Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

Antifa are anarchists. They call themselves anarchists. Anarchists have been around longer than fascists in this world.

Antifa is of the Left. There is no alt-left.

[Beskar]

Someone better tell antifa that they dont exist.

Antifa are older than the alt-right movement and don't identify with "alt-left" label. They are anarchists and don't claim otherwise. Pretty much what Montmorency.

Put down your Tiki Torch.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Antifa are anarchists. They call themselves anarchists. Anarchists have been around longer than fascists in this world.

Antifa is of the Left. There is no alt-left.

You do know that Trump was trying to be witty and coin a phrase when he said "alt left," do you not? He doesn't clear any such statements with anyone for substance, just starts talking. The phrase had his usual deft humorous touch, which is to say none.

[Strike For The South]

So The president just tweeted a debunked chain e-mail. May the good Lord have mercy on us all.

[Xiahou]

You do know that Trump was trying to be witty and coin a phrase when he said "alt left," do you not? He doesn't clear any such statements with anyone for substance, just starts talking. The phrase had his usual deft humorous touch, which is to say none.

Right up there with Lyin' Ted and Crooked Hillary. He had some early success by attaching labels to his electoral opponents.... so why not come up with some "catchy" names for the hard left?

I think just calling them "antifa" is adequate.

[Montmorency]

Personally, I believe this to be a less-likely scenario as of now, but since it looms over everything we might as well explore: are any of you here familiar with Philip Roth's The Plot Against America?

Basically, Charles Lindbergh runs against Roosevelt in 1940, wins, buddies up to Hitler, and an east-coast Jewish boy watches the unfolding of Nazi-lite in America. In the end, it turns out that Lindbergh only ran at the bidding of Hitler, who in fact was responsible for kidnapping Lindbergh's son a decade previously (now in the Hitler Youth), and the son's safety depended on Lindbergh's willingness to carry out Nazi-dictated policy.

I always thought that was a dumb plot twist, but, uh...

...

I just remembered the book, is all.

[Husar]

So you're saying Trump has a secret son (Donald J. Trump Junior II.) who has been kidnapped by Putin and is now serving in the VDV and that's why things are the way they are?

[Strike For The South]

Bannon has been ousted. Some good news in this week of misery and despair.

[Hooahguy]

Also heard something about how now Breitbart is going to turn on him for this or something. Eager to see how this turns out.

[spmetla]

Also heard something about how now Breitbart is going to turn on him for this or something. Eager to see how this turns out.

Means just another source of 'fake news' that dislikes the president.

Edit: Just checked Breitbart and see that Bannon is "Going to War for Trump" so I guess we'll just a more extreme polarization of Trump's base via Breitbart. Guess the narrative is going to be that Trump is being controlled by the deep state, globalists, and democrats instead of admitting that Trump is incompenent and not capable of carrying out any policies no matter if Democrat, Republican, neo-nationalist, etc...
What this I think means in the long run is a push to characterize Trumps inevitable future failures as not the responsibility of the Republicans in order to save them during the mid-term elections.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...war-for-trump/

[Husar]

Means just another source of 'fake news' that dislikes the president.

Edit: Just checked Breitbart and see that Bannon is "Going to War for Trump" so I guess we'll just a more extreme polarization of Trump's base via Breitbart. Guess the narrative is going to be that Trump is being controlled by the deep state, globalists, and democrats instead of admitting that Trump is incompenent and not capable of carrying out any policies no matter if Democrat, Republican, neo-nationalist, etc...
What this I think means in the long run is a push to characterize Trumps inevitable future failures as not the responsibility of the Republicans in order to save them during the mid-term elections.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...war-for-trump/

On the surface it sounds like the first story is that they "unleashed the Bannon" to fight the "good fight" for Trump. It's hilarious how he says he wants to fight the Goldman Sachs lobbying in the White House when Trump himself brought all these Goldman Sachs people onto his team. I guess Bannon and the others are the exception or whatever.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

mixed media assessments today. Some think this gives Bannon a chance to fight the good fight and challenge Murdoch for king of the right wing media moguls, others suggest that Bannon will rue the efforts he made to instill a cult of personality on the shoulders of Trump.

[HopAlongBunny]

Alas, philosophers are always the first to go.

[HopAlongBunny]

It is not all gloom and doom.
The Trump admin. actually has science research priorities.
Climate and energy can expect squat but military and basic research look like they may do well.
As with all statements from this WH, it is simply a vague expression of desire and depends on what Congress has to say (likely through the budget):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-feared-rdquo/

[Montmorency]

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/3OLFlZj.jpg

Pence is sat there, bide-ing his time. "I won't be number 5."

[Husar]

To me it sounds like a pretty big scandal if his VP were to resign.
Has that ever happened?

I think if he doesn't resign he has a relatively good chance of automatically becoming the president for a while, so it might be hard to make him resign. He's probably more religious (and might be closer to his wife) than the other four so he has a better support structure. He might resign if Trump does something outrageous that deeply offends his values and the Republicans still won't impeach him over it.

That's just my amateur guesswork though.

[drone]

To me it sounds like a pretty big scandal if his VP were to resign.
Has that ever happened?

Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP. He had a slew of various charges (unrelated to Watergate, IIRC) that forced his resignation.

I think if he doesn't resign he has a relatively good chance of automatically becoming the president for a while, so it might be hard to make him resign. He's probably more religious (and might be closer to his wife) than the other four so he has a better support structure. He might resign if Trump does something outrageous that deeply offends his values and the Republicans still won't impeach him over it.

He can smell the Presidency, he's going nowhere. He will continue to debase himself if there is a chance Trump leaves before his term is up. And he already has the framework for a primary challenge in 2020 if Trump stays.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP. He had a slew of various charges (unrelated to Watergate, IIRC) that forced his resignation.

Absolutely. He was a poster boy for state corruption in Maryland. Nothing to do with Watergate at all. Another VP had resigned, Calhoun, back in the first half of the 19th, in order to take a seat in the Senate and make a bid for the Presidency.

[Gilrandir]

I heard that almost all members of the "economic council" that Trump introduced before the elections have resigned.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I heard that almost all members of the "economic council" that Trump introduced before the elections have resigned.

Trump closed the two economic councils down rather than see 90+% resignation rates for both take hold. There were mass resignations.

[Strike For The South]

So, it is pretty clear from last night that he is mentally diminished. He simply does not have the capacity to be the commander in chief. Now that itself does not necessarily mean he needs to be gone, Plenty of presidents have been inadequate. The problem here is that his staff seems unwilling or unable to massage and iron out his inadequacies.

Also I love the clever wordplay. In the excerpt Trump read, which was no doubt what was written from him, he simply condemned hatred and violence. This allows the listener to fill in the rest. It's when he ad libs "many" sides where things go hay wire.

Can't stop himself.

[Gilrandir]

Trump closed the two economic councils down rather than see 90+% resignation rates for both take hold. There were mass resignations.

I wonder can his governmental in-laws and relatives eventually resign?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wonder can his governmental in-laws and relatives eventually resign?

I am sure they can resign....from their government posts.

I don't think you can resign from...the family [Insert guitarist singing "Speak softly love" here]

[Gilrandir]

I am sure they can resign....from their government posts.

By "can" I mean not possibility, but guts. What do you think about this "can"?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

By "can" I mean not possibility, but guts. What do you think about this "can"?

It is unfair of you to answer my "mafia family humor riff" with a straight up question.

As to Trump and family, he is an asshat so I am paying him little heed. On the other hand, the administration so far has caused the flow of illegal 'immigrants' to lessen and the economy is ramping up a notch or two. Heck, if he were not such an asshat feeding the media loathing of him to a frenzy every other day, he might improve my opinion of him enough for me to think of him as a Chester Arthur.

[Gilrandir]

As to Trump and family, he is an asshat so I am paying him little heed. On the other hand, the administration so far has caused the flow of illegal 'immigrants' to lessen and the economy is ramping up a notch or two. Heck, if he were not such an asshat feeding the media loathing of him to a frenzy every other day, he might improve my opinion of him enough for me to think of him as a Chester Arthur.

How can you be sure that it is not vice versa? Perhaps is is Trump who caused all those positive changes and his administration (and family) force a respectable and sagacious businessman and politician make a fool of himself in public.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How can you be sure that it is not vice versa? Perhaps is is Trump who caused all those positive changes and his administration (and family) force a respectable and sagacious businessman and politician make a fool of himself in public.

Read back over his career a bit and especially his forays into politics over the last decade. I do not believe my interpretation to be groundless.

[Montmorency]

It is unfair of you to answer my "mafia family humor riff" with a straight up question.

As to Trump and family, he is an asshat so I am paying him little heed. On the other hand, the administration so far has caused the flow of illegal 'immigrants' to lessen and the economy is ramping up a notch or two. Heck, if he were not such an asshat feeding the media loathing of him to a frenzy every other day, he might improve my opinion of him enough for me to think of him as a Chester Arthur.

Border traffic rate's been down long-term.

As far as paying Trump little heed, this article argues that loss of public interest in the presidential bully pulpit is (part of) a bad sign for our institutions:

As Donald Trump bellowed, smirked, and grimaced his way through two high-profile speeches this week, the public ignored him, even as he swung between contrasting poles. That a power vacuum is forming at the top of the American political system can no longer be denied. The people, it seems, are tuning out the president—a sensible enough reaction to Trump’s dysfunctional and embarrassing term in office, but also one that runs the risk of undermining a cornerstone of America’s democracy.

The response of America to both Trumps—the puppet politician who is just repeating what his military advisers are telling him and the demagogic racist—was essentially the same: meh.

There’s more than one man’s vanity at stake. What Trump may not realize is that after all the campaigning is over, a president’s influence comes not from any gyrations of his charisma but from the accumulated legitimacy of the office. The presidency is a quasi-monarchical institution, and so citizens are taught to respect the commander in chief, no matter what the party. The American political system as it exists needs a president the people can respect, if only to keep this legitimacy from withering away.

And that’s a problem. The office of the president isn’t just a collection of its duties, such as signing legislation or setting foreign policy; it is the focal point that keeps other visions of concentrated leadership, some deeply authoritarian, from creeping into the foreground.

Now that the United States no longer has a functional president, the public is turning its expectations elsewhere. Some are looking to the generals; others are looking to the streets.

Writing in collaboration with his colleague Robert Costa on Monday, Rucker argued that “high-ranking military officials have become an increasingly ubiquitous presence in American political life during Donald Trump’s presidency, repeatedly winning arguments inside the West Wing, publicly contradicting the president and even balking at implementing one of his most controversial policies.”

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman called the speech the president’s best yet[...]

Rucker and Haberman are of course savvy enough to know that Trump was reading words others have written, which the president himself almost certainly doesn’t believe. So their praise of the speech carries a hidden message: Thank God, they are saying, that the generals are in charge and that Trump is following orders.

It’s understandable that some Americans are turning to the generals, since the alternative is watching Trump botch the final decisions of life and death that we usually trust a president to make. Still, the truth is that any rule by the generals that stretches beyond their established role can only be deeply anti-democratic. The military is supposed to offer policy choices to the president, not the other way around. Trump is ceding presidential power to his military advisers, and this subtle move toward authoritarianism is winning bipartisan support.

As Congress neglects its constitutional duties and elites cheer on Trump’s band of military men, political conflict is likely to move to the streets. This could be a good thing; it could also be a very bad thing. In street activism lies hope for progressive reforms to democracy, but when such activism is also symptomatic of a total loss of faith in existing democratic institutions, it can work in the service of authoritarianism. What makes this situation truly dangerous is that the president seems intent on encouraging his own form of street theater.

Democracy does not work with a power vacuum for a president. As Trump makes a mockery of his office, he has left America to drift in two fundamentally anti-democratic directions, with the military exercising ever greater power as neo-Nazi street protesters form militias of their own. People of good faith around the country may be trying desperately to counter both, but this is fundamentally a political crisis that has to have a political solution. The president is unfit to serve, and until Congress comes to its senses and remembers its constitutional powers, this is what we can expect: a weakened president subservient to the military egging on armed fascists as they take to the streets.

[HopAlongBunny]

Newsy little item for a Friday:
Trump's pardon of Joe Arpaio, the story from Daily Beast puts it in an ugly light:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-...cism-aclu-says

However, that is pretty minor compared to the shade cast by one of Bill Maher's guests.
The guest (cannot remember the name) called the move a message: "If you stick with me and play the game, I'll take care of you" (to paraphrase)
That is a message that spits on the rule of law.