State people who, by definition, are already inside his administration. It seems that Trump, in some (if not most) cases has to choose from among an array of people WHO ALL ARE PRO-NATIONAL SECURITY STATE. People like Exxon Chairman Rex Tillerson, who are not pro-National Security State or who are neutral on the issue, give up and go home. Ditto with Dr. Ben Carson who will probably give up soon.
The war is between "pro" and "anti" National Security State people INSIDE HIS ADMINISTRATION. Just because they are there doesn't mean that Trump had any real choice about them being there.
Some people follow a child-like or simplistic analysis which believes if Trump nominates a person for a position, then that person is really entirely Trump's choice (whom he picks from a multitude of possible candidates). Further, they posit that Trump has a complete and thorough understanding of the people whom he hires and their innermost thoughts and beliefs.
It is like the idea of a labor union. Probably almost nobody who owns a business would go out and seek labor union activists to populate their workforce. But they wind up with union activists in their workforce. That is not their choice. Rather, its a situation that can't be helped.
If Trump winds up with Bolton and Pompeo as his National Security team, that doesn't mean he's part of the National Security State. To miss that point is to misunderstand virtually every major "news item" that has been in the press for the last year and one-half.
Or is it just one of those arguments like "somebody would have talked" which is used (some believe) to disprove the existence of a JFK conspiracy. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just a sentence made up of a few words that can give the vague impression of being an argument. But really, it just fills the space which is vacant because some people are too careless or insincere to deal with the reality of complex and serious issues.
It is with complex and serious issues which the (better part of our) citizenry are currently trying to grapple. Let's not have anybody just be serving as a bad example.
James Lateer