Good description about Trumps goals and tactics

[Lemon Thrower]

The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second presidency have sparked a wave of commentary portraying him as a revolutionary. Indeed, the speed, pressure, and determination with which he has acted are striking. But this view is superficial. Trump is not dismantling the foundations of the American state or society. On the contrary, he seeks to restore the pre-globalist republic that the liberal elite long ago diverted onto a utopian internationalist path. In this sense, Trump is not a revolutionary, but a counterrevolutionary – an ideological revisionist determined to reverse the excesses of the liberal era.

At home, Trump benefits from Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. Legal challenges to his policies – particularly on downsizing government and deporting illegal immigrants – have so far made little progress. Accustomed to media attacks, Trump continues to hit back hard. The recent story alleging that top officials debated strikes on Yemen over Signal has not gained political traction. If anything, it reinforces Trump’s image as a president who acts decisively and without fear of scandal.

Trump’s economic course is clear: re-industrialization, tariff protectionism, and investment in cutting-edge technologies. He is reversing decades of globalist integration, pressing allies to pool financial and technological resources with the US to rebuild its industrial base. Tactically, Trump applies pressure early, then offers retreats and compromises to lure competitors into negotiations favorable to America. This approach has been effective, particularly with Washington’s allies. Even with China, Trump is betting that Beijing’s reliance on the US market, and America’s influence over EU and Japanese trade policy, will yield strategic concessions.

In geopolitics, Trump embraces a realist doctrine grounded in great-power competition. He has defined his global priorities: secure North America as a geopolitical fortress from Greenland to Panama; redirect US and allied power toward containing China; make peace with Russia; and consolidate influence in the Middle East by supporting Israel, partnering with Gulf monarchies, and confronting Iran.

In the military sphere, Trump is pursuing greater American strength by purging the armed forces of “gender liberalism” and accelerating strategic nuclear modernization. Despite his public peace overtures, he has continued airstrikes against the Houthis in Yemen and has warned of devastating retaliation against Iran should negotiations fail.

His approach to Ukraine reflects strategic pragmatism. Trump aims to end the war quickly, not out of sympathy for Russia, but to free US resources for the Pacific theater and to reduce the risk of escalation into a nuclear conflict. He expects Western Europe to assume more responsibility for its own defense.

Importantly, Trump does not see Russia as a primary adversary. He views Moscow as a geopolitical rival, but not a military or ideological threat. Rather than pushing to sever Russia from China, he aims to re-engage Russia economically – in areas like energy, the Arctic, and rare earths – with the expectation that greater Western economic engagement will reduce Moscow’s dependence on Beijing.

In fact, outreach to the Kremlin has become the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy in his second term. His goal is not to divide Moscow and Beijing outright, but to lay the groundwork for a new global balance of power in which Russia has options beyond the Chinese orbit.

In sum, Trump is not tearing down the American system but striving to restore it. His counterrevolution is aimed at reversing liberal-globalist distortions, reinforcing sovereignty, and returning realism to international affairs. It is this mission – not chaos or confrontation – that is defining his presidency.

https://www.rt.com/news/616578-trumps-f ... alculated/

[galenrog]

I would expect a pro Russia opinion from RT (Russia Today). What else you got?

[68Camaro]

I don't trust RT, but the opinion is more reasonable and accurate in my view than I expected.

[Doctor Steuss]

Legal challenges to his policies – particularly on downsizing government and deporting illegal immigrants – have so far made little progress.

I wonder what metric the English language propaganda arm of the Kremlin is using to measure "little progress?" It's obviously not rulings against Trump stating what he's doing is unlawful, as there have been rulings against him by Judges appointed by every President going back to Reagan, including a ruling against Trump yesterday by another one of the judges he himself appointed (unless I missed one, that makes two Trump judges). There was even a unanimous SCOTUS ruling, which included the two most conservative justices in the history of the court, who have a history of accepting undocumented gifts from MAGA-adjacent benefactors.

If by "little progress" they mean Trump is ignoring rulings, or delaying by trying to climb the appellate ladder, they might have a point. Although, I should probably not say that it's Trump ignoring the rulings. His TIME interview demonstrated that he largely has no clue what is going on, and the people around him have been lying to him about what the court rulings say.

They did seem to get one thing unequivocally right:

[O]utreach to the Kremlin has become the centerpiece of Trump’s foreign policy in his second term.

[68Camaro]

What's good for the goose is good for ...

Regardless of ones view of Trump or his policies, or that he has had selected negative rulings by judges appointed by Republicans, the "judgefare" against Trump administration policies has been purposefully selective and targeted to have cases predominantly put before liberal or even far-left judges with a history of passing judgments that would agree with the left. One could not possibly expect those initial views to be flattering to his administration, nor even the appeals (since those circuit courts are themselves predominantly liberal). Almost all of this will eventually be played out in slow motion (because Roberts is a creature of anti-change) in front of SCOTUS. To allow specially selected district judges to make a sequence of national rulings against an elected executive immediately after the election in which he expressly campaigned on those very issues is putting an unelected lower level judiciary in charge of our country. That's even more insane than any logical but negative view of Trump that I've heard about. It's fine to disagree with either his policies or his methods, but for the disagreement to have impact it needs to be based out of something other than Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[Doctor Steuss]

What's good for the goose is good for ...

Regardless of ones view of Trump or his policies, or that he has had selected negative rulings by judges appointed by Republicans, the "judgefare" against Trump administration policies has been purposefully selective and targeted to have cases predominantly put before liberal or even far-left judges with a history of passing judgments that would agree with the left.
[...]

Oh, definitely. I don’t fault Trump's DOJ specifically judge-shopping for far-right judges, like they did with the last ruling against Trump, as leftist AGs and are most certainly doing it too.

I’m not a lawyer, but I personally don’t see a lot of these making it to SCOTUS. The conservative Reagan appointee (that has been short-listed for a SCOTUS position before) has already slapped down a few appeals (the last one was particularly chastising of the DOJ for delaying instead of following the law). The last ruling that Trump’s team judge-shopped for (in the Southern District of Texas) was so thorough, and eviscerating, I can’t imagine a higher court giving it a second look. With over 33 pages of the 36 page judgement tearing apart every justification that the DOJ had tried, before ruling that once again Trump was breaking the law, I'm not sure there's any meat left on the bone for a higher court (or even for the DOJ to craft an appeal if they wanted to).

If I were part of Trump's team, I'd probably reposition away from 50 USC Ch. 3, and pivot to the Patriot Act and one of the 100+ amended USC sections. I think there's a lot more wiggle room there for bypassing the judiciary. Even with the 20-ish sections that have sunsetted, there's still plenty there I think. Especially given the court rulings that they can draw upon for justification of their actions. Of course, the conservative in me loathes the idea of any of the Patriot Act being invoked for any reason.

Ultimately, I think a lot of this is just the Trump/Bannon strategy of flooding the zone. If enough executive orders are being challenged, and the media and leftists have a billion things to be outraged over, it becomes easier to slip through the real planned agenda.

It's fine to disagree with either his policies or his methods, but for the disagreement to have impact it needs to be based out of something other than Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Agreed.

Fortunately, centuries of jurisprudence, and well-established historical interpretation of our Constitution are thus far weathering the storm of the Executive overreach. Unfortunately, we're on a crash course of overcorrection where the Judicial branch becomes increasingly overpowered. It started becoming a trend during GW Bush, with Obama super-charging it, and I fear it’s steadily marched on with the judiciary almost becoming a replacement for the legislative. Why go through the long and often-complicated process of crafting meaningful legislation, built upon bipartisan compromise and public feedback, when you can just appoint a judge to push a given ideology wholesale?

Naturally, most of this could be solved if our legislature weren’t a corrupt duopoly where one side is a herd of corporatists that is regularly distracted by culture war virtue signaling, and the other side has sold off any semblance of ethics in order to swear complete fealty to a professional bullshitter who steals from charities and walks in on children getting dressed.

[Lemon Thrower]

I would expect a pro Russia opinion from RT (Russia Today). What else you got?

I'm sorry I overestimated some of you.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

(Keep watching CNN and stacking FRNs lol. I'll be in the Bitcoin thread.)