Trump Thread

[Hooahguy]

So Supreme Court Justice Kennedy has retired. President Trump now can appoint a new solidly right wing justice, effectively turning the SCOTUS conservative for decades to come. This is a dark time for anyone left of center. And should the Senate not turn blue this November and one of the other left leaning judges either retires or dies before 2020, that would effectively mean the end of progressive SCOTUS decisions for at least a generation.

I'm sure all those progressives who refused to vote for Clinton in the battleground states are proud of themselves right now.

[Gilrandir]

Badmouthing Harley for problems he caused, or badmouthing Germans and BMW in South Carolina seem like poor rhetorical choices.

I wouldn't call it badmouthing. They really did poorly. In the World Cup.

[Husar]

I now believe that we are more polarized than at any point in our history prior to 1840 and after the Civil War.

But are you really? Or is it just the "elites"?
To me it seems sometimes, that the deplorables are not quite as polarizing as it may seem. What they want is a radical change away from a political and financial system that preaches success is all and lets you rot under a bridge once you lose your job and it has sucked you dry (e.g. by making you addicted to drugs that you spend all your money on). They do not even vote along party lines but went for Trump when the more mainstream Democrats were too deluded by identity politics to see that Bernie was their better candidate.

Of course there are some in the Trump camp who are, as I said earlier, still convinced that more capitalism will somehow improve their lives again, because they're too deluded to realize that they're literally useless for capitalists at this point. But overall I feel like the polarizing thing these days is mainly that the better-offs want the capitalist system to persist and make some cosmetic changes to the degree to which people are required to smile when they see a gay couple or a black person without actually improving anyone's financial situation considerably. Whereas the poorer strata are starting to realize more and more that these identity politics are just a distraction from the ongoing impoverization of more and more lower strata and the ongoing financial polarization of society while having money is more and more required to yield actual political power. In other words, they realized the growth of the oligarchic structures.

In other words, I should have put my prediction in the predictions thread about capitalism and where it's going leading to some kind of poor peoples' revolution at some point if noone stops it. The only problem is that in this case the only candidate the poor people had to go for was an idiotic billionaire con-man. But then again with a school system where only expensive private schools can provide good education and noone is really lifted up, how could you expect the poor and lesser educated to make an educated choice? Good thing that the new secretary of education wants to privatize the system even more for her own gain while probably making it even worse for the poor.

Accelerationism indeed. If this continues, the capitalist speedster may hit the wall even sooner than I would have expected. It may just take a while for the die hards to realize how this administration is duping them due to their low level of education and lack of self reflection in a country where self-advertizing and shallow, outward appearance are everything.

Am I too harsh? Too wrong? I think there is no new polarization, it's just the same old class warfare that Marx described, except that it has been waged by the rich on the poor for a while and the poor took a long time to realize it and fight back (see low education levels). The media in the US (espeically Fox I guess) is always quick to cry "Class warfare!" when the poor want something, but when there's a policy that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, it's described as necessary for the economy...

[rory_20_uk]

I agree that this is nothing new - you could be referring to the USA in c. 1910 before the Trusts were broken up, there were no food standards, housing standards nor meaningful unions.

For the lower orders things improved considerably over the next c. 50 years due to both technology and the mass wealth transfers as the rest of the world was destroyed in two world wars and so the structural problems were not focused on. Now the rich are getting richer and not enough is getting to the masses so there is dissent as the browns / yellows / blacks are doing all the jobs the blue collar workers relied on for their middle class house with the picket fence. Free trade was fine as long as the world followed the Colonial model of wealth flowing into the USA but now that has also reversed.

And the answer, as is so often the case, is an ill-defined external threat coming in. Be that immigrants or the "easily won" trade war on other foreigners. Rather reminiscent of 1984.

[Pannonian]

I wouldn't call it badmouthing. They really did poorly. In the World Cup.

All You Need is Loew.

[Gilrandir]

All You Need is Loew.

It was a bad idea (for Germans) to let Russia host a World Cup. Germans never did well in Russia.

[drone]

They already blame the companies, not Trump. Evidence of a cult of personality; We are far removed from economics driven politics here.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/26/62364...ction-overseas

Watch footage of his South Carolina rally. When he lays into BMW, you can see about half the people behind him going, "Wait, what?".

[Montmorency]

But are you really? Or is it just the "elites"?
To me it seems sometimes, that the deplorables are not quite as polarizing as it may seem. What they want is a radical change away from a political and financial system that preaches success is all and lets you rot under a bridge once you lose your job and it has sucked you dry (e.g. by making you addicted to drugs that you spend all your money on). They do not even vote along party lines but went for Trump when the more mainstream Democrats were too deluded by identity politics to see that Bernie was their better candidate.

Of course there are some in the Trump camp who are, as I said earlier, still convinced that more capitalism will somehow improve their lives again, because they're too deluded to realize that they're literally useless for capitalists at this point. But overall I feel like the polarizing thing these days is mainly that the better-offs want the capitalist system to persist and make some cosmetic changes to the degree to which people are required to smile when they see a gay couple or a black person without actually improving anyone's financial situation considerably. Whereas the poorer strata are starting to realize more and more that these identity politics are just a distraction from the ongoing impoverization of more and more lower strata and the ongoing financial polarization of society while having money is more and more required to yield actual political power. In other words, they realized the growth of the oligarchic structures.

In other words, I should have put my prediction in the predictions thread about capitalism and where it's going leading to some kind of poor peoples' revolution at some point if noone stops it. The only problem is that in this case the only candidate the poor people had to go for was an idiotic billionaire con-man. But then again with a school system where only expensive private schools can provide good education and noone is really lifted up, how could you expect the poor and lesser educated to make an educated choice? Good thing that the new secretary of education wants to privatize the system even more for her own gain while probably making it even worse for the poor. .

Accelerationism indeed. If this continues, the capitalist speedster may hit the wall even sooner than I would have expected. It may just take a while for the die hards to realize how this administration is duping them due to their low level of education and lack of self reflection in a country where self-advertizing and shallow, outward appearance are everything.

Am I too harsh? Too wrong? I think there is no new polarization, it's just the same old class warfare that Marx described, except that it has been waged by the rich on the poor for a while and the poor took a long time to realize it and fight back (see low education levels). The media in the US (espeically Fox I guess) is always quick to cry "Class warfare!" when the poor want something, but when there's a policy that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor, it's described as necessary for the economy...

Bernie Sanders adheres to the same concept of "identity politics" as the mainstream Democrats, if you consider that to mean emphasizing subaltern perspectives and policy implications for their groups. Indeed, once blacks and Hispanics had time to learn about Sanders, he became more popular among them than with white people. The argument is that he means it in a practical way, while other Democrats tend to be opportunists

The overwhelming share of Trump's vote was cast by party-line Republicans and pseudo-independents. Has anyone shown more than a handful of Democratic > Trump voters (not Bush > Obama > Trump voters), or at a higher rate than in previous elections?

Trump was and is well-liked by the middle and upper classes, stop imagining his voters as destitute hillbillies. If you want to make the case that a strong economic-reform platform can peel some of them away and neutralize the worst instincts of enough of the rest, that's reasonable, but don't resort to fairytales about who they are or how they view the world.

[Husar]

Bernie Sanders adheres to the same concept of "identity politics" as the mainstream Democrats, if you consider that to mean emphasizing subaltern perspectives and policy implications for their groups. Indeed, once blacks and Hispanics had time to learn about Sanders, he became more popular among them than with white people. The argument is that he means it in a practical way, while other Democrats tend to be opportunists

Well, I'm also pro identity politics in the wider sense, but I think these aims should be realized as part of a wieder focus on equality and same rights for everyone and not be the only front goals of a bunch of tiny, selfish movements that are only concerned about their own niche issues with politicians catering to all of them individually. That's what made some poor white people feel disenfranchized and maybe not even entirely unjustified.

The overwhelming share of Trump's vote was cast by party-line Republicans and pseudo-independents. Has anyone shown more than a handful of Democratic > Trump voters (not Bush > Obama > Trump voters), or at a higher rate than in previous elections?

Trump was and is well-liked by the middle and upper classes, stop imagining his voters as destitute hillbillies. If you want to make the case that a strong economic-reform platform can peel some of them away and neutralize the worst instincts of enough of the rest, that's reasonable, but don't resort to fairytales about who they are or how they view the world.

I think that goes largely without saying, but I thought US politics were all about that part of the people who may actually consider switching their votes. After the election everybody talked about how he got the votes of the disenfranchised workers in the rust belt or midwest, so they're the ones I'm focusing on since their needs would probably be better served by Sanders' politics than by Trump's.

Plus I would expect Sanders' ideas to give the African Americans more social mobility and so on. Utopia would be close indeed!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But are you really? Or is it just the "elites"?
To me it seems sometimes, that the deplorables are not quite as polarizing as it may seem. What they want is a radical change away from a political and financial system that preaches success is all and lets you rot under a bridge once you lose your job and it has sucked you dry (e.g. by making you addicted to drugs that you spend all your money on). They do not even vote along party lines but went for Trump when the more mainstream Democrats were too deluded by identity politics to see that Bernie was their better candidate...

I agree that Bernie was the better candidate, especially up against Trump. Had the Dems put him in the lead, it is possible that the narrow victory would have gone the other way.

I don't know that it is 'elites' that are polarized here so much as it is those who are politically aware and awake and involved. The USA has always had a large mass of folks who really don't care much about politics at all, pursuing individual economic and social goals while ignoring the politisphere.

[Montmorency]

I think that goes largely without saying, but I thought US politics were all about that part of the people who may actually consider switching their votes.

Well, in theory. But party-line voting is well-entrenched in our culture, and the real swing vote is among the non-voting population.

I don't know that it is 'elites' that are polarized here so much as it is those who are politically aware and awake and involved.

That's us. We're all tourists here.

The Org isn't an ivory tower, but - it's some kind of tower, right? What's the material?

I agree that Bernie was the better candidate, especially up against Trump. Had the Dems put him in the lead, it is possible that the narrow victory would have gone the other way.

I don't know that it is 'elites' that are polarized here so much as it is those who are politically aware and awake and involved. The USA has always had a large mass of folks who really don't care much about politics at all, pursuing individual economic and social goals while ignoring the politisphere.

One interpretation is that because Sanders is relatively straightforward and honest about his principle and proposals and history, he has an inherent advantage over pragmatically-shifting establishment politicians, the kind Trump can run circles around because he speaks a whole different language.

[rory_20_uk]

The poison in the UK and the USA is First Past The Vote systems. No compromise, no grey areas and always follow your Clan otherwise the Other Lot will win.

[Montmorency]

The Government Is Ordering Toddlers to Appear in Immigration Court Alone

Lindsay Toczylowski, the executive director of Immigrant Defenders Law Center in Los Angeles, said she and her team recently represented an unaccompanied 3-year-old in court, “and the child — in the middle of the hearing — started climbing up on the table.”

“I can’t describe to you the room I was in with the toddlers,” Colleen Kraft, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, told CNN after visiting one of the shelters. “Normally toddlers are rambunctious and running around. We had one child just screaming and crying, and the others were really silent. And this is not normal activity or brain development with these children.”

Meanwhile, the broader legal situation is in flux. A federal judge Tuesday night commanded the White House to reunify families within 14 days if the child is under 5 and 30 days if the child is older. The Justice Department has not indicated whether it will appeal. Attorneys who are involved in the cases said it’s unclear how the judge’s order will work in practice, and when and how it could take effect.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06...ourt-alone/amp

Yet children who are just arriving at care facilities are still not connected with their families, said Megan McKenna, a spokeswoman for Kids in Need of Defense. She said the children arrive at care facilities without a parent’s tracking number, and parents don’t tend to have their kids’ numbers.

After kids arrive in care facilities, HHS officials work on finding a “sponsor” to care for the child, such as a parent, guardian, family member or family friend. Historically, unaccompanied minors — who tended to be teens — found a sponsor in about a month and a half.

However, Rachel Prandini, a staff attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, said finding a sponsor is more difficult now given recent fears that stepping forward to accept a child could trigger a sponsor’s deportation.

In April, HHS entered into an agreement with law enforcement officials that requires sponsors and adult family members to submit fingerprints and be subject to a thorough immigration and criminal background check.

HHS officials said the process is meant to protect the child.

It’s impossible to know how many children have begun deportation proceedings, Tzamaras said. “There have been reports of kids younger than 3 years old and others as old as 17.”

[...]

She said in a statement that the court’s work is vital: “This is not traffic court. A mistake on an asylum case can result in jail, torture or a death sentence,” Tabaddor said. “We are a nation of laws. We value fairness, justice and transparency.”

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, in theory. But party-line voting is well-entrenched in our culture, and the real swing vote is among the non-voting population.



That's us. We're all tourists here.

The Org isn't an ivory tower, but - it's some kind of tower, right? What's the material?



One interpretation is that because Sanders is relatively straightforward and honest about his principle and proposals and history, he has an inherent advantage over pragmatically-shifting establishment politicians, the kind Trump can run circles around because he speaks a whole different language.

Good comment about the real swing vote being the mostly uninvolved.

And I agree with you about Sanders' honesty. He has had this outlook on politics and governance his entire adult life and pursued it as vigorously as the times/public allowed. I may disagree with his policy goals, but I do admire his honesty.

[Montmorency]

The Government Is Ordering Toddlers to Appear in Immigration Court Alone

One of these is not a genuine image of a mass trial.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Beskar]

Source: http://www.allgeneralizationsarefals...re-we-reading/

[Fragony]

What a nice graph, just like I remember it from math-class

[a completely inoffensive name]

So Supreme Court Justice Kennedy has retired. President Trump now can appoint a new solidly right wing justice, effectively turning the SCOTUS conservative for decades to come. This is a dark time for anyone left of center. And should the Senate not turn blue this November and one of the other left leaning judges either retires or dies before 2020, that would effectively mean the end of progressive SCOTUS decisions for at least a generation.

I'm sure all those progressives who refused to vote for Clinton in the battleground states are proud of themselves right now.

If anything, this will be the kick that liberals need. Too long the left has relied on buying progress through lawyers and the grace of Kennedy.

Get the hell out there and vote.

[HopAlongBunny]

If anything, this will be the kick that liberals need. Too long the left has relied on buying progress through lawyers and the grace of Kennedy.

Kennedy's record was pretty mixed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...?noredirect=on

With the Republicans picking the new justice, expect someone much more prepared to toe-the-line.
Roe v. Wade is certainly going to be a target; Trump promised that much in his campaign.
Gay marriage/rights will be on the firing line as well; it just falls within the realm of "things cranky old men get really pissed about"
The future is the Republican's to craft; you know, Hillary's e-mails are still missing...

[Montmorency]

https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-wa...76f4e0f83.html

Axios has obtained a leaked draft of a Trump administration bill — ordered by the president himself — that would declare America’s abandonment of fundamental World Trade Organization rules.

Why it matters: The draft legislation is stunning. The bill essentially provides Trump a license to raise U.S. tariffs at will, without congressional consent and international rules be damned.

The details: The bill, titled the "United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act," would give Trump unilateral power to ignore the two most basic principles of the WTO and negotiate one-on-one with any country:

1. The "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) principle that countries can't set different tariff rates for different countries outside of free trade agreements;
2. "Bound tariff rates" — the tariff ceilings that each WTO country has already agreed to in previous negotiations.

"It would be the equivalent of walking away from the WTO and our commitments there without us actually notifying our withdrawal," said a source familiar with the bill.

"The good news is Congress would never give this authority to the president," the source added, describing the bill as

"insane".

[...]

The bottom line: As a smart trade watcher told me: "The Trump administration should be more worried about not having their current authority restricted rather than expanding authority as this bill would do."

By the way: United States Fair and Reciprocal Tariff Act = US FART Act

For fart's sake, can we skip to the scouring flame stage already?

[rory_20_uk]

Trump 101 - attack, attack, attack. Perhaps the Senate will ignore this and restrict things further, but if the fight and air time is over having the sort of powers that his mates in Russia, North Korea and Turkey enjoy everything is in a good place. And of course he can continue to blame the failure to win this "really easy" trade war on everyone else - which is also a trademark.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump 101...I like it. You are certainly correct as to his style Rory. I don't think he understands collaboration at all, simply competition and fall back to compromise if you cannot win outright. Totally one strategy, and not a lot of tactical variation either.

On Trade, in general, Trump hates the fact that we are perennially bleeding cash to the rest of the world, especially China. He thinks our economy is bigger and more necessary to our trading partners then they are to us. To him, that spells power that should be leveraged to get a better deal. All the tariff threats (and so far none have been activated) are to try to force a better more lucrative deal.

I think Trump is underestimating the political angle though. He seems to be viewing this in purely business terms where our economy gives us the leverage and a better capacity to absorb the economic pain of honoring a threat. He believes that our trade partners will therefore blink first. However, they are NOT business people holding political office. They look at the political ramifications FIRST, and I suspect that those ramifications would include, in a number of countries, the following: "Oh, the PM just told Trump to stuff his trade threats up his posterior. Good job!"

[Montmorency]

All the tariff threats (and so far none have been activated) are to try to force a better more lucrative deal.

I don't know what the full spectrum's standing is, but the lynchpins have all gone into effect by now.

US tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada, Mexico, EU: June 1
Canada's retaliatory tariffs: July 1
Mexico's retaliatory tariffs: June 5
EU retaliatory tariffs: June 22
(More to come)

I'm not going to bother looking up the situation vis-a-vis China, but I'm pretty sure at least one round of tariffs has already been implemented on both sides, with more set to go into effect.

This is a serious situation Seamus, not just rhetoric.


Trump and his supporters believe in the ethic of total retaliation, which is the acceptance that you will never be good enough on your own merits, so the best you can do is create chaos and destruction and inflict cruelty and pain on others.

[HopAlongBunny]

This will be beautiful.
Manufacture a crisis (the bigger the better) buy up any "stressed" assets (Don jr. is not in gov't) foment revolution (They are holding Us back/dragging Us down) declare yourself Pope for Life!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't know what the full spectrum's standing is, but the lynchpins have all gone into effect by now.

US tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada, Mexico, EU: June 1
Canada's retaliatory tariffs: July 1
Mexico's retaliatory tariffs: June 5
EU retaliatory tariffs: June 22
(More to come)

I'm not going to bother looking up the situation vis-a-vis China, but I'm pretty sure at least one round of tariffs has already been implemented on both sides, with more set to go into effect.

This is a serious situation Seamus, not just rhetoric.


Trump and his supporters believe in the ethic of total retaliation, which is the acceptance that you will never be good enough on your own merits, so the best you can do is create chaos and destruction and inflict cruelty and pain on others.

I have a Comm PhD. I assure you that I believe that rhetoric matters and that it is serious; these tariff disputes will have a significant impact. I hadn't realized we were past the start dates on those yet -- crazy schedule this last month for me.

My basic point is that Trump is assuming we can take the pain better than our "opponents" in these disputes and that they will cave before we do. I am NOT certain he is factoring things correctly in this.

[Pannonian]

This will be beautiful.
Manufacture a crisis (the bigger the better) buy up any "stressed" assets (Don jr. is not in gov't) foment revolution (They are holding Us back/dragging Us down) declare yourself Pope for Life!

Aka disaster capitalism.

[Montmorency]

I have a Comm PhD. I assure you that I believe that rhetoric matters and that it is serious; these tariff disputes will have a significant impact. I hadn't realized we were past the start dates on those yet -- crazy schedule this last month for me.

My basic point is that Trump is assuming we can take the pain better than our "opponents" in these disputes and that they will cave before we do. I am NOT certain he is factoring things correctly in this.

Alright, how about this hypothesis: To the extent Trump or the admin have considered the costs to the US, they think it can be sublimated into an increasingly-authoritarian rhetoric that actually galvanizes the base - even as trade disruption directly impacts large swathes of Trump land.

By now we've seen Trump supporters respond to a different type of logic and discourse, so it may even be a good bet that economic pain will drive them toward Trump, just as his incompetence and vulgarity and the contrition of his enemies have.

[Shaka_Khan]

I don't know if I said it in this forum. When Trump was running for the candidacy, I warned people that tariffs and counter-tariffs were what worsened the Great Depression. This time, the US is isolating itself and will be the most affected. Other countries have each other for trade.

[Montmorency]

Meanwhile, here's a nice article from the ultra-right Federalist. The author expounds his fatalist bravado on "not going down without a fight" as America plunges into "socialist abyss". He wants to make the Left feel the pain that the Plains Indians made the American colonizers feel before their ultimate capitulation. Take a few scalps for bragging rights in Hell.

They are not political opponents in the sense that you have a debate with them. These modern-day leftists want you to lose your job. They want to destroy you. How do you think they’re going to treat you when they finally sit in the seat of power for good? So fight them tooth and nail. Make them long for the day when you’re no longer fighting them. Be the Lakota.

So, back to scalping thing. When you make that long trek to the reservation the leftists have set up for you—and make that trek you will—what memories do you want to take with you? When living in the liberal utopian nightmare of 57 genders and government control over everything in your life, you will want to have been a Lakota. You’ll want to know, to remember, even just cherish the knowledge that, one day, you rode out onto the plains and made them feel pain.

Jesse is a Marine Corps combat veteran, former congressional candidate in Arizona, and host of "Jesse Kelly Brief." Jesse resides in the Houston area with his wife and two sons.

You know, reading this shit I get a certain feeling. I feel like violence is justified, like I want to see this man die.

But I don't. I really don't. I'm not constitutionally capable of focused violence. I don't like the thought of genuine, visceral violence. Be it as it may that this is a wargaming/military history forum, but the thought of real violence brings me to tears.

That punch Richard Spencer received way back when, regardless of your abstract position, it's hard to really get worked up about: it was a light jab, nothing more, something to ruffle feathers rather than cause damage. But this other
punch, this is the real thing, the kind of brutality that turns my stomach to look upon. Prior to anything else, my instinct toward such violence is compassion and sorrow.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Call me a bleeding heart.

And yet, a society of their making has no place for people like me (or even many of 'their own' as history shows), so seeing them in power is intolerable.

I wish I knew a way to convince these people that NO, you do not need to kill or subjugate liberals to militate against some prospective Communist purges, you stupid mother fucker.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alright, how about this hypothesis: To the extent Trump or the admin have considered the costs to the US, they think it can be sublimated into an increasingly-authoritarian rhetoric that actually galvanizes the base - even as trade disruption directly impacts large swathes of Trump land.

By now we've seen Trump supporters respond to a different type of logic and discourse, so it may even be a good bet that economic pain will drive them toward Trump, just as his incompetence and vulgarity and the contrition of his enemies have.

Possibly, very possibly. His core supporters really are close to 'cult of personality' types. And those sections that voted Trump are as, and in many cases are MORE, likely to take the highest pain of whatever tradewar pain we endure.