As usual, I do not find the things in the news interesting, rather the so-obvious stuff not in the news.
It annoys me a great deal to see supposedly serious journalists not doing their job. This says that the only reality to the Trump campaign is Donald Trump giving speeches as though he is running. The ‘reporter’ reports no information beyond the name of Trump’s campaign manager and the presence and name of a young female aide, but lots of atmosphere.
But of reality. Nada. There is zero reality to the supposed Presidential campaign of Donald Trump and even less to the possibility of a Presidential campaign by Joe Biden. But the stories continue as if there was some reality, with no comments from insiders who must understand this and base their own candidate’s actions on it. This is interesting, and a view of reality, but entirely a political science analysis of public opinions and mindsets, no discussion of a presidential campaign or logistics thereof.
I cannot find anything convincing, e.g. http://www.donaldjtrump.com. I have friends who can do a better web site in their spare time on a weekend, and put more reality on people who don’t exist and never have. Three press releases a month is a low-budget operation. Who ever heard of is the campaign manager? Corey Lewandowski once ran a Senate campaign and voter registration drive. Trump has a single publicity person with him, I assume she handles the scheduling? Very light on staff, for a serious candidate.
These are extremely obvious questions, the kinds of things you would expect to make up the news, stories containing descriptions of real events and explanations of the thinking that drove them. Instead, fluff everywhere that annoints the facade with reality. I have seen only one article that has told me something I believe Trump would rather not have me know. Stone and Trump are an interesting pair, I had not realized they have been long associates.
Search for “Donald Trump Roger Stone” at google, this for example. Donald Trump is no lightweight in the image control business.
I just went to news.google.com and did a search for “Donald Trump”. 20M hits. The first 2 pages are not the headlines I associate with a serious Presidential candidate, even early in the race. They are the headlines of a person who is using the race for some other reason.
The fact that the political and MSM insiders are not already telling us that means something. The game is not at all what we are told it is, at minimum.
I wrote a lot to understand that point, it is below.** Probably not worth reading, except we can’t let those two near power. Also, my understanding of Biden’s “thinking about the Presidential race” is better than anything I have read. That is near the bottom.
Arguing against my own thesis here, as good authors should always do. QA testing of a simple sort.
Many functions of US presidential campaigns, in fact American high-tech management of many kinds of campaigns to influence the public, have been developed and tested and have many practitioners in private groups. If you recruited the right core team with the correct set of contacts, you probably could put together a national campaign ‘quickly’. If you just threw $ at the problem, this nation has very many groups that could be very interested in your campaign. Whether you could possibly put together a campaign that allowed Donald Trump to win and also leave the US government in a good position, ??, but that isn’t his problem?? Not the sign of a deep strategy,.
Trump has a big advantage, he hasn’t got opinions so firm as to require actual policies. He has none of the usual sets of advisors coming together, economics and foreign policy and … Is it at all plausible that a person can run a presidential campaign without those? They are expensive, but the man is very wealthy and wants us to believe he is real, right?
If it is a real campaign, you must conclude that Trump has so little idea of what it means to run a political campaign for President or run a government that he doesn’t even know it.
**There are half a dozen continuing stories that don’t develop as expected, and they say ‘this is unexpected, wonder what it means’, and then go on to the next story. There are patterns in stories that professionals must recognize, but nobody tells us outsiders.
Trump has been developing as a ‘unexpectedly popular, such an outsider, semi-barbarian speaks his simple mind, can he become president’ for months, through 2 debates. One policy, so far, and vague promises, everything very popular : reduce the complexity and rates of the income tax. Every president promises that, I believe. This last week I saw a couple or 3 endorsements of people of recognizable names, but not suggestive of mass conversions of opinion makers. The kind of people who could be easily bought, in fact. They generated one headline each.
Any interpretation of Trump requires understanding Stone. Well, from the Wikipedia article, you can’t understand Stone. Very well done. Evidence of Stone’s running campaigns for people who will take votes from the candidate Stone’s paymasters really support as Pando claims. He lists as accomplishments, or allows the Wikipedia article to list, some rather small accomplishments, so does not always play in the big leagues or doesn’t want you to think so. OTOH, outsiders can’t evaluate who is who, necessarily. He is an insider who does books on political figures, so is a blackmailer paid off more or less overtly in favors and jobs of various amounts of work. Be nice to Roger Stone, and his books will be nice to you. Stone runs a PR-lobby agency, remember?
But the over-riding thread is a guy who likes excitement and is willing to take big risks, loses often enough to keep him in people’s minds as a bit dangerous to be around, and yet he goes on in his political consulting career. An innovative image for a man in his profession, if intentional, it certainly would select his clients for desperation. I am very reluctant to conclude anything except ‘risk taker who plays darkside games and knows a lot of people and gossip’. Not the kind of person I would choose for a Presidential adviser.
Stone and Trump are likely kindred souls, actions driven by their latest clever ideas. Given the record of risk taking and losing that Stone cannot keep out of a Wikipedia article, and the fact that Trump’s progress through life also has not been one of a cautious and thoughtful person ever-alert for hints of catastrophe on the far horizon, these guys should not be allowed near political power.
Trump and Stone are startup guys, both have done many different things, gone after what seemed good opportunities at the time, enthusiastically. I know more than a few people like that. Stone sees opportunities in PR and politics, especially on the low-down-dirty side of things. Trump sees opportunities where his personality intersects show biz and finance and Vegas.
My hypothesis : All of these guys live on information, they talk to everyone, they know everyone. Both are very connected at all levels, of course they know the stuff that insiders know, and both have left enough bodies around that others have solid gossip on them, that makes them insiders.
That doesn’t make anyone invulnerable, in fact Manuel Noriega is useful to keep in mind here, a guy who had too much info, pictures of partiers from around the world. Full color videos of a sitting presidents’ son, I read. You just can’t allow yourself to get too unpopular with sitting presidents.
Stone has played the presidential politics game all his life. Trump is playing a role he is perfect for.
Now what do we think of Trump and Stone working together?
Have you noticed how much hard information there is on all this? Not much, huh? Does that mean there is not much reality underneath these bits of news?
The one thing we can be sure in this : We, the public, are being played.
In fact, that is my new base assumption, everything is something else and the question is merely what? For example :
— Mike Masnick (@mmasnick) September 30, 2015
“[Biden] is not preparing for the first Democratic debate on October 13 in Las Vegas and is not expected to participate, people close to him say, because he feels no pressure to reach a decision by then. He is likely to reveal his plans in the second half of October” [CNN]. “For more than two months, Biden has been studying the mechanics of what it would take to launch a candidacy. He and his team have been inundated by mounds of research and battle plans, but his original end-of-summer deadline passed without him reaching a conclusion.” Biden’s got to study this?
Seriously, who can believe either story? Is there or is there not serious campaign activity going on now, or not? Is it true that a campaign can pick up and run a Presidential race immediately upon nomination? Can a person be nominated and win at a convention without a prior campaign of some magnitude? Given the logistical issues, what reality is there in Biden or Trump acting this way? There is no evidence of any serious spending, Bernie Sanders is running a real campaign, but not Donald Trump, unless Donald Trump has a PR genius behind him, because you don’t put Presidential campaigns together in a month, and it takes organizations to herd delegates. Delegates for Trump are not being herded, so far as I have read. PR genius and super-organizer of large technical and political teams are not a capabilities I see in Stone.
I can easily think of realities within which Biden’s actions make perfect sense : the power of the Ukrainian branch of the family is much enhanced when his father is a potential President rather than a lame-duck vice president of an administration in low public and international esteem whose laughed with vs laughed at ratio is low. Every bit of loot will help, oligarchs will need hiding places soon, fathers should transfer as much power to their sons as they can.
Why did I have to think of easily checked measures of reality, like “Who is your campaign manager for the state of New Hampshire?”? What do we pay journalists for?
As for Stone and Trump, the sky is literally the limit. Has Trump secretly accumulated pledges of support for presidential contests that he and friends intend to turn into $$$ in a new administration? Those 2 are bold bastards, exactly the people to take advantage of a deep state pushing for more power, with elements of which both have contacts. But they are still playing image, so far as hints of reality that leak into MSM. Pando is not, btw, MSM.
But from MSM, and the political blogosphere, we get no facts, no analysis, we have no clue about the reality, if any. The last candidate whose past was covered up, so obviously covered up, was Barak Obama. There were pretty good links, I thought, associations between Obama and CIA-deep state.
Are journalists not doing their jobs again? This is all facade, and it goes on being facade, by the month, the facade never acquiring any underlying anything. And all we get are vague hints that things don’t quite seem normal.