Trump Thread

[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-government/2017/08/18/steve-bannon-speaks-after-white-house-departure-im-going-to-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/article/trump-administration-rsquo-s-science-priorities-ldquo-better-than-feared-rdquo/

[Montmorency]

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

[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. :shrug:

[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 (https://newrepublic.com/article/144485/trumps-figurehead-presidency-driving-new-authoritarianism) 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-pardon-of-joe-arpaio-is-a-presidential-endorsement-of-racism-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.

[Beskar]

You know it is pretty bad when Germans are calling out the American president on it.
https://i.imgur.com/Rs5NLuY.jpg

[Husar]

This description reminds me a lot of Trump:


Acceding to the throne in 1888, he dismissed the Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, in 1890 and launched Germany on a bellicose "New Course" in foreign affairs that culminated in his support for Austria-Hungary in the crisis of July 1914 that led in a matter of days to the First World War. Bombastic and impetuous, he sometimes made tactless pronouncements on sensitive topics without consulting his ministers, culminating in a disastrous Daily Telegraph interview in 1908 that cost him most of his influence.[1] His leading generals, Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff, dictated policy during the First World War with little regard for the civilian government. An ineffective war-time leader, he lost the support of the army, abdicated in November 1918, and fled to exile in the Netherlands.

Bombastic, tactless, lets loyal goons run everything, ignores advice and is generally not nearly as competent as he thinks to the point of being incompetent for the job. Maybe the US aren't Germany in 1937 but Germany around 1900... :sweatdrop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor

[Montmorency]

This description reminds me a lot of Trump:



Bombastic, tactless, lets loyal goons run everything, ignores advice and is generally not nearly as competent as he thinks to the point of being incompetent for the job. Maybe the US aren't Germany in 1937 but Germany around 1900... :sweatdrop:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor

The Great War Week 157 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTEq1NRP4Po)


The Kaiser, for the first time since the turn of the century, now met representatives of all German political parties, except for the independent Socialists. In a sort of a stunning turn-about from his recent thoughts about Belgian independence after the
war, he made a speech arguing for a second Punic War against Britain during which all of Europe, under Germany's leadership, would destroy British world domination.

Invent your Trump scenario.

[Husar]

This one might work, too (from Wiki):


One of Wilhelm's diplomatic blunders sparked the Moroccan Crisis of 1905, when he made a spectacular visit to Tangier, in Morocco. His presence was seen as an assertion of German interests in Morocco, in opposition to those of France. In his speech, he even made remarks in favour of Moroccan independence, and this led to friction with France, which had expanding colonial interests in Morocco, and to the Algeciras Conference, which served largely to further isolate Germany in Europe.

or this one:


The Daily Telegraph is a London newspaper. On 28 October 1908 it published an interview with the Kaiser. It included wild statements and diplomatically damaging remarks, the most infamous of which was

You English are mad, mad, mad as March hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph_Affair

This page also has some linked full speeches: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_image.cfm?image_id=2178


Moreover, the poor impression left by the German troops’ late arrival was made worse by the Kaiser’s ill-conceived farewell address (depicted here), in which he commanded them, in the spirit of the Huns, to be merciless in battle. Kaiser Wilhelm II’s public relations blunders, particularly in the field of international relations, were legendary. He was known for bombastic cant and grandstanding – although his words were often more threatening and aggressive than his actions.

Come one, there is so much Trump in there. :laugh4:

Granted, Wihlelm II. uses more complicated words, but you have to consider that 100 years have passed since then and Twitter hadn't been invented yet.

[HopAlongBunny]

Godwin Strikes! (or does he...)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-arapio-pardon-is-fascist-theres-no-other-way-to-say-it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Everything I have read about Wilhelm suggests to me that he and Trump had an equivalent grasp and penchant for subtle diplomacy.

[spmetla]

Kaiser Wilhelm II even had his own Russia scandal with the Treaty of Björkö.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bj%C3%B6rk%C3%B6

He and the Tsar signed a mutual defense pact without the knowledge of either of their respective foreign ministers and said treaty was subsequently ignored due to prior treaties negating it.

Although Tsar Nicholas had signed the treaty, it was not ratified by his government because of the pre-existing Franco-Russian Alliance. The Russian prime minister Sergey Witte and foreign minister Vladimir Lambsdorff, neither present at the signing, nor consulted beforehand, insisted that the treaty should never come into effect unless it was approved and signed by France. Lambsdorff told the Tsar that it was "inadmissible to promise at the same time the same thing to two governments whose interests were mutually antagonistic".[3] The Tsar gave in to their pressure, much to the consternation of the Kaiser, who reproached his cousin: "We joined hands and signed before God, who heard our vows!... What is signed, is signed! and God is our testator!".[4] Wilhelm's chancellor, Count von Bülow, however, also refused to sign the treaty because the Kaiser had added an amendment to the draft (against the advice of the Foreign Office) which limited the treaty to Europe.[5]

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So Trump has the savvy to out-negotiate someone of Tsar Nicholas' skills....as a long-time fan of Tuchman's Guns of August, I cannot say I am much comforted.

[Montmorency]

By the way, speaking of pardons:

They say Trump outruns satire, but with his recent actions and previous reported deliberations we can imagine a world in which the first thing the President does as he wakes up every morning or goes to bed every night is to pardon himself, his family, and his administration - each time anew.

Boom. Make a skit out of it. Throw in a rally scene with supporters groveling at his feet as he places his hands onto them in benediction, cleansing them of all (Federal) sins.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Race Card
Legislated act of socio/political dominance or categories necessary to understanding.
It did (and does) allow for "carve outs" to that "All men are created equal" stuff. Can anything that convenient be a fabrication?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/08/invention-white-people-170824095046840.html

[Husar]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/08/invention-white-people-170824095046840.html

The hat and shirt of the guy in the picture match perfectly. :laugh4:

Looks like Trump lied about something, shocking, I know:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S95hrT1N0Dc

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-tower-putin-felix-sater.html?_r=0


“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

This is just wonderful... :rolleyes:

[HopAlongBunny]

Too bad we can't just write Trump off yet.
Polling, approval, election results...etc.; it's all pretty complicated.
Much will probably rely on what issue(s) bubble to the top come election time.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/7-rules-for-reading-trumps-approval-rating/

[HopAlongBunny]

Lies From the White House!
For we are shocked :laugh4:

The silver haired angel; perhaps the next President; is in deep.
Is the stain to deep for a wash and a rinse? You decide!:

https://wonkette.com/622484/what-the-darn-diddly-doodily-did-mike-pence-make-another-fib

Poor mikey; he knows it all but ya dance wit de one who brung ya...


https://youtu.be/CRyN9wQ1taY

[HopAlongBunny]

The Death of Daca

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41165513

Trump gets to soft peddle this move. The six-month hiatus puts the onus on Congress: If you like it and want to keep it, pass the necessary laws; Trump covers himself with a fig-leaf for now, Congress will have the tough job.

PS. so much for building a trust relationship with the undocumented community:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-trump-administration-now-has-tons-of-daca-data-and-is-poised-to-weaponize-it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump's relationship with that community was never going to be good. Trump wants the laws on immigration enforced more or less and they don't and would prefer amnesty/unrestricted immigration. Not a lot of 'love' there.

[Montmorency]

Trump's relationship with that community was never going to be good. Trump wants the laws on immigration enforced more or less and they don't and would prefer amnesty/unrestricted immigration. Not a lot of 'love' there.

Following the era of national quotas, Congress has tended to defer to the executive branch in setting immigration security policy and priorities.

The immigration laws have not gone unenforced. Otherwise we would have to believe that no laws with potential of violation or circumvention or qualification have been enforced in history - in which case we won't plausibly be starting now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Following the era of national quotas, Congress has tended to defer to the executive branch in setting immigration security policy and priorities.

The immigration laws have not gone unenforced. Otherwise we would have to believe that no laws with potential of violation or circumvention or qualification have been enforced in history - in which case we won't plausibly be starting now.

Congress has deferred damn near everything except for pork spending to the Presidency. In practice, the President is expected to set out the budget, establish policies on 9/10 issues, and serve as the "image" of America to the world. I even recall Congress granting Dubya the power to wage war more or less as he saw fit without bothering to do much more then send them a note. I more or less think they forswore their own oaths of office on that one.

I agree that immigration law are not unenforced -- but they are under-enforced and contain too many provisions and practices that serve to encourage rather than discourage illegals as well as permit too few workers into the country on a legal basis.

[Montmorency]

I agree that immigration law are not unenforced -- but they are under-enforced and contain too many provisions and practices that serve to encourage rather than discourage illegals as well as permit too few workers into the country on a legal basis.

Fair enough, but legislation from Congress can only set parameters for the executive on this issue, unless you figure there should be a special Congressional committee with direct oversight over minutiae. Yet what policy or enforcement can there be - what would it look like - that would "discourage" unauthorized residency either in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends? It seems like historically out of our hands once we let down the gates to Fortress Amerika - and I'm not in favor of the country bending to refortify itself against the world.

I think sooner or later border security calculations will have to be considered against the backdrop of negotiations toward a Schengen-type treaty for North America.

[drone]

Yet what policy or enforcement can there be - what would it look like - that would "discourage" unauthorized residency either in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends?
Enforcement on businesses that use illegals. They are undercutting legal workers and they are dodging employment taxes. Enforce that and the problem sorts itself out. Thing is, both parties have interests that don't want to see that...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Enforcement on businesses that use illegals. They are undercutting legal workers and they are dodging employment taxes. Enforce that and the problem sorts itself out. Thing is, both parties have interests that don't want to see that...

Correct focus. If there is a market, legal or otherwise, it will be filled. We need to be draconian with companies exploiting illegals and flouting our laws. We also need a more realistic number of work permits etc.

[Montmorency]

Enforcement on businesses that use illegals. They are undercutting legal workers and they are dodging employment taxes. Enforce that and the problem sorts itself out. Thing is, both parties have interests that don't want to see that...

As I think about it, there are several problems with this idea.

Past the geographic dispersion of unauthorized residents they are fairly diversified throughout the labor force (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/03/26/share-of-unauthorized-immigrant-workers-in-production-construction-jobs-falls-since-2007/). Most of these are all manner of unskilled positions, but hundreds of thousands do skilled or white-collar work. Enforcement mechanism would presumably be onerously extensive to have much effect.

The majority of the aliens are thought to have been residents of the US for at least 10 years, with almost all having spent years in the country. To the extent that there is a crackdown on 'johns', adaptation on both ends may encourage a large proportion of the unauthorized residents to remain. Some may leave the workforce entirely and pool resources with working family or community members, especially those with citizenship/legal residence or other authorization to work; those who end up like this act as an economic drain.

Economic consequences to either the departure or the jobless residence of aliens will be severe. For non-capital intensive work, likely you see employers simply downsizing, exiting their sector/industry, or quitting altogether. As aggregate demand decreases and jobs are eliminated, putative compensatory upward pressure on citizen labor's wages will not materialize. In the good cases we should expect offshoring/outsourcing, or accelerated automation, rather than replacement with legal labor. In the worst cases, unskilled labor will no longer be buoyed by a wage/conditions floor in the form of a separate labor class, and will see their own wages and standards decline as employers tighten their belts by passing increased costs on to legal labor.


Let me clarify that I meant my previous post with respect to discouraging new crossings or new attempts to cross; I don't consider mass reductions (direct or induced) of the pre-existing unauthorized population to be a viable option. SF or drone, can you think of policy that would discourage new crossings or new attempts to cross in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends?

The handicap is, as always, no mass killings at the border, and no indirect dis-incentivization through denial of public services to pre-existing aliens ("it is not sufficient justification that a law saves money").

[Beskar]

Offer illegals amnesty for reporting exploitative business practices such as under cutting minimum wage and other standards. Bring in laws tackling modern slavery with harsh disincentives for businesses to consider doing them. Those measures would quickly find the system correcting itself rather quickly.

[spmetla]

I think sooner or later border security calculations will have to be considered against the backdrop of negotiations toward a Schengen-type treaty for North America.

A Schengen type treaty might be done with Canada but not Mexico which is treated largely like Turkey. We like more free-trade with them but free movement of peoples would be seen as opening the flood gates to the 'barbarians.'

I personally support a stronger visa and border enforcement, I support a fence, not a wall. I also support seasonal guest worker permits but those would need to be tied to visa controls.

As for all the people illegally residing in the US, I support a very generous amnesty program with path toward citizenship. There are no shortage of illegal aliens that have been upright citizens minus their initial infraction, some of which own land and legitimate businesses and have paid taxes as such.
As for everyone sneaking 'after the lock' I'd continue deportations and have the laws very stringent then.

As for the people that say the US has always welcomed immigrants its true but until the 1960s that applied pretty much only to Europeans. All others were strongly discouraged, asians especially. Immigration is good for the economy but it should be tied to the needs of the economy. Allowing too much immigration when unemployment is already too high means wages stay depressed, crime and blackmarkets thrive(in general not just because of immigrants) , and immigrants that are stuck on the bottom rung of society without a way up will generally not integrate creating insular communities outside of civic society.

[HopAlongBunny]

One nice thing about democracy is it does hold up a mirror.
Like it or not Trump is a reflection of America at this time; fear envy hate and desire its all there; and its even in Orange!

[Husar]

One nice thing about democracy is it does hold up a mirror.
Like it or not Trump is a reflection of America at this time; fear envy hate and desire its all there; and its even in Orange!

Germany has to be incredibly boring, undecided, conservative and way too slow on everything then. :creep:
Oh wait, you could actually say it's true. :wall:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Offer illegals amnesty for reporting exploitative business practices such as under cutting minimum wage and other standards. Bring in laws tackling modern slavery with harsh disincentives for businesses to consider doing them. Those measures would quickly find the system correcting itself rather quickly.

I do not like any sort of informer rewards system....though I must say this has much more of an element of justice to it than most such suggestions.

[HopAlongBunny]

WoooHoooo!
A better climate deal for America! Trump is on it!

In what has become a familiar refrain: Nice idea...just who is going to develop this policy? who is going to shop it around the other signatories to the original deal? who has the authority to make it happen?
With staffing/funding cut at State and almost every dep't involved with climate, it appears that this initiative(?) may never rise beyong being a pipe dream

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/09/trump-is-deluded-if-he-thinks-he-can-negotiate-a-new-and-better-paris-climate-deal/

In other news
Trump issues Travel Ban 3.0:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/09/president-trump-drops-revised-indefinite-travel-ban/

Some justifications for this are not disclosed; national security and all that:on_ooh:; it includes states without a Muslim majority (N.Korea for example) and looks like its headed straight to court

[Seamus Fermanagh]

WoooHoooo!
A better climate deal for America! Trump is on it!

In what has become a familiar refrain: Nice idea...just who is going to develop this policy? who is going to shop it around the other signatories to the original deal? who has the authority to make it happen?
With staffing/funding cut at State and almost every dep't involved with climate, it appears that this initiative(?) may never rise beyong being a pipe dream

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/09/trump-is-deluded-if-he-thinks-he-can-negotiate-a-new-and-better-paris-climate-deal/

In other news
Trump issues Travel Ban 3.0:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/09/president-trump-drops-revised-indefinite-travel-ban/

Some justifications for this are not disclosed; national security and all that:on_ooh:; it includes states without a Muslim majority (N.Korea for example) and looks like its headed straight to court

It is certainly going to court. It is being labeled a muslim ban with obfuscation. It will be tied up in court for months before implementation if it is implemented at all.

American will be among the leaders in combatting global warming regardless of our political leadership. Most US citizens believe warming to be real and think that efforts to combat it are worthwhile. Even most of the nay-sayers have little grief with reducing reliance on fossil fuels and reducing air pollution. The result is a market that is encouraging the development of more 'green' technologies. Link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/03/us-carbon-footprint-shrank-7-percent-in-past-4-years-report-says.html)

[Husar]

I was just looking for the Graham-Cassidy bill out of curiosity when I found this one under related bills:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1150/text


Tanning Tax Repeal Act of 2017

Looks like some Republicans are worried about the continuity of the president's orangeness. :clown:

[HopAlongBunny]

Better deals are popping up everywhere!
Despite little evidence but much innuendo, Trump wishes to cancel the Iran deal for non-compliance.
So without evidence, without consultation and pretty much without a clue, Trump is making mouth sounds about ditching the deal:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/26/the-myth-of-a-better-iran-deal/

Rest assured, this will be handled by the best people :rolleyes:

[Strike For The South]

Football is my hobby and this bum is sticking his nose in it. :angry:

[HopAlongBunny]

To kneel or not to kneel
That is the question...

[Strike For The South]

They should all kneel. No one should give in to threats.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They'll start discarding the anthem tradition is my guess.

[CrossLOPER]

They'll start discarding the anthem tradition is my guess.

I never understood the point, anyway.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I never understood the point, anyway.

It started spontaneously, got continued because someone thought it would please the crowd and ended up as a tradition. Link (http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957582/the-history-national-anthem-sports-espn-magazine) Levels of reverence vary across the full spectrum.

[Montmorency]

It started spontaneously, got continued because someone thought it would please the crowd and ended up as a tradition. Source (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/03/us-carbon-footprint-shrank-7-percent-in-past-4-years-report-says.html)

Levels of reverence vary across the full spectrum.

6-year old report on carbon emissions?

Anyway, isn't it linked to the military marketing contracts?

[spmetla]

Football is my hobby and this bum is sticking his nose in it. :angry:

What's your team anyhow, GB Packers for me!

The POTUS should have too many real priorities to worry about players kneeling or not for the National Anthem. People can do all sorts of disrespectful things in protest and it is their absolute right to, celebrities and athletes are not excluded. Perhaps when his 'house' is running in proper order he can start sticking his nose in unessential business, right now it's damn annoying.

[Strike For The South]

They'll start discarding the anthem tradition is my guess.

that great tradition from 2009 when the federal government paid for it. I'll watch any college or NFL game sptemla.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

oopsie, wrong link. Changed.

[Beskar]

The POTUS should have too many real priorities to worry about players kneeling or not for the National Anthem. People can do all sorts of disrespectful things in protest and it is their absolute right to, celebrities and athletes are not excluded. Perhaps when his 'house' is running in proper order he can start sticking his nose in unessential business, right now it's damn annoying.

To win the Worse President award, he needs to be seen to be doing something. Because if he did absolutely nothing, it wouldn't be the worst.

[Gilrandir]

To win the Worse President award, he needs to be seen to be doing something. Because if he did absolutely nothing, it wouldn't be the worst.

Oh come on! He walks and talks and combs his hair. It should be enough.

[HopAlongBunny]

Because if he did absolutely nothing, it wouldn't be the worst.

The mayor of San Juan might disagree with you:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-puerto-rico-attack-on-san-juan-mayor-spark-wide-condemnation-2017-9

https://www.vox.com/2017/10/1/16391502/snl-premiere-trump-puerto-rico-alec-baldwin

Slow response, inadequate response; just imagine how it would look with absolutely No response.

A possible dividend may be in the offing:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puerto-ricans-could-be-newest-u-s-climate-refugees/

[HopAlongBunny]

Tax cuts for everyone!
Of course the amount of the benefit might depend on your income, but it will be beautiful for all:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-fiscal/rich-would-benefit-most-from-trump-tax-cut-plan-policy-group-idUSKCN1C42C8

The administration insists middle-class families are the big winners, to bad no independent analysis backs them up.

[rory_20_uk]

Vive the Kleptocracy!

I do wonder how many Republicans will think the tax plans are a great idea. One day it could be them who is super rich and benefiting, after all...

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

More than 18 hours following the mass murder event in Las Vegas, President Trump has managed to avoid being grossly offensive or saying anything notably stupid.

[HopAlongBunny]

Time for a Muslin ban?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-decried-las-vegas-shooting-171002115500667.html

[Beskar]

Time for a Muslin ban?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-decried-las-vegas-shooting-171002115500667.html

Probably because Stephen Paddock was a Trump supporter. We know it is true. Just wished it wasn't.

[Beskar]

Trump starting to crack down on Political Opponents (http://nypost.com/2017/09/28/department-of-justice-demands-facebook-account-information-of-anti-trump-activists/).

[Husar]

The Russia connections explained (bad language warning!).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xze1DtXUQeU

[HopAlongBunny]

Finding those fraudulent voters just got harder.
In an obvious finesse by the deep state, a judge has ruled that handing over voter information is a breach of privacy.
That's exactly what you would expect from a process with something to hide:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trumps-voter-fraud-commission-just-suffered-a-court-defeat

[HopAlongBunny]

The migration may have begun already:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/without-power-until-next-year-puerto-ricans-are-leavingmaybe-forever

Having lost most (if not all) they had, the mainland beckons.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The migration may have begun already:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/without-power-until-next-year-puerto-ricans-are-leavingmaybe-forever

Having lost most (if not all) they had, the mainland beckons.

Florida is gonna pick up a quarter million plus is my guess. They tend to vote Dem too, so it probably shifts us Blue for Trump's reelection bid

[Montmorency]

Florida is gonna pick up a quarter million plus is my guess. They tend to vote Dem too, so it probably shifts us Blue for Trump's reelection bid

I didn't realize - Florida has the second-highest Puerto Rican population by state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ricans_in_the_United_States) at a little shy of a million. But the Northeast still has half the Puerto Ricans of the territorial states, so that continue as the primary destination.

Edit: *should continue

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I didn't realize - Florida has the second-highest Puerto Rican population by state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Ricans_in_the_United_States) at a little shy of a million. But the Northeast still has half the Puerto Ricans of the territorial states, so that continue as the primary destination.

Edit: *should continue

I think the pattern continues, but my number is based on a guestimate of PR dropping 600k in pop

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7fRAMU-sDs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o466GKwyHmk

[Hooahguy]

A Tillerson-Trump IQ test challenge? Love it, I want it televised.

Also Pence doesnt seem to be much of a fiscal conservative, he spent at least $250,000 of taxpayer money for a planned walkout of a football game in which everyone knew the players would kneel. Shameful for the VP to be a paid protester.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A Tillerson-Trump IQ test challenge? Love it, I want it televised.

Also Pence doesnt seem to be much of a fiscal conservative, he spent at least $250,000 of taxpayer money for a planned walkout of a football game in which everyone knew the players would kneel. Shameful for the VP to be a paid protester.

Political theater is part of the job.

One of the inherent advantages of incumbency.

In this instance, not even particularly squandrous of taxpayer dollars.

And when you're trillions in debt with no serious plan to do anything beyond slowing the increase of the debt, what's a bit of chump change anyway.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Donald is doing his best to fix health-care.
Obviously, the first thing to do is gut the mechanism that makes Obamacare work.
Without subsidies and without cost control, premiums are going way up.
Spark a crisis, and anything that's offered will look better than nothing; Art of the Deal indeed:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-cheer-as-trump-throws-sick-americans-into-turmoil

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Donald is doing his best to fix health-care.
Obviously, the first thing to do is gut the mechanism that makes Obamacare work.
Without subsidies and without cost control, premiums are going way up.
Spark a crisis, and anything that's offered will look better than nothing; Art of the Deal indeed:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-cheer-as-trump-throws-sick-americans-into-turmoil

It is a pretty logical step, albeit fairly cold-blooded.

His party cannot be brought to amend it; the opposition wants to add funding support without fundamental changes.

The lack of support for repeal is because politicos and a goodly slice of the public already view it as an entitlement.

So if you want to replace it rather than paper (money) over the problems, you cut out a component or two that more or less guarantees failure in the near future. THEN the pressure for change will allow for action.

Mind you, I think Trump is miscalculating in that it will not be the Trump plan that rides to the rescue. I think it will be (sadly) the Sanders plan.

[Pannonian]

It is a pretty logical step, albeit fairly cold-blooded.

His party cannot be brought to amend it; the opposition wants to add funding support without fundamental changes.

The lack of support for repeal is because politicos and a goodly slice of the public already view it as an entitlement.

So if you want to replace it rather than paper (money) over the problems, you cut out a component or two that more or less guarantees failure in the near future. THEN the pressure for change will allow for action.

Mind you, I think Trump is miscalculating in that it will not be the Trump plan that rides to the rescue. I think it will be (sadly) the Sanders plan.

Over here in the UK, the Tory strategy for bringing about privatisation of teh NHS, a Thatcherite fetish that the electorate finds toxic, is to cut funding, increase demands, lower morale by other means, then finally crow that the NHS is failing and needs to change. Increasing demands is usually accompanied by a meaningless slogan saying "A Health Service that works for the nation" or something similar. Funnily enough, the Tories think the pre-Obama US model is the one to aim for.

[Beskar]

Over here in the UK, the Tory strategy for bringing about privatisation of teh NHS, a Thatcherite fetish that the electorate finds toxic, is to cut funding, increase demands, lower morale by other means, then finally crow that the NHS is failing and needs to change. Increasing demands is usually accompanied by a meaningless slogan saying "A Health Service that works for the nation" or something similar. Funnily enough, the Tories think the pre-Obama US model is the one to aim for.

Did hear about about Jeremy Hunt scrapping the 1% pay rise cap? The Nurses can be paid more.. out of NHS budget which is not changing and squeezed to margins already. It is like an employer giving everyone a pay rise from the same exact pot of money, there won't be a difference.

[Gilrandir]

Mind you, I think Trump is miscalculating in that it will not be the Trump plan that rides to the rescue. I think it will be (sadly) the Sanders plan.

"Trump plan" is an oxymoron.

[Husar]

Mind you, I think Trump is miscalculating in that it will not be the Trump plan that rides to the rescue. I think it will be (sadly) the Sanders plan.

What is sad about poverty not killing people?

[HopAlongBunny]

What is sad about poverty not killing people?

But single payer would likely throw the insurance companies to the wolves, not to mention the effect on drug prices.
Will you light no candles for the downtrodden?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is sad about poverty not killing people?

I concede the need for Medicaid. There are those who are, in many cases through no fault of their own, unemployable. Such persons should have access to reasonable healthcare. I'd prefer it were handled by private charity, but recognize that the location of charitable service and those needing the service don't always coincide well in the USA.

I dislike the Medicare for everyone approach that is advocated by Sanders. I have never subscribed to the notion that healthcare is a right I earned by drawing breath. I know that there are many who disagree.

[Montmorency]

I concede the need for Medicaid. There are those who are, in many cases through no fault of their own, unemployable. Such persons should have access to reasonable healthcare. I'd prefer it were handled by private charity, but recognize that the location of charitable service and those needing the service don't always coincide well in the USA.

I dislike the Medicare for everyone approach that is advocated by Sanders. I have never subscribed to the notion that healthcare is a right I earned by drawing breath. I know that there are many who disagree.

Whether or not there is a right, perhaps it should be a public good. You can't run the country on charity.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Whether or not there is a right, perhaps it should be a public good. You can't run the country on charity.

A valid concept. If that is so, however, the public would need to derive a "good" exceeding the public's investment via taxation.

For example, the benefits generated by infrastructure improvements1 and the like -- historically handled by some level of government rather than private individuals -- usually pass this test. Government's role in this is to concentrate public monies for a shared public benefit.

I have heard that argument advanced vis-à-vis healthcare, but have yet to see a reliable model that demonstrates such a "payoff" on a broad scale. Certainly national health systems have generated remarkable statistical improvements on certain issues such as infant mortality (and I am referring to those countries that are reasonably honest in their internal reviews, not just cooking the numbers for propaganda) and a number of preventative health interventions.

However, I have yet to read/learn of a system that would generate both the cutting edge medical wonders available in the US health system (for all its flaws) while truly achieving universal coverage. Far too many of the national systems feature people flying off for faster medical treatment elsewhere or "black market" medical practices etc. cropping up alongside the official system. Bridges and dams must account for physical realities but healthcare must account for human inconsistencies. The latter are far less knowable and arguably more problematic.

So I while I cannot and do not deny the potential for such a public good from such a system, I have yet to discern an approach that generated enough value for the investment and/or the concomitant restriction of personal freedom of choice engendered.

I also agree with you that we cannot run a country on charity. Private charity may be superb locally but is likely incapable of addressing needs nationally. I am, however, also leery of government mandated 'charity' collected at the metaphorical point of a gun. Hence my dilemma with this issue.

That said, the current 'worst of both concepts' system in the USA (neither fee-for-service nor universal access) is clearly flawed. Currently we mandate employers absorb part of the cost of healthcare, with government mandating this as a condition of full time employment while requiring employers to pay part of the cost,2 while government sets all of the regulations and standards and tries to cover medical care for the indigent and from retirement to grave.
Government performs its portion of this set up with the usual efficiency of government (underperforming except when required by crisis conditions) while businesses seek to game the system to minimize the costs to them pursuant to the business' existential requirement to turn a profit.





1 Our Asshat-in-Chief actually campaigned on infrastructure improvements, his ability to build things and get things done, and faces almost no Congressional opposition on the issue as it is one of the few truly bipartisan (actually virtually ALL parties except the Greens support infrastructure improvements and they would support it too if enough of the improvements were long-term environmental enhancers) issues in the Washington 'Swamp.' Despite which the administration STILL does not have a draft bill circulating in Congress much less being finalized for signature. Galling.

2 Coverage via the workplace came about in the USA through Union contract efforts to improve the lot of their employees (since an organization negotiating for 150k people has more cost control leverage than the individual,3 and through organizations adding such 'fringe benefits' as a feature to draw in better employees for their organizations. Government then used this model to force all employers to do this, undercutting organizations' ability to use it to acquire the services of a higher caliber of employee and putting all of the administrative burden on the organizations AND loaded it up with government mandated minimum requirements that have driven up the costs. How well those higher costs have accomplished improving overall health coverage nationally is debatable as Senator Sanders recent Presidential bid suggests.

3 This economy of scale concept is often touted by those in favor of universal healthcare. However, when only one consumer exists, the normal functions of the open market cease to operate. If there is an economy of scale at that level, it simply does not conform to the normal model of comparative negotiation in market interplay.

[Montmorency]

However, I have yet to read/learn of a system that would generate both the cutting edge medical wonders available in the US health system (for all its flaws) while truly achieving universal coverage.

"Medicare for All" is a neat slogan, but to actually achieve single-payer care and universal coverage would require several layers of brand new institutions and years of graduated transition. If people complained that the ACA bill was very long or complex, then the bill ushering in the new system would be at least an order of magnitude more so. What needs to happen is for Congress to establish a commission to return with some plans in 2 or 3 or 5 years. Of course, who's to say that future government or the People have the patience or commitment to follow through once the time comes? So if it comes, it comes haphazardly. That's the 'democracy tax'.


2 Coverage via the workplace came about in the USA through Union contract efforts to improve the lot of their employees (since an organization negotiating for 150k people has more cost control leverage than the individual,3 and through organizations adding such 'fringe benefits' as a feature to draw in better employees for their organizations. Government then used this model to force all employers to do this, undercutting organizations' ability to use it to acquire the services of a higher caliber of employee and putting all of the administrative burden on the organizations AND loaded it up with government mandated minimum requirements that have driven up the costs. How well those higher costs have accomplished improving overall health coverage nationally is debatable as Senator Sanders recent Presidential bid suggests.
[/SIZE]

Government expansion via workplace coverage was a compromise, and workplace coverage only emerged in the first place because healthcare and health insurance as we know it did not yet exist. Today the product and service that needs to be provisioned is totally different, and we need to change how we do it once again. As with adaptation to climate change, the thing that wants central administration has to be transformed because it is no longer sustainable in its present state under any administration. This is two problems at once, economic and metaeconomic, and they're inseparable. We can't and shouldn't expect a mere reduplication of current practices with a different set of paperwork.


3This economy of scale concept is often touted by those in favor of universal healthcare. However, when only one consumer exists, the normal functions of the open market cease to operate. If there is an economy of scale at that level, it simply does not conform to the normal model of comparative negotiation in market interplay.
[/SIZE]

This is an important point that follows from what I said about metaeconomics and sustainability. Even with a single-payer paragon established in the United States soon enough new crises in quality and absolute costs will emerge that can only be addressed by transnational governance of healthcare -and probably more. But, one step at a time.


Far too many of the national systems feature people flying off for faster medical treatment elsewhere or "black market" medical practices etc. cropping up alongside the official system.

I think these "medical tourists" to America can be generalized as economic elites, with a small proportion of non-elites being sponsored for experimental treatments or purposes of research into rare conditions. There is medical tourism out of the United States as well, but the profile is inverted: those are lower or middle-class people who cannot afford treatment locally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Medicare for All" is a neat slogan, but to actually achieve single-payer care and universal coverage would require several layers of brand new institutions and years of graduated transition. If people complained that the ACA bill was very long or complex, then the bill ushering in the new system would be at least an order of magnitude more so. What needs to happen is for Congress to establish a commission to return with some plans in 2 or 3 or 5 years. Of course, who's to say that future government or the People have the patience or commitment to follow through once the time comes? So if it comes, it comes haphazardly. That's the 'democracy tax'.



Government expansion via workplace coverage was a compromise, and workplace coverage only emerged in the first place because healthcare and health insurance as we know it did not yet exist. Today the product and service that needs to be provisioned is totally different, and we need to change how we do it once again. As with adaptation to climate change, the thing that wants central administration has to be transformed because it is no longer sustainable in its present state under any administration. This is two problems at once, economic and metaeconomic, and they're inseparable. We can't and shouldn't expect a mere reduplication of current practices with a different set of paperwork.



This is an important point that follows from what I said about metaeconomics and sustainability. Even with a single-payer paragon established in the United States soon enough new crises in quality and absolute costs will emerge that can only be addressed by transnational governance of healthcare -and probably more. But, one step at a time.



I think these "medical tourists" to America can be generalized as economic elites, with a small proportion of non-elites being sponsored for experimental treatments or purposes of research into rare conditions. There is medical tourism out of the United States as well, but the profile is inverted: those are lower or middle-class people who cannot afford treatment locally.

I know what metaeconomics means in general, but how do you use the term here?

[HopAlongBunny]

One difference.
For the individual the provision of x may be a life or death choice; you will pay the maximum given that choice.
For the gov't, x is a bulk good (life and death are not at issue); the gov't gets a better rate.

As a patient with complete kidney failure, I have seen how this plays out first-hand.
A drug I needed was $5,000 a pop if I bought it as a person; buying through blue cross the price magically drops to ~$50.
It is a rather dramatic example of "market power" at work.

[Montmorency]

I know what metaeconomics means in general, but how do you use the term here?

The economics of healthcare are the narrow questions of how actors from individuals to firms to governments are exchanging money and other resources to provision and consume certain sets of fixed services and products with respect to some predetermined indicators like access, outcomes, efficiencies and expenditures of GDP and so on...

The metaeconomics of healthcare go to the root of societal organization, of what healthcare is supposed to be, or what is possible, what is needed or should be needed in the context of all the other economic sectors and their principles as well as philosophical and political-sociological questions on the human condition including, "What is or should be the overall focus of economic activity?".

Here's (http://www.metaeconomics.co.uk/metaeconomics.html) one take:



[T]his website argues for a paradigm shift in the substance, rather than the form of economics, a move which will, paradoxically, take economics back to its origin in the field of moral philosophy. I hope to convince the viewer that when the existing paradigm is examined for it appropriateness to humanity’s needs, it will be seen to be so inadequate, dysfunctional and socially destructive that a new economic paradigm is called for. When the current economic upheavals have run their course, and rebuilding is being planned, it must start from a clear vision of the kind of social community we desire, and this website will argue that it cannot be profit-driven.

...

[B]ut what distinguishes metanomics from informed orthodox economics is its rejection of two even more fundamental assumptions. The first of these is that the aim of economics of whatever kind is to increase “wealth”, which is taken to be material possessions or comforts or the money to obtain them. The second is the assumption that the natural economic group is the nation state. The latter is already being questioned in the drive to globalism which has been intensified by the rise of China, with all its many economic consequences, and of the transnational business corporation, which actively seeks to escape from regulation by the nation state and whose ideal would be a totally borderless world.

Metanomics redefines the aim of economic theory and practice , so that wealth is not a measurable financial quantity, but a function of human well being, albeit this is not separable from a minimum level of income. “Human welfare” or “human prosperity” might initially be taken to be something akin to Aristotle’s euphoria, which meant something much less dramatic and intoxicating than commonly understood today.

...

One thing we can be sure of is that the economic problems that humankind now faces cannot be solved by the same kind of economic thinking that caused them in the first place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think these "medical tourists" to America can be generalized as economic elites, with a small proportion of non-elites being sponsored for experimental treatments or purposes of research into rare conditions. There is medical tourism out of the United States as well, but the profile is inverted: those are lower or middle-class people who cannot afford treatment locally.

A fair point, but I and my wife (courtesy of a good deal of her work being in Canada for two years) are familiar with several middle class and working class Canadians who personally traveled or whos parents traveled to the USA to avoid waiting in lines for a test/procedure/what have you. So it isn't just elites, even though those probably do constitute most of the intercontinental medical "vacations."

[Montmorency]

A fair point, but I and my wife (courtesy of a good deal of her work being in Canada for two years) are familiar with several middle class and working class Canadians who personally traveled or whos parents traveled to the USA to avoid waiting in lines for a test/procedure/what have you. So it isn't just elites, even though those probably do constitute most of the intercontinental medical "vacations."

I'm sure on the right intersections of person, place and (usually outpatient) procedure, it works out through classic economic principles. So for Americans who need dental care, they're (I'm admittedly assuming) more likely to drive to Mexico than fly to India.

[Montmorency]

Christian humanism, yet another kind (http://tnl.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Work-Dorothy-Sayers.pdf) of metaeconomic take.

@Seamus Fermanagh
@Philippus Flavius Homovallumus


I have already, on a previous occasion, spoken at some length on the subject of Work and Vocation. What I urged then was a thoroughgoing revolution in our whole attitude to work. I asked that it should be looked upon—not as a necessary drudgery to be undergone for the purpose of making money, but as a way of life in which the nature of man should find its proper exercise and delight and so fulfill itself to the glory of God. That it should, in fact, be thought of as a creative activity undertaken for the love of the work itself; and that man, made in God’s image, should make things, as God makes them, for the sake of doing well a thing that is well worth doing.

It may well seem to you—as it does to some of my acquaintances— that I have a sort of obsession about this business of the right attitude to work. But I do insist upon it, because it seems to me that what becomes of civilization after this war is going to depend enormously on our being able to effect this revolution in our ideas about work. Unless we do change our whole way of thought about work, I do not think we shall ever escape from the appalling squirrel-cage of economic confusion in which we have been madly turning for the last three centuries or so, the cage in which we landed ourselves by acquiescing in a social system based upon Envy and Avarice. A society in which consumption has to be artificially stimulated in order to keep production going is a society founded on trash and waste, and such a society is a house built upon sand.


No nation has yet found a way to keep the machines running and whole nations employed under modern industrial conditions without wasteful consumption. For a time, a few nations could contrive to keep going by securing a monopoly of production and forcing their waste products onto new and untapped markets. When there are no new markets and all nations are industrial producers, the only choice we have been able to envisage so far has been that between armaments and unemployment [...] I see no reason why we should not sacrifice our convenience and our individual standard of living just as readily for the building of great public works as for the building of ships and tanks—but when the stimulus of fear and anger is removed, shall we be prepared to do any such thing? Or shall we want to go back to that civilization of greed and waste which we dignify by the name of a “high standard of living”? I am getting very much afraid of that phrase about the standard of living. And I am also frightened by the phrase “after the war”—it is so often pronounced in a tone that suggests: “after the war, we want to relax, and go back, and live as we did before.” And that means going back to the time when labor was valued in terms of its cash returns, and not in terms of the work.


The relentless pressure of hungry labor is behind the drive towards wasteful consumption, whether in the destruction of war or in the trumpery of peace. The problem is far too much simplified when it is presented as a mere conflict between labor and capital, between employed and employer. The basic difficulty remains, even when you make the State the sole employer, even when, you make Labor into the employer. It is not simply a question of profits and wages or living conditions—but of what is to be done with the work of the machines, and what work the machines are to do. If we do not deal with this question now, while we have time to think about it, then the whirligig of wasteful production and wasteful consumption will start again and will again end in war. And the driving-power of labor will be thrusting to turn the wheels, because it is to the financial interest of labor to keep the whirligig going faster and faster till the inevitable catastrophe comes.


But it will make a great difference to the result if we are genuinely aiming at a real change in economic thinking. And by that I mean a radical change from top to bottom—a new system; not a mere adjustment of the old system to favor a different set of people.


And, whether by strange coincidence, or whether because of some universal law, so soon as nothing is demanded of the thing made but its own integral perfection, its own absolute value, the skill and labor of the worker are fully employed and likewise acquire an absolute value. This is probably not the kind of answer that you will find in any theory of economics. But the professional economist is not really trained to answer, or even to ask himself questions about absolute values. The economist is inside the squirrel-cage and turning with it. Any question about absolute values belongs to the sphere, not of economics, but of religion. And it is very possible that we cannot deal with economics at all, unless we can see economy from outside the cage; that we cannot begin to settle the relative values without considering absolute values. And if so, this may give a very precise and practical meaning to the words: “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” ...


The first, stated quite briefly, is that work is not, primarily, a thing one does to live, but the thing one lives to do. It is, or it should be, the full expression of the worker’s faculties, the thing in which he finds spiritual, mental, and bodily satisfaction, and the medium in which he offers himself to God [...] So long as society provides the worker with a sufficient return in real wealth to enable him to carry on the work properly, then he has his reward. For his work is the measure of his life, and his satisfaction is found in the fulfillment of his own nature, and in contemplation of the perfection of his work.


Here is the second consequence. At present we have no clear grasp of the principle that every man should do the work for which he is fitted by nature. The employer is obsessed by the notion that he must find cheap labor, and the worker by the notion that the best-paid job is the job for him. Only feebly, inadequately, and spasmodically do we ever attempt to tackle the problem from the other end, and inquire: What type of worker is suited to this type of work? People engaged in education see clearly that this is the right end to start from; but they are frustrated by economic pressure, and by the failure of parents on the one hand and employers on the other to grasp the fundamental importance of this approach.


A third consequence is that, if we really believed this proposition and arranged our work and our standard of values accordingly, we should no longer think of work as something that we hastened to get through in order to enjoy our leisure; we should look on our leisure as the period of changed rhythm that refreshed us for the delightful purpose of getting on with our work.


A fourth consequence is that we should fight tooth and nail, not for mere employment, but for the quality of the work that we had to do. We should clamor to be engaged on work that was worth doing, and in which we could take a pride. The worker would demand that the stuff he helped to turn out should be good stuff; he would no longer be content to take the cash and let the credit go [...] The greatest insult which a commercial age has offered to the worker has been to rob him of all interest in the end product of the work and to force him to dedicate his life to making badly things which were not worth making.


Christian people, and particularly perhaps the Christian clergy, must get it firmly into their heads that when a man or woman is called to a particular job of secular work, that is as true a vocation as though he or she were called to specifically religious work. The Church must concern herself, not only with such questions as the just price and proper working conditions: she must concern herself with seeing that the work itself is such as a human being can perform without degradation—that no one is required by economic or any other considerations to devote himself to work that is contemptible, soul-destroying, or harmful. It is not right for her to acquiesce in the notion that a man’s life is divided into the time he spends on his work and the time he spends in serving God. He must be able to serve God in his work, and the work itself must be accepted and respected as the medium of divine creation.


The Church’s approach to an intelligent carpenter is usually confined to exhorting him not to be drunk and disorderly in his leisure hours, and to come to church on Sundays. What the Church should be telling him is this: that the very first demand that his religion makes upon him is that he should make good tables. Church by all means, and decent forms of amusement, certainly—but what use is all that if in the very center of his life and occupation he is insulting God with bad carpentry? [...] She has forgotten that the secular vocation is sacred. Forgotten that a building must be good architecture before it can be a good church; that a painting must be well painted before it can be a good sacred picture; that work must be good work before it can call itself God’s work. [...] The official Church wastes time and energy, and moreover commits sacrilege, in demanding that secular workers should neglect their proper vocation in order to do Christian work—by which she means ecclesiastical work. The only Christian work is good work well done. Let the Church see to it that the workers are Christian people and do their work well, as to God: then all the work will be Christian work,


God is not served by technical incompetence; and incompetence and untruth always result when the secular vocation is treated as a thing alien to religion


This brings me to my third proposition; and this may sound to you the most revolutionary of all. It is this: the worker’s first duty is to serve the work.


There is in fact a paradox about working to serve the community, and it is this: that to aim directly at serving the community is to falsify the work; the only way to serve the community is to forget the community and serve the work.

['Blessed are the monomaniacal'??!]


the moment you think of serving other people, you begin to have a notion that other people owe you something for your pains; you begin to think that you have a claim on the community. You will begin to bargain for reward, to angle for applause, and to harbor a grievance if you are not appreciated. But if your mind is set upon serving the work, then you know you have nothing to look for; the only reward the work can give you is the satisfaction of beholding its perfection. The work takes all and gives nothing but itself; and to serve the work is a labor of pure love.


The danger of “serving the community” is that one is part of the community, and that in serving it one may only be serving a kind of communal egotism. The only true way of serving the community is to be truly in sympathy with the community—to be oneself part of the community—and then to serve the work, without giving the community another thought. Then the work will endure, because it will be true to itself. It is the work that serves the community; the business of the worker is to serve the work.

Where we have become confused is in mixing up the ends to which our work is put with the way in which the work is done.



What is required is the perfect practical discrimination between the end pursued by the workman (finis operantis) and the end to be served by the work (finis operis), so that the workman may work for his wages but the work be controlled and set in being only in relation to its proper good and nowise in relation to the wages earned; so that the artist may work for any and every human intention he likes, but the work taken by itself be performed and constructed for its proper beauty alone.

Or perhaps we may put it more shortly still: If work is to find its right place in the world, it is the duty of the Church to see to it that the work serves God, and that the worker serves the work.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Trump team may not having "knowingly colluded" with Russia, but they certainly helped spread the BS coming from Russian sponsored troll farms:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-staffers-pushed-russian-propaganda-days-before-the-election

Of course they would just blow this off: "We tweeted the best tweets, the most beautiful tweets!"; Russians have just always had a way with language?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Trump team may not having "knowingly colluded" with Russia, but they certainly helped spread the BS coming from Russian sponsored troll farms:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-staffers-pushed-russian-propaganda-days-before-the-election

Of course they would just blow this off: "We tweeted the best tweets, the most beautiful tweets!"; Russians have just always had a way with language?

And I am sure that they will be believed when denying having "knowingly colluded" with a Russian propaganda. They are centering their denial on their own ignorance and lack of political sophistication, after all. Who among us has trouble believing that of the Trump campaign cadre.

Thank heavens the administration has acquired a few adults and some of that campaign cadre have moved on. With a little luck and a few more new personnel, the Trump administration might be able to pull up its performance to "not quite incompetent."

[HopAlongBunny]

Jeff Sessions continued to shift the goalposts on anything to do with Russia; no surprise really.
He also confessed to a complete lack of any action, policy or consideration of what could be done to secure elections from foreign interference:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/20/jeff-sessions-just-confessed-his-negligence-on-russia/

The man has a wheelhouse the size of a postage stamp.

[Gilrandir]

All you need to know about Trump but were afraid to imagine:
19985

[HopAlongBunny]

Funding law enforcement; without raising taxes.
Welcome to the policy of asset forfeiture. It allows the police to seize your stuff on the mere suspicion of criminal acts. You don't even need to be charged.
While much of its worst abuses were reigned in under Eric Holder, Jeff Sessions has decided it was too good to let go.

Rick Perry has an energy solution: subsidized coal.
Coal has been displaced by other energy solutions, so the government will pay the industry simply to exist.
Free market? To steal from a Canadian politician: "Free market if necessary, not necessarily free market" (original was over conscription, not markets)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-trump-administration-is-a-libertarians-worst-nightmare

[Montmorency]

National Review knows about "acting white (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452910/white-working-class-populism-underclass-anti-elitism-acting-white-incompatible-conservativism)". Worth the read.

[Greyblades]

This wiliamson fellow has a remarkably poor grasp of the motivations of his fellow countrymen: he focuses so much on trying to explain away the acceptance of trumps crassmess without ever taking into consideration how the previous president's performance has tainted the idea of the typical smooth talking president.

Also nazis hated jews fir being too virtuous? Dafuq?

[Montmorency]

how the previous president's performance has tainted the idea of the typical smooth talking president.

There's no reason to believe this had anything to do with white people's motivations, which had been nurtured over a period of decades - long before Obama entered politics.

More to the point, that's why most Republicans weren't driven to oppose Trump - the threshold had dropped too low in contemporary times.


Also nazis hated jews fir being too virtuous? Dafuq?

Just as he said. Per Hitler, in the Jewish context these were not virtues but tricks played by a virulent hostile race upon the German/European people. The fascist irony was that Jews were judged to possess positive attributes in too high a degree or toward a harmful end. Re: Ezra Pound (http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/pound/fascism.htm),


However, I should here note that anti-semitism plays a unique role within Pound’s political system, as it did within fascism as a whole. For to Pound, Jews seem to constitute a kind a of parody of both of the two political identities which I have sketched above—i.e., the "authoritarian" and the "revolutionary" identities. Indeed, Jews seem to possess all of the traits that Pound admired, but always "in excess." Thus he would see Jews as too concerned with preserving their "cultural heritage," causing them to neglect the great maxim, "Make It New." At the same time, Pound also seems to see Jews as the agents of a destructive "modernization" of European culture. So too, Pound would see Jews as claiming an elite status, as God’s "chosen people"; they "stand apart," but not in the positive creative way of the Great Artist or the Great Leader. At the same time, Pound sees in the loyalty of Jews toward one another an inverted reflection of his own a vision of an artistic community. Jews are also, to Pound, too concerned with amassing private property, while at the same time they have spawned ideas (socialism, communism) which question the very right of people to own private property. And the allegiance of Jews to a patriarchal God represents for Pound a "cult of the will" gone wrong, while at the same time Jews also, he implies, love in the "wrong" way: perversely or too intensely. By thus representing in Pound’s mind a parody of everything that he himself wanted, Jews came to play a scapegoat function in his thinking, as they did for fascism in general. If we could only purge the world of "Jewishness," Hitler proclaimed, then we would have workers happy in their factories and bosses safe in their offices. So too, I think, the idea of a world purged of Jews meant for Pound a world in which true mastery and rightful authority (his own, for example) would be recognized by all men, and in which a loyal band of artist/comrades (Gaudier and Hulme returned from the dead, Eliot escaped from the clutches of the church) would together create that ideal community for which he never stopped longing—a world, in short, wherein authority and community would come together at last, in a joyous marriage.

[HopAlongBunny]

The search for voter fraud is going the way you might expect.
The demand for voter lists was rejected by some states, those who have complied find their data collected and stored without any real security. The data is not encrypted going in and not encrypted for storage. Passwords are exchanged between parties through email (which is also not secured)
In other words, the GOP is creating a data base ripe for hacking by those who might be interested in creating fraudulent voters:laugh4:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/trump-election-commissioners-voter-database-is-a-ripe-target-for-hackers/

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/tXriqAZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/i1RW5XL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/EM3urFv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Q2SGBWg.jpg

[HopAlongBunny]

The first charges have apparently been filed.
In classic crime drama fashion, the audience has to endure a "Cliff hanger" until the show gets underway on Monday.
I hope it's the Orange One:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charges-robert-mueller-investigation-russia-election-trump-1.4376735

Note to self: need popcorn...much popcorn!
:bounce:

[Greyblades]

I suspect it is podesta. Even if we discount the investigation turning it's attention to him, the man has been a sex scandal waiting to happen for nearly a year now.

[Hooahguy]

I suspect it is podesta. Even if we discount the investigation turning it's attention to him, the man has been a sex scandal waiting to happen for nearly a year now.
Somehow I have a hard time believing that but okay.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Somehow I have a hard time believing that but okay.

Political power is second only to ethanol in allowing ugly people to get laid.

[Hooahguy]

Political power is second only to ethanol in allowing ugly people to get laid.
I was referring to the first part of his post, not the second.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I was referring to the first part of his post, not the second.

I knew that, but the joke didn't work if I acknowledged it. :smartass2:

[Greyblades]

Political power is second only to ethanol in allowing ugly people to get laid.

Especially when it comes to the more exotic tastes

Spirit cooking parties, Biljana Djurdjevic paintings, dahlmer victim sculptures; somehow I find the probabilty that an active fbi investigation at tony podestas door finding nothing highly unlikely.

Then again he is one of clinton's, it is equally likely that none of it will see the light of day.

[Montmorency]

I just realized that Steve Bannon and "moderate" conservatives are essentially ideologically-identical, and want near-identical policies. Internecine hostility obscures the lack of any real divide beyond a rhetorical one.

[Hooahguy]

I will bet its either Manafort or Flynn. We will know on Monday I guess.

[Kralizec]

Somehow I have a hard time believing that but okay.

He is probably still mulling over Pizzagate because he's unwilling to admit his mistake in lending any credence to a stupid conspiracy theory.

How stupid was it? Even Alex Jones eventually apologized for promoting it.

[Greyblades]

I see you're trying to portray me as crazy for thinking there was actually something criminal behind the guy who openly has portraits of half naked prepubescant children and sculptures of murder victims hanging in his home, would you like some help with that?

I'm sorry to say it but even clippy cant undo the damage the mass buying into russiagate by both public and media, (not to mention pissgate) has done to the "make him look like a crazy conspiracy theorist" angle.


Conspiract theory accusations have become the new Godwins law.

[Beskar]

Russia helping Trump is known, the question is "How much collusion was there?" and we know thanks to Trump's son that there was a very real possibility of that going on.

[Greyblades]

The creepyness of Tony podesta is known the question is "how depraved is that creep?" And we know from the clinton emails and that there was a real possibility of that going on.

Ironic echo aside, the reality of russia hasnt stopped a year straight of unwaivering unsubstantiated belief of impeachable collusion by an swathes of those previously thought as better than such rabid certainty.

The the conciet that such dot joining is the sole remit of a single political orientation or exclusive to the unreasonable is discredited.

[Hooahguy]

I see you're trying to portray me as crazy for thinking there was actually something criminal behind the guy who openly has portraits of half naked prepubescant children and sculptures of murder victims hanging in his home, would you like some help with that?


Source?

[Greyblades]

Source?

From an article on the interior of tony podesta's house:

http://washingtonlife.com/2015/06/05/inside-homes-private-viewing/

http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2016/11/Biljana-Djurdjevic-in-Podesta-Home-1.png

The picture in the corner is a painting called schoolgirl (http://www.biljanadjurdjevic.com/ParadiseLost.html) made by Biljana Djurdjevic:

http://www.biljanadjurdjevic.com/images/ParadiseLost/4SchoolGirl.jpg

The art podesta posessed is creepy, but on it's own it is overlookable, it gets worse when you consider this is the less creepy work of the artist, who has an extremely disturbing portfolio (Warning "Art" of half naked children, living and dead):
http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/files/2016/11/partwallmarkeda.jpg

In addition to the portrait tony podesta's house displays a sculpture that is inspired by images of how jeffry dhalmer mutilated and posed his murder victim (Warning: footage of a posed corpse):

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eKdOleipDRg/WDSv8px_ZyI/AAAAAAAA8FM/tbC1L8b8nu0_nbmKEAhYVKGzAdxMCz2ngCLcB/s640/podesta%2Bdahmer-2.png

Now here's the thing, alone this is freaking creepy and the impications of such openess over such preferences is repugnant but this is not proof of paedophillia, however it puts a great big bullseye on tony podesta every time the clintons and the campaign are implicated as having paedophiles on the payroll, which the emails did:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10052

>> With enormous gratitude to Advance Man Extraordinaire Haber, I am popping
>> up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to
>> the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes:
>> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be
>> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and
>> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in
>> that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun,
>> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever
>> attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so
>> we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).

3 names identified as 11, 9, and almost 7 delivered by uber to a pool party, it is hard to interprete that kindly.

[Hooahguy]

Ok, I will admit the art is creepy as hell, but the Pizzagate stuff has been debunked ages ago.

That email you quote could also mean that these kids are coming to the party so there will be more fun things for the kids to do while the adults do their own thing. Probably is totally innocent. Considering that the last name of one of the kids matches up to one of the people on that email chain (Tamera Luzzatto) I would wager my thinking is the more likely version.

[Greyblades]

Hm more accurately the only part of the pizzagate stuff that was properly debunked was the idea that there was a sex ring operating under the pizza place, the potential of paedophiles in the campaign staff was not, not that that stopped people trying to say that on this very board IIRC.

Technically neither was the pizza being code for kid thing, though personally I dont put much stock on it myself; the whole thing came up as someone taking an example from a previous case and looking for it in the thousands of emails and coming across one where a Stratfor CEO getting annoyed that he has no idea why his employees kept metioning a "pizza project" (https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/39/399189_re-i-need-to-add-.html).


That email you quote could also mean that these kids are coming to the party so there will be more fun things for the kids to do while the adults do their own thing. Probably is totally innocent. Considering that the last name of one of the kids matches up to one of the people on that email chain (Tamera Luzzatto) I would wager my thinking is the more likely version. Eh, I dont like it, the whole bringing kids by uber and calling them "entertainment" rubs me the wrong way, though I admit I might be inclined to agree were it not for John Podesta being invited and the general malaise of sleaze over the entire campaign.

Even ignoring the general idea that there are weird sex things going on all over capitol hill, clinton and co had connections to various paedophiles, like Bill's association with Jeffry Epstien's "Lolita Express" or Tony Podesta's friendship with Dennis Hastert not to mention Anthony Wiener, or that client clinton laughed over getting off despite being guilty as sin.

Plus there was that spirit cooking thing, blech.

With all that I find it hard not to see the bad interpretation as more probable than it perhaps should be, I suspect this is the same sort of predisposition what a lot of people have about the various trump corruption allegations.

[Kralizec]

Granted, the art is creepy. What does that prove? If I was a serial murderer or a pedophile, I would not openly display fetish pictures in my own house where visitors could see it. So the obvious conclusion is that Podesta is a murderer, a child predator and colossally stupid at the same time :rolleyes:

So again: you're just waiting until the day until your belief in Pizzagate is vindicated. So that you'll never be forced to admit you tarnished somebody else's name in the worst possible manner, without any shred of evidence. Plus, all the sleepless nights and stress that guys like you gave that restaurant owner and his family.

[Hooahguy]

Eh, I dont like it, the whole bringing kids by uber and calling them "entertainment" rubs me the wrong way, though I admit I might be inclined to agree were it not for John Podesta being invited and the general malaise of sleaze over the entire campaign.


The email was likely not have been referring to the kids as entertainment, but that other means of entertainment would be arranged for the kids. Considering that it talks about the kids being in the pool I think thats likeliest explanation. Occam's razor and all.

[Greyblades]

Hell it it might be a snide asside for how children usually ruin things, but it is coming from those that travel in sketchy circles and suppose I do not posess the good faith you hold them in.


Granted, the art is creepy. What does that prove? If I was a serial murderer or a pedophile, I would not openly display fetish pictures in my own house where visitors could see it. So the obvious conclusion is that Podesta is a murderer, a child predator and colossally stupid at the same time :rolleyes:

So again: you're just waiting until the day until your belief in Pizzagate is vindicated. So that you'll never be forced to admit you tarnished somebody else's name in the worst possible manner, without any shred of evidence. Plus, all the sleepless nights and stress that guys like you gave that restaurant owner and his family.

Lets see, a strawman saying I was intending to prove anything instead of explaining my expectation, an assumption of rationality upon an actor which by definition suffer a mental illness, assigning guilt over an action I took no part in, demonzing me for that asserted action, appealing to to shame over same.

You're projecting as usual, anything to declare your opposition evil.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Pizzagate is what happens when the government allows too many NEET's to congregate in one place.

[Hooahguy]

So as it turns out, Manafort is the first to be indicted, as I suspected.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So as it turns out, Manafort is the first to be indicted, as I suspected.

Indeed.

Though we should remember the old 'ham sandwich' rule, and probably construe this more as a tool to encourage good singing than anything else.

[HopAlongBunny]

Manafort indicted on 12 charges including conspiracy against the United States. Former business partner Rick Gates also surrendered to authorities.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charges-robert-mueller-investigation-russia-election-trump-1.4377948

Just musing. I think Manafort is primarily concerned with what is good for Manafort; he will sing like a canary:jumping:

[Beskar]

Related to those who support Trump: https://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12843120/rolling-coal-government-overreach

[HopAlongBunny]

A nice overview of where we might head now that the process has started:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/30/where-is-bob-mueller-headed-next-215762

One not mentioned is the Trump Nuclear Option.
One version simply goes with Trump firing Mueller. He might not be able to that directly.Trump might be forced to fire his Deputy AG, and anyone beneath him who refuses to co-operate.
Upon finding a willing dance partner Trump appoints him/her to the vacant position using a law that allows temporary appointments (without confirmation) to fill a vacancy for 210 days.
The Total Destruction version hinges on something I have not been able to confirm. If the very position Mueller is in was created by an Executive Order, well that's just too easy. Abolish the post with a new Executive Order and the whole problem disappears!

[Husar]

Related to those who support Trump: https://www.vox.com/2016/9/9/12843120/rolling-coal-government-overreach

If people did that rolling smoke thing in my area, I'd make use of the open carry laws. Surely firing a bullet vs firing toxic smoke is a fair exchange? :sweatdrop:

[HopAlongBunny]

A shooting war might be just what They want :stare:
Further to this. If Muellers' investigation/charges do lead to an impeachment, what are the odds of a Civil War v.2?

OMG!
It's happening! Nov.4 'cause that's just how these anarchists roll!

https://wonkette.com/625024/oh-no-these-lunatics-say-antifa-gonna-civil-war-us-tomorrow-be-very-fraid

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A shooting war might be just what They want :stare:
Further to this. If Muellers' investigation/charges do lead to an impeachment, what are the odds of a Civil War v.2?

Slim or none, and last I heard 'Slim' was fixin' to ride outa town.


If he is impeached, you may see our political parties fracture in a way they haven't since the ACW, but there is simply no generalized support for that kind of violence.

There are somewhere between 900 and 1000 hate groups in the USA. Their average membership is well below 500. With more than 280 million citizens and a total residency of over 320 million, that represents a small fraction of 1% and there is simply no groundswell of greater support. In fact, some of the hate groups also hate each other, so it isn't even a vaguely cohesive movement.

Individual haters generating a terrorism/threat of violence threat, yes. A2CW? Not gonna happen.

[Husar]

A shooting war might be just what They want :stare:
Further to this. If Muellers' investigation/charges do lead to an impeachment, what are the odds of a Civil War v.2?

OMG!
It's happening! Nov.4 'cause that's just how these anarchists roll!

https://wonkette.com/625024/oh-no-these-lunatics-say-antifa-gonna-civil-war-us-tomorrow-be-very-fraid

If you go to that antifa website: https://revolutionaryabolition.org

And watch the video, you may actually realize, that we have a case of TWO crazy sides.
I would assume and hope the anarchists aren't as dangerous, but who knows when these people think they're the US version of the FARC and what not? Are some of their claims legitimate? Yes. Is it very, very crazy to take up arms and massacre people while claiming to end injustice? Yes. They'd have much more credibility if they tried to help Bernie Sanders instead of claiming he'll never get anywhere (which he is even less likely to do if they're not helping him).

Also, is the guy in the video an actual cop? He sure sounds and also looks like one, but I'm pretty sure if a policeman here made such a video, I'd expect him to get suspended/fired really fast.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well the image starting the piece has "100% Total Bull****" blazoned across it :)
From the article:

"Here is Mr. Not A Real Officer Pelz warning about the coming breakdown of society and calling for armed citizens to take up arms against the violent Antifa thugs: "

But I see what you are getting at...
That's exactly the image they wish to portray until their Anti-Antifa Revolution strikes!!!

[HopAlongBunny]

It looks like Greyblades will have to quiet his rants and go have a smoke
Tony Podesta is apparently a drive-by bit o'roadkill in the latest dust up.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-mueller-power-broker-244341

No mention of murder or pedophile rings. He is packing up his business and quietly leaving the scene.
He might be back later, but perhaps the present "law and order" push on the Hill isn't the right "fit":sweatdrop: (speculate wildly, even irresponsibly)

[HopAlongBunny]

The full indictments can be found courtesy of MotherJones:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/here-are-the-full-indictments-for-paul-manafort-and-rick-gates/

[Montmorency]

More important (up to this point) than Manafort (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/mueller-manafort-gates-testimony-244339) is that a certain Trump campaign advisor Papadopoulos (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/30/george-papadopoulos-donald-trump-russia-charge-putin) Flipped-on-Trump-oulos sometime in the summer. Papadopoulos brought out talk of Clinton research and meetings and emails with Putin almost right away upon joining Trump's national security/foreign policy team in March 2016. The more Paps talked up his Russian links, the higher he moved up in the campaign, even as the other members of his original team left over such reasons as lack of compensation. The timeline on communications regarding Russian communications with the campaign is pushed back further: before Manafort joined, before the Trump Jr. meeting, before the Wikileaks email dump, then after the national convention, after the election...

Concretely on collusion here, is if it can be demonstrated that any platform positions taken by the Trump campaign following March 31st (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump/trump-in-unexpected-meeting-with-republican-party-chairman-idUSKCN0WX1PK) (at least (http://www.businessinsider.com/jd-gordon-trump-adviser-ukraine-rnc-2017-3)) constitute quid pro quo.

Fun byproduct: Wikileaks is further implicated as a front or intermediary for Russian intelligence.

https://i.imgur.com/50KLnNo.gif

[Pannonian]

It looks like Greyblades will have to quiet his rants and go have a smoke
Tony Podesta is apparently a drive-by bit o'roadkill in the latest dust up.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-mueller-power-broker-244341

No mention of murder or pedophile rings. He is packing up his business and quietly leaving the scene.
He might be back later, but perhaps the present "law and order" push on the Hill isn't the right "fit":sweatdrop: (speculate wildly, even irresponsibly)

GB has backed Trump, Brexit, and Corbyn. Is he a Putin fan or something?

[spmetla]

Amazing how the guilty plea of an unknown like Papadopoulos can bring out such ire from the administration. After a full week of trying to discredit the investigation and paint the Clinton campaigns use of the Steele dossier as collusion to have charges brought on the three of the circle is perfect timing.

I'm certainly curious when/if something will be brought against Michael Flynn and son seeing as the investigation into him is one of the major reasons Comey was fired.

I'd actually be happy if the investigation was expanded into the Ukraine/Uranium thing that the administration is using to deflect just to make the Mueller investigation less able to be painted as a partisan hit job. We've already seen the past few months the analysis of every lawyer added to the Mueller team to see if they'd ever donated to a Democrat as building up ammo to discredit it.

On a side note, it is rather irritating how all this news as overshadowed much mention of the Catalan or Kurdish crises in the US which are every bit as important.

[Hooahguy]

Its amusing to me to see Trump claim that Papadopoulos was a low level intern or something where theres photo proof of him sitting at national security meetings with Trump & co.

[CrossLOPER]

GB has backed Trump, Brexit, and Corbyn. Is he a Putin fan or something?

He is a victim of a society that totally hates white males. Seriously. Hates them. Wink.

[John Smith]

What do you call hot air that is offensive to be around?

[Montmorency]

On a side note, it is rather irritating how all this news as overshadowed much mention of the Catalan or Kurdish crises in the US which are every bit as important.

Well as some have pointed out, Mueller looks like he is playing himself in the eventual TV/film dramatization of the Trump presidency.

US political dramas simply have a market advantage over foreign-language, even action/war genre. You need the square-jawed American man as a protagonist to compete.

Also, it appears the Special Counsel's office has set up a webpage (https://www.justice.gov/sco) Monday. Stay tuned for viral content?

[HopAlongBunny]

Not completely buried is the latest shake-up at the EPA:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/30/in-unprecedented-shift-epa-to-prohibit-scientists-who-receive-agency-funding-from-serving-as-advisers/?utm_term=.4e604605e94f

Receiving funding from the EPA seems to give EPA scientists a "biased agenda"
We are to be saved by more objective opinions direct from industry.

[Beskar]

Not completely buried is the latest shake-up at the EPA:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/30/in-unprecedented-shift-epa-to-prohibit-scientists-who-receive-agency-funding-from-serving-as-advisers/?utm_term=.4e604605e94f

Receiving funding from the EPA seems to give EPA scientists a "biased agenda"
We are to be saved by more objective opinions direct from industry.

Idiots.

EPA funding ensures impartiality as there is no vested interest.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Idiots.

EPA funding ensures impartiality as there is no vested interest.

Sort of. There is quite a lot of pressure in academe to secure grant funding -- it often pays the wages of all working on the research project -- so being on an oversight board for the EPA while receiving grant money from same is potentially a conflict of interest.

On the other hand, that would be true only of active grants, not past grants.

[Tuuvi]

If you go to that antifa website: https://revolutionaryabolition.org

And watch the video, you may actually realize, that we have a case of TWO crazy sides.
I would assume and hope the anarchists aren't as dangerous, but who knows when these people think they're the US version of the FARC and what not? Are some of their claims legitimate? Yes. Is it very, very crazy to take up arms and massacre people while claiming to end injustice? Yes. They'd have much more credibility if they tried to help Bernie Sanders instead of claiming he'll never get anywhere (which he is even less likely to do if they're not helping him).

Also, is the guy in the video an actual cop? He sure sounds and also looks like one, but I'm pretty sure if a policeman here made such a video, I'd expect him to get suspended/fired really fast.

From the website you posted:


Long Term Goal: Building the Abolitionist Project

For the Abolitionist project to be successful we must eventually transition from resistance to a revolutionary situation. Relationships and groups built through the underground railroad have the potential to become the foundation for organized defense groups, local councils, and regional/national councils.

We invite comrades to coordinate our activities regionally, and nationally as part of an Abolitionist Council.


Anarchists aren't going to attempt an armed insurgency until they feel like they have popular support and there is some sort of government crackdown or major unrest. This is basically what happened in Rojava/North Syria which that website cites as inspiration; the PYD had been organizing underground for years until the civil war broke out and they then took the opportunity to kick the regime out and create their own political institutions.

[Montmorency]

From the website you posted:



Anarchists aren't going to attempt an armed insurgency until they feel like they have popular support and there is some sort of government crackdown or major unrest. This is basically what happened in Rojava/North Syria which that website cites as inspiration; the PYD had been organizing underground for years until the civil war broke out and they then took the opportunity to kick the regime out and create their own political institutions.

In fact there's on-site coverage, Vice News or some other networks, of European anarchists who have volunteered to participate in the 'Kurdish experiment'.

I agree with the socialists: adventurists, the lot.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Anarchists aren't going to attempt an armed insurgency until they feel like they have popular support and there is some sort of government crackdown or major unrest. This is basically what happened in Rojava/North Syria which that website cites as inspiration; the PYD had been organizing underground for years until the civil war broke out and they then took the opportunity to kick the regime out and create their own political institutions.

So the anarchists are waiting to get organized... :inquisitive:~:rolleyes:~;p

[Tuuvi]

Maybe "insurgency" was the wrong word, because at that point it would be more of a militia based endeavor like the American Revolution was than a terrorist insurgency like FARC. Either way my point still stands, anarchists aren't stupid/crazy enough to start a random terror campaign like the alt-right hysterics claim they will.

[Tuuvi]

In fact there's on-site coverage, Vice News or some other networks, of European anarchists who have volunteered to participate in the 'Kurdish experiment'.

I agree with the socialists: adventurists, the lot.

Which is kind of funny in a way, because Abdullah Ocalan, the PYD's philosophical leader, was influenced by an American radical named Murray Bookchin, who proposed that the state should be replaced with a confederation of democratic municipal assemblies. Bookchin considered himself an anarchist for many decades but he couldn't convince any other anarchists to adopt his ideas and ended up disowning the anarchist movement. Now that Bookchin is dead and some of his ideas are being implemented in Rojava, anarchists are willing to travel to Syria and risk their lives in support of Rojava's revolution.

[spmetla]

The militia men right wingers and the ANTIFA guys are both dangerous threats. While most won't actually resort to violence it only takes a few idiots on each side to do violence. If the clamp down is too heavy handed by the authorities it usually galvanizes the extremist which ratchet up their actions too. If it turns into tit-for-tat between groups then it generally escalates and becomes 'normalized.'

The world has had more than enough violence spells that start out as protests then riots then outright rebellion and it can happen anywhere.

The color revolutions of Eastern Europe would have turned into civil war if the authorities had chosen to use force.

[Husar]

You must have missed the part where they celebrate having street fights against the police and show pride about hurting policemen.
That is something they do already and it makes them crazy, just like the idea that small communes of people were somehow a solution for all our problems...

[HopAlongBunny]

The best revision of taxes ever!!!
Does a lot go to the top income bracket? Why yes! Yes it does!!!
America is about to be drenched in Trickle Down goodness!

https://wonkette.com/625291/gop-tax-plan-to-help-middle-class-families-become-lower-middle-class-families

It is indeed amazing how the deficit is no longer an issue with a White Republican in the White House :laugh4:

[HopAlongBunny]

Disinformation! from the White House
The liar-in-chief is again seeking to switch the conversation from a "Trump did a boo boo" sort of thing; to a "Lock up Hillary!" sort of thing.
Problem is the "Uranium scandal" was a non-starter when it came out quite some time ago. Today, there is still no case to be made.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/31/donald-trumps-biggest-disinformation-campaign-yet/

It might shore up the base for some real fireworks...just in case Mueller tightens the circle a little more.

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3k8TfN8UAc

[CrossLOPER]

Disinformation! from the White House
The liar-in-chief is again seeking to switch the conversation from a "Trump did a boo boo" sort of thing; to a "Lock up Hillary!" sort of thing.
Problem is the "Uranium scandal" was a non-starter when it came out quite some time ago. Today, there is still no case to be made.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/31/donald-trumps-biggest-disinformation-campaign-yet/

It might shore up the base for some real fireworks...just in case Mueller tightens the circle a little more.

Here is another non-starter:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/forest-service-suggests-trump-could-reopen-uranium-mining-near-grand-canyon/

[HopAlongBunny]

Here is another non-starter:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/forest-service-suggests-trump-could-reopen-uranium-mining-near-grand-canyon/

It's all good.
Coal and nuclear aren't economic now, but that's okay because the little people will pay for it:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/06/trumps-coal-backers-energy-power-rick-perry-244535

Corporate welfare? Oh my, I think you might misunderestimate the vital strategic importance of maintaining capacity with less efficient solutions.

[drone]

Nice to see my state give Trump and the GOP the collective finger yesterday. It will be interesting to watch the effects ripple through the federal level as vulnerable GOP congressmen start sweating.

[Montmorency]

In his ongoing law blog on impeachable offenses, Frank Bowman examines (https://impeachableoffenses.net/2017/11/03/trump-commits-another-impeachable-offense-siccing-federal-criminal-investigators-on-his-enemies/) the implications of Trump quasi-ordering the Justice Dept. and the courts and LE to pursue politically-motivated investigation/prosecution against Trump's enemies. In the comments you have the spectacle of Frank patiently replying to some characteristically-unhinged screeds.


Also, FOX interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA2pH3CD5Ns):


Are you worried that the State Department doesn't have enough Donald Trump nominees in there to push your vision through?

Let me tell you, the one that matters is me... I'm the only one that matters, because when it comes to it, that's what the policy is going to be. You've seen that, you've seen it strongly.


State Department "Decapitated" (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-accused-decapitating-leadership-state-department/story?id=51006690)

The U.S.’s ranks of diplomats are losing key leaders at a “dizzying speed” as the State Department struggles to recruit talent amid a hiring freeze and sinking morale in the Trump administration, according to a new essay from a top ambassador.

Sixty percent of the agency’s career ambassadors, the highest rank for diplomats, have retired or quit since January. Nearly half of career ministers — the next level down and equivalent to the military’s three-star generals — are gone too, down to 19 from 33. The next-level minister counselors have seen their numbers drop by 62 diplomats, to 369, since Labor Day “and are still falling,” writes Ambassador Barbara Stephenson, the president of the American Foreign Service Association union.

[...]

So far, the Trump administration has only seven high-level political appointees confirmed by the Senate and working in the department — outside of Tillerson but including USAID Administrator Mark Green and Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan. Eight nominees are working their way through the confirmation process, with the Senate awaiting their paperwork or the nominees awaiting a Senate hearing or vote.

But in the absence of Trump appointments, there are 30 senior roles filled by career diplomats in an acting capacity. Although there are people doing the work, they do not enjoy the full legal authority of their role or the image of speaking on the administration’s behalf to the world.

There are 39 other senior roles that are vacant, but Tillerson has said he plans to eliminate 18 of those and fold their responsibilities into other jobs. The Trump administration has nominated someone for one of those 39 roles — the chief of protocol — who is awaiting confirmation.

Nearly three dozen ambassadorships remain vacant as well, with the embassies’ No. 2, called the charge d’affaires, leading those U.S. missions.


Let me tell you, the one that matters is me... I'm the only one that matters, because when it comes to it, that's what the policy is going to be. You've seen that, you've seen it strongly.

Bring. Him. Down.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/20/a6/9d/20a69d02d1dc78059b355224b1ed084b.jpg

[spmetla]

He is a threat to our democracy and the world in general. I hope the Dems take the house next year so he can be impeached.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

He is a threat to our democracy and the world in general. I hope the Dems take the house next year so he can be impeached.

Nope. Just an asshat. More of a historical blip when all is said and done. Gives Chester Arthur a chance to get off of the bottom of the list of unmemorables.

[Montmorency]

Nope. Just an asshat. More of a historical blip when all is said and done. Gives Chester Arthur a chance to get off of the bottom of the list of unmemorables.

I don't see how you can be dismissive. The man himself is ignominious, but he represents a national crisis that will continue through all his term and will not end with its termination by whichever means.

Chester Arthur lived in an era of different government and political structures, and was at least a relatively decent man. "Unmemorable" is not equivalent to heinous.

[Strike For The South]

Nope. Just an asshat. More of a historical blip when all is said and done. Gives Chester Arthur a chance to get off of the bottom of the list of unmemorables.

This is wrong.

[Greyblades]

Nope. Just an asshat. More of a historical blip when all is said and done. Gives Chester Arthur a chance to get off of the bottom of the list of unmemorables.

I applaud the attempt to be the voice of reason but I'm afraid it's futile: this has become an echochamber; a cycle of raising eachother's spirits over forlorne hopes and then pushing eachother into rage over smokescreens.

It's sad, but trump derangement syndrome can only end when they want it to end. Psychological warfare experts will be studying this era for centuries to come.

[Husar]

I applaud the attempt to be the voice of reason but I'm afraid it's futile: this has become an echochamber; a cycle of raising eachother's spirits over forlorne hopes and then pushing eachother into rage over smokescreens.

It's sad, but trump derangement syndrome can only end when they want it to end. Psychological warfare experts will be studying this era for centuries to come.

You are very unclear once more. Who are "they"? What is "trump derangement syndrome"? What is an "echochamber"? And are you still supporting Trump like you did some months ago when you said he had achieved all his goals? Because your post could be interpreted several ways depending on all that.:dizzy2:

[spmetla]

I applaud the attempt to be the voice of reason but I'm afraid it's futile: this has become an echochamber; a cycle of raising eachother's spirits over forlorne hopes and then pushing eachother into rage over smokescreens.

It's sad, but trump derangement syndrome can only end when they want it to end. Psychological warfare experts will be studying this era for centuries to come.

This is no echochamber, there's no shortage of opposing opinions. Just because most people see that an inept, unworldly, narcissist is unsuited for one of the most important political positions in the planet doesn't make it an echo-chamber. I'm quite conservative on a host of issues and rather hawkish too but he is one man that is wholly unsuited to the office he's in. He might just be an asshat but that type of person in such an important position is a threat to standing of the United States in the world as well as the stability of the post-WWII/post-coldwar world order.
As much as I dislike the even more extreme policies of Mike Pence I would much more prefer his mental stability and general competence than the current POTUS. Just to be clear I didn't vote for Hillary either, had to throw away my vote in protest with Gary Johnson.

As for derangement, if you're referring to our hopes that he's impeached, well that just that, a hope. He's got no shortage of shady people in his immediate periphery that have ties to Russia to include his immediate family members, in-laws and quite possibly himself if the Trump Tower Moscow bit is to be believed.

If he's not impeached I'd hope that at least the Republican establishment can see that the Trump wing of the party is not useful under their current 'big tent' arrangement and force them to create an actual Tea Party, Christian Values Party, or Trump Party instead of continuing the hijack of the Republican party by xenophobic protectionist simpletons in the vein of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Yes, they'd lose votes and seats but at least they'd have some principles I could once again support.

[Pannonian]

This is no echochamber, there's no shortage of opposing opinions. Just because most people see that an inept, unworldly, narcissist is unsuited for one of the most important political positions in the planet doesn't make it an echo-chamber. I'm quite conservative on a host of issues and rather hawkish too but he is one man that is wholly unsuited to the office he's in. He might just be an asshat but that type of person in such an important position is a threat to standing of the United States in the world as well as the stability of the post-WWII/post-coldwar world order.
As much as I dislike the even more extreme policies of Mike Pence I would much more prefer his mental stability and general competence than the current POTUS. Just to be clear I didn't vote for Hillary either, had to throw away my vote in protest with Gary Johnson.

As for derangement, if you're referring to our hopes that he's impeached, well that just that, a hope. He's got no shortage of shady people in his immediate periphery that have ties to Russia to include his immediate family members, in-laws and quite possibly himself if the Trump Tower Moscow bit is to be believed.

If he's not impeached I'd hope that at least the Republican establishment can see that the Trump wing of the party is not useful under their current 'big tent' arrangement and force them to create an actual Tea Party, Christian Values Party, or Trump Party instead of continuing the hijack of the Republican party by xenophobic protectionist simpletons in the vein of Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Yes, they'd lose votes and seats but at least they'd have some principles I could once again support.

Don't know the truth of that as yet, but there seem to be Russian links with social media accounts peddling fake news in the recent Catalan crisis. And of course, pretty strong evidence for such accounts doing the same for Brexit (the most followed such account began life as a pro-Russia account during the Ukraine crisis in 2013, with memes that resurfaced in the Trump election, but has spent most of its life as a supposedly British account peddling pro-UKIP, pro-Brexit and anti-immigration stories). With so many people getting their news from social media without taking trouble to verify their sources, Russia and Putin must be laughing their heads off at the effectiveness of their low budget foreign policy and economic and democratic sabotage.

[Gilrandir]

With so many people getting their news from social media without taking trouble to verify their sources, Russia and Putin must be laughing their heads off at the effectiveness of their low budget foreign policy and economic and democratic sabotage.

Not sure it is as low as you think.

[Beskar]

This is no echochamber, there's no shortage of opposing opinions. Just because most people see that an inept, unworldly, narcissist is unsuited for one of the most important political positions in the planet doesn't make it an echo-chamber...

As Greyblades is a fellow EU4 player and plays England a lot, I will put it this way... Trump is King Henry VI Lancaster on the 1444 Start in terms of Ruler Stats.

[Montmorency]

If America is infected with HIV, Trump would be the AIDS.

Take your retrovirals, people. Don't be full of AIDS.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0xEoKRHRi4

I never saw Trump talk like this before.

[Greyblades]

This is no echochamber, there's no shortage of opposing opinions.
The closest thing to a dissenting opinion I have seen in months think's he's merely an asshat, you may believe it is justified but over the last few months this thread has hosted the diversity of opinion of a momentumn rally.


As for derangement, if you're referring to our hopes that he's impeached, well that just that, a hope. I was referring to the person I consider the most wise person here declaring trump to be a threat to democracy. Now I have the next comparing him to AIDS.

Hope is one thing, desperate as it may be after a year of empty grasping, gross hyperbole is another. This thread is turning into a shrine to peer pressure and confirmation bias, it is frankly a miracle noone has been so insipid as to start declaring Dubya preferable. Yet anyway.


As Greyblades is a fellow EU4 player and plays England a lot, I will put it this way... Trump is King Henry VI Lancaster on the 1444 Start in terms of Ruler Stats.

EU4 is a game company's evaluation of 500 years of history's rulers, they include failures that make bush look like an augustus and suceess that makes FDR look a Commodus. Henry VI earned his 0/0/0 by doing whatever he was told and spending months at a time literally catatonic, not even Carlos II hapsburg or Lois XVI bourbon merited that little.

By the standards of 1455 to 1836 Trump thus far would be in the league of Henry VIII; 3/3/4

[Montmorency]

The closest thing to a dissenting opinion that wasnt me just think's he's merely an asshat, over the last few months this thread has hosted the diversity of opinion of a momentumn rally.

Why do you think that diversity of opinion on Trump's character or fitness has merit, rather than being a sign of moral and intellectual defect? Do you actually have anything to offer on the subject besides indistinct contrarianism and water-carrying?


it is frankly a mircale noone has been so insipid as to start declaring Dubya preferable. Yet anyway.

George W. Bush's tenure is one of the only things keeping Trump from claiming the title of "Worst POTUS".

He long ago claimed "Worst Candidate", however.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why do you think that diversity of opinion on Trump's character or fitness has merit, rather than being a sign of moral and intellectual defect? Do you actually have anything to offer on the subject besides indistinct contrarianism and water-carrying?

There is no point Monty. He might as well be a paid Russian troll.

[Husar]

The closest thing to a dissenting opinion I have seen in months think's he's merely an asshat, you may believe it is justified but over the last few months this thread has hosted the diversity of opinion of a momentumn rally.

So what?
Spmetla has already explained that maybe Trump is so bad that only very few people like him anymore and most of them aren't here.
Would it make you happy if I posted dissenting opinions about how great Trump is or what do you want?

You seem to be saying that somehow the thread is terrible because everybody in here dislikes Trump. Have you ever considered that maybe the reason this is the only thread where pretty much everyone agrees is that Trump is just terrible or can that not be the case because it does not fit your opinion?

And if you have a differing opinion, why not provide it as Monty says? Don'te be lazy, break up the echo chamber yourself!

What exactly is your point?

[spmetla]

The closest thing to a dissenting opinion I have seen in months think's he's merely an asshat, you may believe it is justified but over the last few months this thread has hosted the diversity of opinion of a momentumn rally.


That's largely because most people that were on the fence or supported him because of the Republican brand have seen him for what he's worth.

He was largely elected because he was supposed to be a no nonsense business man that would use that savvy to help the economy, help the standing of the US via diplomacy and also because he was not the Clinton witch.
He's instead undermined NATO by reducing his understanding and support to simple transnational accounting. Left the TPP which was supposed to help us check China's economic clout. He openly sides with every autocrat around, has yet to criticize Putin for anything. Looking at how his trip to Asia has gone he's made it obvious he's no negotiator or deal maker, he just wants to be courted and feel important.

He's made it plain for all to see that he's actually not used to having to do anything. If any legislation requires more than his vocal support he doesn't seem to do anything to push for it's being passed.

His threat to democracy is evident in his on going war with the press. Yes, they don't like him. He is however a compulsive liar and his constant contradictions, statements in the realm of fantasy, and undermining of the very people he picked to do his work for him undermine our democracy. He as a key negotiator should know how to schmooze people, instead he feuds with Mitch and Ryan, insults respectable people like Mccain making our system of checks and balances a deadlock instead.
Additionally, his complete and utter lack of understanding of how the rule of law works in this country undermines peoples faith in that branch as well. How dare his criticize the federal courts and suggest Gitmo and a military tribunal for a terror suspect instead when the last 15 years of war have shown how ineffective Gitmo and tribunals are.

Believe me, I'd love the POTUS to make the economy grow, use a mix of hard and soft power to ensure the stability of the world order. I actually support several of the policies he supposedly is pushing but I've yet to see infrastructure pushed, I've yet to see him be tough of China, I've yet to see sensible immigration that isn't based on religion.

He's made it evident that the Trump brand is the most important thing to him which is terrible to me because the most important thing should be the brand of the United States which he drags through the mud almost every time he opens his mouth.



Hope is one thing, desperate as it may be after a year of empty grasping, gross hyperbole is another. This thread is turning into a shrine to peer pressure and confirmation bias, it is frankly a miracle noone has been so insipid as to start declaring Dubya preferable. Yet anyway.
Well if he starts two endless wars and takes a growing economy and puts it into recession then he'd get to take a seat with Dubya as well. This tax plan has me worried because it seems to hinge on rosy economic forecasts which if aren't even close to attain will massively skyrocket the debt even more (to think that George W. inherited an economy with a budget surplus and ruined it still pisses me off).


By the standards of 1455 to 1836 Trump thus far would be in the league of Henry VIII; 3/3/4
I think his stats are more in the realm of 2/1/1. I've seen nothing that shown him having any military or diplomatic competence, undermining our military alliance and trade agreements wouldn't point to diplomatic skill. The two is really only there from his business experience which would transfer over to EU4's administrative though looking at the amount of unfilled vacancies perhaps that should be a 1 as well. What makes you think he's got military competency? He doesn't even know where his fleets (or should I say Armadas) are sailing though that would be the diplomatic side in EU4.
At least he's got Mattis boosting the Military (level 3), Tillerson isn't allowed to do much so he's base 1 level and Gary Cohn is competent though I personally don't like the tax plan (level 2 advisor).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think little of his leadership so far. He was elected to 'drain the swamp' and get things done for American business and the working class.

So far, unlike Reagan, unlike Bush41, unlike Newt and the GOP House of 1995, Trump cannot get any meaningful legislation furthering his agenda through Congress. This INCLUDES an infrastructure improvement bill that everybody wants, nobody opposes, the country needs, and which will have enough bits of pork included to make it stall-proof. Not even in committee yet. We have one relatively conservative judge added to the SCOTUS. That's it.

The one thing Washington seems to agree on right now is the key thing is to sabotage anything useful to Trump's agenda. The GOP establishment will gladly trade lost seats in Nov18 in both houses in order to hang the loss on Trump's reputation and make it unlikely for him to repeat in 2020. The Dems agree with this whole-heartedly as well, since they have nada for meaningful national candidates at the moment and it helps them regain strength in Congress and ramp up for 2020. Trump has managed to bring bipartisanship back to DC by uniting them with the one common goal they can all believe in -- dumping Trump.

All this having been said, Trump simply isn't the ghastly horror story his critics make him out to be. He's just another "outsider" candidate who couldn't manage the Washington game well enough to achieve much. He won't be written of as one of our worst Presidents like Bucannnan or Harding or Grant, or our most ethically challenged like Nixon and he certainly won't join the pantheon of Presidential 'heroes."

This too shall pass.

[Montmorency]

This INCLUDES an infrastructure improvement bill that everybody wants, nobody opposes

The vague draft (https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/fact_sheets/2018%20Budget%20Fact%20Sheet_Infrastructure%20Initiative.pdf) offered by the administration so far would have most functions or programs privatized, relies on the expectation that there are loads of private firms and entrepreneurs itching to build cheap and high-quality infrastructure all over the country, and holds little prospect for specific improvements or sustainable reforms. What no one opposes is the idea of an infrastructure bill - just like no one opposes the idea of a healthcare bill, or a tax reform bill, or a 'make all this :daisy: awesome' bill...


The one thing Washington seems to agree on right now is the key thing is to sabotage anything useful to Trump's agenda.

Trump does not have a legislative agenda. It is rather Trump (and his base) who are hindering the GOP's agenda. Which is mainly a good thing, as the GOP's agenda is outrageous.

But no one is sabotaging Trump other than the man himself, and potentially Putin.


All this having been said, Trump simply isn't the ghastly horror story his critics make him out to be. He's just another "outsider" candidate who couldn't manage the Washington game well enough to achieve much. He won't be written of as one of our worst Presidents like Bucannnan or Harding or Grant, or our most ethically challenged like Nixon and he certainly won't join the pantheon of Presidential 'heroes."

The first part of the conclusion retains the fault of individualizing the Trump phenomenon to the man himself, and of ignoring his administration's effect on government, civil society, and people up to this day. The second part is just insulting.

Those you name could of course be condemned as men of their time, for abuse or diffidence towards abuse of the comman man, women, and minorities - and of course universally for ordering or continuing the destruction and rapine of indigenous peoples. But judging all against Trump without the weight of hindsight on their shoulders, we already know that they stand above Trump (I'll give you Buchanan for now, though we would need to re-assess if Trump serves a full term).

Grant was arguably the best POTUS between Lincoln and T. Roosevelt. He managed to be the most important proponent of civil rights in the White House before at least FDR, and the biggest flaw in his Reconstruction policy was that it could not continue without his leadership. Harding was a failure due to negligence and incapacity, foisted upon the country by party elites. He was feckless but not malicious. Harding was just a better, more sensitive and reflective human being than Trump, and you don't need to set either of them against Grant to place him in standing with Marcus Aurelius.

Virtually the whole Trump administration is built upon nepotism and the spoils system (a noted target of Grant's administration, I might add). Malgovernance in Trump's circle is not considered an acceptable side effect of corruption, but the goal in itself, and the impact is to reduce America's wealth and standing now as well as to bleed it into the future. (Whether they're on Putin's payroll or they have an intrinsic ideological stance against effective custodial government, that is what's up.) Trump's negligence and incapacity are on their face much greater than any heretofore 'standard' corruption - this is a man who couldn't be trusted to run a hotdog stand at the best of times, and his associates tend to be little better - with heaps of perfidy ladled on as well. The Trump admin may yet one-up its predecessors for brazen peculation, and if so it will be among the least of its offenses.

And when we say the problem does not begin or end with the man or his administration, it is because the GOP as well as a large swath of the electorate are complicit. If Trump were to order the arrest of the whole Congress, and key federal judges and bureaucrats, derogate civil rights on grounds of national emergency, and declare himself President for Life, perhaps a fifth of the population would cheer him on. Impeachment is only a formality, not a restoration; the collapse is in progress.

Don't be complacent:

https://i.imgur.com/9G8Zwd6.png

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You made some good points. Most of my grief with Grant is the corruption in his administration. He himself was not a part of that nor were those policies he personally directed poorly chosen, as your examples illustrate.

We agree that Trump has no legislative agenda. I am simply appalled that nobody on the administration can get something so inherently bipartisan as the infrastructure stuff off the ground. He could have had his admin steer some decent items out there -- items that would make opposition look bad if they blocked him -- and has not done so.

His foreign policy isn't all that coherent either. Very much reactive so far, and this despite a clear kernel of support for renegotiating trade deals which SHOULD be at least vaguely in his area of competence.


I just cannot see "high crimes and misdemeanors" here. We have not used impeachment to overturn a national election unless it has truly reached a clearly criminal level on matters pertaining to the conduct of the office. Nixon rose to that level by personally involving himself in a cover-up of a crime perpetrated against political opponents. I do not believe we should overturn an election for lesser grounds (and the articles of impeachment against Johnson and Clinton were rightly quashed for that reason). In fact, the House's vote to impeach Clinton was stupid if they were not willing to assert that he had harried political opponents or the like (and he had not, it was all over civil matters).

[Montmorency]

You made some good points. Most of my grief with Grant is the corruption in his administration. He himself was not a part of that nor were those policies he personally directed poorly chosen, as your examples illustrate.

We agree that Trump has no legislative agenda. I am simply appalled that nobody on the administration can get something so inherently bipartisan as the infrastructure stuff off the ground. He could have had his admin steer some decent items out there -- items that would make opposition look bad if they blocked him -- and has not done so.

His foreign policy isn't all that coherent either. Very much reactive so far, and this despite a clear kernel of support for renegotiating trade deals which SHOULD be at least vaguely in his area of competence.


I just cannot see "high crimes and misdemeanors" here. We have not used impeachment to overturn a national election unless it has truly reached a clearly criminal level on matters pertaining to the conduct of the office. Nixon rose to that level by personally involving himself in a cover-up of a crime perpetrated against political opponents. I do not believe we should overturn an election for lesser grounds (and the articles of impeachment against Johnson and Clinton were rightly quashed for that reason). In fact, the House's vote to impeach Clinton was stupid if they were not willing to assert that he had harried political opponents or the like (and he had not, it was all over civil matters).

Re. Grant: He made bad senior appointments in his first term and refused to directly control them, splitting the difference down the middle. Later he recognized his mistakes (admittedly he didn't quite get his White House in order) and began setting the stage for civil service reform, which finally began to reach fruition under the administration of Chester Arthur, one of Grant's allies. The opposing wing of the Republican Party made noises about reform and trumped up the corruption of Grant's administration (which pushed for affirmative action for blacks, Jews, and women in low-to-mid level appointments by the way), but these guys were plenty corrupt themselves and were more than anything interested in selling out Southern blacks to the Democrats in order to gain national prominence. I rely mostly on HW Brands' recent biography (https://www.amazon.com/Man-Who-Saved-Union-Ulysses/dp/0307475158) for my knowledge.


I think, used properly, impeachment (of the POTUS, not sure what the stats are for other offices) could stand to be more frequent than it has been. Clinton's missteps over Lewinsky were technically impeachable - it's just that they weren't (IMO) worth impeaching over.

I used the words "negligence, incapacity, perfidy" because these are the (dis)qualifying factors James Madison perceived during the Constitutional Convention (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp).


Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.

This goes beyond literal crimes, and aside from the natural susceptibility to impeachment Trump carries by virtue of being unfit the second he took his oath, specific actions taken in sum over the course of the term so far constitute impeachable offenses (by no means exhaustive or directly related to Russia): from the diffuse like constant uninhibited lying on matters large and small; verbal attacks on the press, courts and other institutions; potential self/family enrichment or emoluments clause violations; to the systematic like advancing unqualified candidates on basis of personal loyalty; withholding candidates from offices without justification or reorganization; (as of now wholly speculative, or at least nascent) use of federal powers in voting oversight, on false pretenses of widespread fraud, to suppress the votes of political enemies; to the singular and autocratic like (apparently) firing an FBI director with intent to obstruct investigations into himself and associates; pardoning (and making a public show of it) a political ally, convicted of both criminal and civil contempt of court, before sentencing, appeal for clemency, and review of appeal (Frank Bowman at the previously-linked site impeachableoffenses.net argues that in our history of executive pardons only Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of Marc Rich comes even close in impropriety, and moreover the pardon of Marc Rich may also have been an impeachable offense); interfering with or indicating intent to interfere with the special counsel's investigation, such as publicly airing desire to fire the special counsel, or mooted replacement of the recused Attorney General to effect said firing, corroborated by other (now recent (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/trump-says-justice-dept-and-fbi-must-do-what-is-right-and-investigate-democrats.html)) statements expressing a desire to directly control the investigations of the Justice Department and FBI toward partisan ends.

...

Importantly, these fall into the three categories of bad behavior Madison listed, not being mere political disagreements, mistakes, or even plain bad policy. It's at the level of, "so far not a single member of the Trump administration has been found to be secretly working for the United States".

Finally, if we argue that Trump cannot be guilty of or accountable for any of the above or anything else not listed because he is simply too mentally incompetent or impaired - in such a case we cannot permit a mental incompetent to remain in office, and either impeachment or the 25th Amendment's provisions must be applied. So I think this is cornered.


It's critical that, of the five articles of impeachment put forward in the House Judiciary Committee at eve of Nixon's tenure, three were passed (with some difficulty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#Articles_of_impeachment); contemporary Republicans will be much more recalcitrant), and the second concerned "Abuse of Power". One clause was as follows:


In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Montmorency:

Nice counter with the excerpt from Jemmy Madison.

I think it underscores, however, just how serious a breach of the trust of office is required for impeachment to be a valid option. Madison is indicating that there should be a mechanism for removal, but that reversing a decision of the electorate should only be done in the most grievous instances.

1. "Losing capacity after appointment." I think this would best be handled via the procedures outlined in the 25th. Despite the claims of his detractors, I have yet to see valid evidence that Trump is certifiably unstable or incapable of making a decision. A decision making style that emphasizes "going with your gut" is not a sign of incapacity.

2. "pervert [her or] his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression." First off, I just LOVE the phrasing on that. While I know that some of his detractors label him as racist etc. regarding Muslims and Latinos, I have not seen evidence of Trump's seeking to oppress any citizen's religious or civil rights. He has been adamant is his efforts to curtail illegal immigration which he views as an economic threat and he has been seeking ways to limit potential terrorists from entering the country. So far, his efforts have been ham-handed and have been blocked by the courts in many cases -- part of the reason we have the checks and balances in place -- but there is no evidence that the Trump administration is centered on graft or dedicated to racism and oppression.

3. "betray [her or] his trust to foreign powers." In the instance of the Trump campaign, it is becoming clear that the Russians were trying to play social media games and other influence strategies that would benefit Trump. In addition, members of the Trump campaign clearly met with persons who were connected to (and potentially in the indirect employ of) the Russians in order to obtain information that could be used to damage H. Clinton's campaign. I have yet to see evidence that Trump himself made any "deals" for support from Russia or encouraged his campaign staffers to do the same. Absent that direct participation, which would have given Putin leverage over him and met this Madisonian provision, I do not see anything impeachable here -- only evidence that calls into question the quality of the campaigns leadership staff. I note, however, that evidence that does meet this standard may exist. If that is found to be the case, it would rise to the level of impeachability in my eyes.

You go on to list a laundry list of the shortcomings and ethically challenged actions undertaken by Trump and/or his administration. You are, of course, well aware that other administrations from both parties have engaged in many of these same behaviors in the past without anyone suggesting they rose to the level of impeachability. Many of these political maneuverings -- hiring supporters who are less than ideally qualified for the position hired -- are almost legion and date to the founding of the republic. It's the less savory side of politics. I don't discount that these show poor leadership and weak ethics. I believe they constitute good reason to campaign against him and vote against him and his supporters in upcoming elections. I only question whether they rise to impeachability. I do not see an administration that has become the embodiment of "peculation or oppression," only a bad administration. As to the firing of Comey, that sort of thing tends to take care of itself. As Nixon found with his firing of Cox, the removal of someone leading an investigation at the President does NOT create a chilling effect on the investigation, but the reverse of same.



The impeachment of Andrew Johnson was blatant partisan politics. He was a Democrat heading a Republican-dominated government and they wanted him out. The articles under which he was impeached were laughably short of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" noted in the constitution itself or even the tripartite list you noted in Madison's explication.

The near impeachment of Richard Nixon started out somewhat partisan -- the liberal press corps had always loathed the man -- but evidence developed over time that clearly indicated that the President was aware of, and either authorized or participated in, cover up efforts and payoffs that were designed prevent the connection of his administration to crimes committed against Nixon's political opposition by persons affiliated with his re-election campaign. Partisanship faded in the face of evidence, and Nixon resigned in advance of what would have been his impeachment on AT LEAST one of the articles brought forward.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was largely blatant partisan politics. Republicans had just regained power in the House after nearly 40 years and were almost immediately outmaneuvered politically by Clinton. Clinton got the HoR to shoulder the blame for a government shutdown. When the Starr investigation revealed evidence of perjury for the purpose of obstructing justice, the GOP pounced. While technically impeachable in that there was evidence that the President had very likely perjured himself before a grand jury -- only the most benign parsing of the language would suggest otherwise in the face of evidence uncovered thereafter -- NONE of Clinton's transgressions were connected with harming the political opposition or otherwise crossing the threshold of perverting the office. The GOP were idiots to push this and it was rightly quashed in the Senate.

You mention the Rich pardon as an impeachable offense. The timing of the pardon, of course, made this action 'unimpeachable' in a literal sense. I agree with you that that pardon was more of a breach of trust of the office than any of the crap with which they tried to officially impeach Bill Clinton. It was easily his most obvious abuse of power.

[Montmorency]

From the cautious perspective, Frank Bowman* above sees the Arpaio pardon (because of its nature, timing, and the way it was processed he argues it the most abusive POTUS pardon in history) as the "first verifiable impeachable offense". Also, precedent shows it is understood that a President acting from legitimate authority will not by that fact alone be acting unimpeachably (nor is it OK because "I'm the President"). The second he lists is related to Trump's (most?) recent flub, apparently "Mr. Trump’s efforts to induce federal law enforcement agencies to investigate his political enemies". If these are the most direct and discrete alleged (non-criminal) offenses in a legal construction, maybe we can focus our attention on them: are the charges correct on their face? Are they impeachable? Should any impeachment process ride on these alone?

For the rest you remain convinced an electoral remedy must be the appropriate one. You point to the historicity or prior manifestation of some of the charges, or in another form, but of course this raises the questions of, 'were indeed those instances (not) impeachable?' and 'have Trump administration analogs been more egregious, pernicious, or frequent?'

Part of the matter clearly has to do with different views of the necessary application or frequency of impeachment in politics, which we see the Founders were also divided on. That could be a subject for another thread: impeachment, what is it good for? It's a separate question from that of what can be argued in the existing framework.

The partisanship of the Clinton impeachment was demonstrated by the fact that they could find no other distinct charges to levy, and I'd be willing to own that some appropriate ones should have been conceivable under an expansive application of the impeachment power. The GOP Congress appeared more interested in posturing than genuinely removing a sitting President who had to be removed. If all this was impeachable conduct on Clinton's part, then it behooves the Congress to create a comprehensive case and not impeach on the basis of that single breach and fallout.


Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote)[18] and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote).[19] Two other articles of impeachment failed – a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote)[20] and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote)

On the other hand, if impeachment were more institutionally frequent it would in turn be more damaging for the party or the Congress to 'come at the king' in a non-serious way - negating one avenue of partisan abuse...


*Your writing styles are similar enough to be in the same family, but you're not a lawyer. What's up with that?



Absent that direct participation, which would have given Putin leverage over him and met this Madisonian provision, I do not see anything impeachable here -- only evidence that calls into question the quality of the campaigns leadership staff. I note, however, that evidence that does meet this standard may exist. If that is found to be the case, it would rise to the level of impeachability in my eyes.

We probably only get that once Mueller is offering his conclusions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the circumstantial evidence keeps piling up.

For instance, the whole new development (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-secret-correspondence-between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/) with Trump Jr. receiving and responding to Twitter PMs from Wikileaks (who were apparently very interested in maintaining a public appearance of impartiality) - deniability is there for the father, right?

Yet there are a number of tweets Big Trump sent that in timing and content seem awfully, coincidentally, directly prompted by the Wikileaks messages...

It looks especially bad given that elements or allies of the campaign were discussing the leaked emails among each other and with Wikileaks long before they were actually leaked. Increasingly the only deniability may lie in a defense centered on Trump's mental incapacity and susceptibility to manipulation (in which case none of the past few years' events should have been allowed to happen.)

If any element of culpable collusion is demonstrated, in combination with a history of financial crimes, the ideal punishment would be to strip all offenders of American citizenship and expropriate their assets. The first at least won't happen, since aside from whether it's even available as a punishment in the legal system it would surely violate international laws to make a citizen a stateless person (i.e. refugee) without their consent.* On the second, New York City could desperately use new public housing...


*This consideration wouldn't apply to those with dual citizenship or more

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From the cautious perspective, Frank Bowman* above sees the Arpaio pardon (because of its nature, timing, and the way it was processed he argues it the most abusive POTUS pardon in history) as the "first verifiable impeachable offense". Also, precedent shows it is understood that a President acting from legitimate authority will not by that fact alone be acting unimpeachably (nor is it OK because "I'm the President"). The second he lists is related to Trump's (most?) recent flub, apparently "Mr. Trump’s efforts to induce federal law enforcement agencies to investigate his political enemies". If these are the most direct and discrete alleged (non-criminal) offenses in a legal construction, maybe we can focus our attention on them: are the charges correct on their face? Are they impeachable? Should any impeachment process ride on these alone? Again, Presidential pardons have been granted to people who were at divers stages in the judicial process and who were easily as motivated politically in character. Is this an abuse of the public trust at least to some extent? Yes. Does it rise to the impeachable? Probably not. The President can direct those agencies to begin an investigation -- they are functionaries of the branch of government he directs. He cannot dictate the results of that investigation. If clearly gratuitous in character, it would be actionable by the person investigated and they could claim redress of grievances. A bit tacky, short-sighted, and petty by Trump? Absolutely. Does it rise to the impeachable? Probably not. I suspect it would take a prolonged pattern of this type of misuse to clearly demonstrate a breach of trust rising to the level of impeachment. Of course, given a guy who behaves this pettily in the public forum, I cannot rule out the possibility.


*Your writing styles are similar enough to be in the same family, but you're not a lawyer. What's up with that?

I'm an academic. You get used to writing stuff that you KNOW your peers are going to examine for any flaw or uncovered sub-point. Leads to a very controlled writing style in arguing. I suspect any similarity in style comes of this.


We probably only get that once Mueller is offering his conclusions and recommendations. Meanwhile, the circumstantial evidence keeps piling up. I am deeply distrustful of the bits and pieces leaked to the media and rabidly reported and re-reported. Most players in the Washington game, including special prosecutors, attempt to play the media to enhance leverage. The media, meanwhile, follows THEIR agenda, which is to highlight any and all possible conflicts because that is "sexy," garners ratings, and begets advertising dollars. Coupled with the fact that the clear majority of them are, personally, political liberals (USA def), and the small but persistent potential for subconscious bias against conservatism,* and you have quite a bit of potential for distortion and "trial by media" that isn't well grounded in fact. I strongly prefer to wait for the presentation of much more corroborated evidence.

*Too many USA conservatives react to this as though the bias in the media is a product of some kind of liberal cabal that is steering the agenda toward their "radiant future." This is rather silly and assumes a level of collusion that is every bit as "tinfoil hat" in quality as a number of the more thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories. Any bias is subtle, and unplanned, the result of assumptions and deeply held values that influence your thinking on a level so basic that they are rarely consciously considered. This kind of bias is almost unavoidable and is an inevitable part of qualitative research. I wish they'd acknowledge the possibility more clearly, and like the anthropologists in academe make a concerted effort to account for it in their analyses, but, I fear, that's a bit too much to ask of such deadline-driven folks.

[Montmorency]

As an aside, the 1961 Convention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Reduction_of_Statelessness)on the Reduction of Statelessness says:


Contracting States shall not deprive people of their nationality so as to render them stateless. (Exceptions: where otherwise provided in the Convention; where nationality has been acquired by misrepresentation or fraud; disloyalty to the Contracting State).

And the US doesn't seem to be signatory anyway, so full steam ahead.

[Fragony]

Totally irrelevant for the discussion but it's simply true, Kim Ju On may have scored a hole in one the first time he played golf, and MAYBE@Y he could drive a when he was 3 years old but the latter part is questionable because he IS short and fat. It's probably not true that he could drive a car when he was 3 years old, his legs wouldn't be long enough to press the pedals, wth? Trump is a visionary

[Beskar]

MAYBE@Y he could drive a when he was 3 years old but the latter part is questionable because he IS short and fat. It's probably not true that he could drive a car when he was 3 years old, his legs wouldn't be long enough to press the pedals, wth?
https://i.imgur.com/NVER29L.jpg

[Fragony]

Still doesn't fit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Facts:

Functional dictator and son of same.
Both following the Stalinist "cult of personality" playbook.

So:

Incredibly young driving skills suffices as his Bucephalus story.

Hole-in-one suffices as his Cuchulainn "first time hurling" story.


The Great Leader must evince great signs when young. These signs of greatness mark him as different -- a somehow superior -- being and thus justify the singular position, treatment, and power he now wields.

So these are not unimportant....'facts.'

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JrcycDXzng

[a completely inoffensive name]

A pedophile is better than a liberal in Alabama according to Trump.

Conservatives have been successfully tricked into thinking liberals are the biggest threat to America.

At this point there is nothing our institutions can do to rectify this issue. If enough of the public continue to think 50% of the country is an enemy, we will not be a great country for much longer.

[spmetla]

We can only hope that Roy Moore loses to Doug Jones and helps wake the Republicans up to the danger that the fringe of the party is pulling them toward.

[CrossLOPER]

A pedophile is better than a liberal in Alabama according to Trump.

Conservatives have been successfully tricked into thinking liberals are the biggest threat to America.

At this point there is nothing our institutions can do to rectify this issue. If enough of the public continue to think 50% of the country is an enemy, we will not be a great country for much longer.

You could just split it into "liberal hellhole" and "conservative hellhole", where in one people are required to undergo mandatory HRT and the other one engages in trial by ordeal.

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JrcycDXzng

Would probably get it for my own collection based on that video if I found it cheap. If played in a jokey manner like they did, it seems to work really well.

[HopAlongBunny]

Looks like tax reform is going to be the GOP's "hill to die on"
The tactic of ignoring Trump's problems, ignoring Moore's problems and basically sailing on like all is normal could result in some blowback.
At least when Bush screwed over the country he could wrap himself in the flag (war on terror and all that) Trump has barely a fig-leaf to obscure his gift to himself and the "donor class" in America.

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow_ty2g5FcU

[Shaka_Khan]

Would probably get it for my own collection based on that video if I found it cheap. If played in a jokey manner like they did, it seems to work really well.

The game entered the market 28 years too early.

[Husar]

Would probably get it for my own collection based on that video if I found it cheap. If played in a jokey manner like they did, it seems to work really well.

Even if cheap, you'd literally give Trump your money, more money... :no:

[Beskar]

Even if cheap, you'd literally give Trump your money, more money... :no:

Cheap would be second hand, it would go to person I bought it from.

[Beskar]

Why does Trump seems to appoint the worst possible people into government? Such as recently appointing David Kautter, an expert in helping the rich avoid tax, to head the IRS. No, he is not there to reveal his secrets which keep him rich to crack down on it.

[Montmorency]

I would be delighted if Mueller were to give this speech (https://www.marxists.org/history/france/revolution/robespierre/1793/defense-committee.htm) before the joint Congress:


If my quality as [Special Counsel] must prevent me from explaining myself with entire independence on what has happened, then I must abdicate it this instant. And after having separated myself from my colleagues, who I esteem and honor (and it’s well-known that I am not prodigal in the sentiment) I will tell my country the necessary truths. The truth is the only weapon that remains in the hands of the intrepid defenders of freedom in order to bring down the perfidious agents of [treason]. He who seeks to debase, to divide, to paralyze the [investigation] is an enemy of the fatherland, whether he sits in this hall or is a foreigner (applause). Whether he acts by stupidity or perversity he is of the party of the tyrants who make war upon us. But this project of debasement exists in the very places where patriotism should reign, in the clubs that claim to be more than patriotic. War is made on the [investigation] in the persons of all the defenders of freedom. And what is most deplorable is that this cowardly system has partisans here.

For a long time the [Special Counsel] has put up with a war made on it by several members who are more envious than just. While it is busy day and night with the great interests of the Fatherland, written denunciations, presented with guile, are brought here...

*pounding hammer smiley*

Beskar

Where's the pounding hammer smiley?

[Beskar]

*pounding hammer smiley*

Beskar

Where's the pounding hammer smiley?
:smash:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Donald simply OOOOZES 'class' in everything he does.

Referencing Pocahantas to a group of Native Americans (The famous Marine Code Talkers of ww2 and Korea)? Wrong tribe and wrong attitude...but of course it was just supposed to be humorous.

But doing the whole ceremony under a picture of that most famous of 'Pro' Native American Presidents Andrew Jackson?!?! 'Class' does not begin to cover it.




Land speculation and founding of Memphis
Further information: History of Memphis, Tennessee
In 1794, Jackson formed a business with fellow lawyer and planter John Overton, overtly buying and selling land which had been reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw.[25] Theirs was a frank avowal; they, like many of their contemporaries, would deal with lands within Indian territory. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened to claim by North Carolinians all of the Indian lands in that state's transmontane west. He was one of the three original investors who founded Memphis, Tennessee, in 1819.
....
Creek Campaign & Treaty
...The campaign ended three weeks later with Red Eagle's surrender, although some Red Sticks such as McQueen fled to East Florida.[73] On June 8, Jackson accepted a commission as brigadier general in the United States Army, and 10 days later became a major general, in command of the Seventh Military Division.[74] Subsequently, Jackson, with Madison's approval, imposed the Treaty of Fort Jackson. The treaty required the Muscogee, including those who had not joined the Red Sticks, to surrender 23 million acres of land to the United States.[73] Though in ill-health from dysentery, Jackson turned his attention to defeating Spanish and British forces. Jackson accused the Spanish of arming the Red Sticks and of violating the terms of their neutrality by allowing British soldiers into the Floridas.[75] The first charge was true,[76] while the second ignored the fact that it was Jackson's threats to invade Florida which had caused them to seek British protection.[77] In the November 7 Battle of Pensacola, Jackson defeated British and Spanish forces in a short skirmish. The Spanish surrendered and the British fled. Weeks later, he learned that the British were planning an attack on New Orleans, which sat on the mouth of the Mississippi River and held immense strategic and commercial value. Jackson abandoned Pensacola to the Spanish
...
First Seminole War
Following the war[of 1812], Jackson remained in command of Army forces on the southern border of the U.S. He conducted official business from The Hermitage.[94] He signed treaties with the Cherokee and Chickasaw which gained for the United States large parts of Tennessee and Kentucky.[95] The treaty with the Chickasaw, finally agreed to later in the year, is commonly known as the Jackson Purchase.[26]
Several Native American tribes, which became known as the Seminole, straddled the border between the U.S. and Florida. The Seminole, in alliance with escaped slaves, frequently raided Georgia settlements before retreating back into Florida. These skirmishes continually escalated, and the conflict is now known as the First Seminole War.[96] In 1816, Jackson led a detachment into Florida which destroyed the Negro Fort, a community of escaped slaves and their descendants.[97] Jackson was ordered by President James Monroe in December 1817 to lead a campaign in Georgia against the Seminole and Creek Indians. Jackson was also charged with preventing Spanish Florida from becoming a refuge for runaway slaves, after Spain promised freedom to fugitive slaves. Critics later alleged that Jackson exceeded orders in his Florida actions. His orders from President Monroe were to "terminate the conflict."[98] Jackson believed the best way to do this was to seize Florida from Spain once and for all. Before departing, Jackson wrote to Monroe, "Let it be signified to me through any channel ... that the possession of the Floridas would be desirable to the United States, and in sixty days it will be accomplished."[99]
Jackson invaded Florida on March 15, 1818, capturing Pensacola. He crushed Seminole and Spanish resistance in the region and captured two British agents, Robert Ambrister and Alexander Arbuthnot. After a brief trial, Jackson executed both British agents, causing a diplomatic incident with the British. Jackson's actions polarized Monroe's cabinet, some of whom argued that Jackson had gone against Monroe's orders and violated the Constitution, since the United States had not declared war upon Spain. Yet Jackson was defended by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Adams thought that Jackson's conquest of Florida would force Spain to finally sell the province, and Spain did indeed sell Florida to the United States in the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819. A congressional investigation exonerated Jackson, but Jackson was deeply angered by the criticism he received, particularly from Speaker of the House Henry Clay.
...
Indian Removal Policy (as President)
Throughout his eight years in office, Jackson made about 70 treaties with Native American tribes both in the South and the Northwest.[131] Jackson's presidency marked a new era in Indian-Anglo American relations initiating a policy of Indian removal.[129] Jackson himself sometimes participated in the treaty negotiating process with various Indian tribes, though other times he left the negotiations to his subordinates. The southern tribes included the Choctaw, Creek, Chickasaw, Seminole and the Cherokee. The northwest tribes include the Chippewa, Ottawa, and the Potawatomi.[132]
Relations between Indians and Americans increasingly grew tense and sometimes violent as a result of territorial conflicts.[129] Previous presidents had at times supported removal or attempts to "civilize" the Indians,[133] but generally let the problem play itself out with minimal intervention. There had developed a growing popular and political movement to deal with the issue, and out of this policy to relocate certain Indian populations. Jackson, never known for timidity, became an advocate for this relocation policy in what many historians consider the most controversial aspect of his presidency.[129]
In his First Annual Message to Congress, Jackson advocated land west of the Mississippi River be set aside for Indian tribes. On May 26, 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which Jackson signed into law two days later. The Act authorized the President to negotiate treaties to buy tribal lands in the east in exchange for lands farther west, outside of existing state borders.[131] The act specifically pertained to the Five Civilized Tribes in the South, the conditions being that they could either move west or stay and obey state law.[134]
Jackson, Eaton, and General Coffee negotiated with the Chickasaw, who quickly agreed to move.[135] Jackson put Eaton and Coffee in charge of negotiating with the Choctaw. Lacking Jackson's skills at negotiation, they frequently bribed to the chiefs in order to gain their submission. The tactics worked, and the chiefs agreed to move. The removal of the Choctaw took place in the winter of 1831 and 1832, and was wrought with misery and suffering.[136] The Seminole, despite the signing of the Treaty of Payne's Landing in 1832,[137] refused to move. In December 1835, this dispute began the Second Seminole War. The war lasted over six years, finally ending in 1842.[132] Members of the Creek Nation had signed the Treaty of Cusseta in 1832, agreeing to move their tribe.[138] However, the Creeks later resisted, leading to a second Creek War.[139] A common complaint was that the men who had signed the treaties did not represent the whole tribe.
The state of Georgia became involved in a contentious dispute with the Cherokee, culminating in the 1832 Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia. In that decision, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the court, ruled that Georgia could not forbid whites from entering tribal lands, as it had attempted to do with two missionaries supposedly stirring up resistance amongst the tribespeople.[140] Jackson is frequently attributed the following response: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." The quote, apparently indicating Jackson's dismissive view of the courts, was attributed to Jackson by Horace Greeley, who cited as his source Representative George N. Briggs. Remini argues that Jackson did not say it because, while it "certainly sounds like Jackson...[t]here was nothing for him to enforce." This is because a writ of habeas corpus had never been issued for the missionaries.[141] The Court also did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[142]
A group of Cherokees led by John Ridge negotiated the Treaty of New Echota. Ridge was not a widely recognized leader of the Cherokee, and this document was rejected by some as illegitimate.[143] Another faction, led by John Ross, unsuccessfully petitioned to protest the proposed removal.[144] The treaty was enforced by Jackson's successor, President Martin Van Buren, who sent 7,000 troops to carry out the relocation policy. Due to the infighting between political factions, many Cherokees thought their appeals were still being considered when the relocation began.[145] Subsequently, as many as 4,000 Cherokees died on the "Trail of Tears" in 1838.[146] More than 45,000 American Indians were relocated to the West during Jackson's administration, though a few Cherokees walked back afterwards or migrated to the high Smoky Mountains.[147] The Black Hawk War took place during Jackson's presidency in 1832 after a group of Indians crossed into U.S. territory.

They couldn't have brought in a picture of TR or Ike, just for an hour?

Amateurs.

[Montmorency]

The Donald simply OOOOZES 'class' in everything he does.

Referencing Pocahantas to a group of Native Americans (The famous Marine Code Talkers of ww2 and Korea)? Wrong tribe and wrong attitude...but of course it was just supposed to be humorous.

But doing the whole ceremony under a picture of that most famous of 'Pro' Native American Presidents Andrew Jackson?!?! 'Class' does not begin to cover it.




They couldn't have brought in a picture of TR or Ike, just for an hour?

Amateurs.

Ethnic slurs are funniest when the ethnics ain't around. Maybe they didn't look Indian to him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cZ4vFZ8A_Y

https://i.imgur.com/ilT0XBH.png

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ethnic slurs are funniest when the ethnics ain't around. Maybe they didn't look Indian to him.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cZ4vFZ8A_Y

https://i.imgur.com/ilT0XBH.png

Cute video. But if you saw these blokes at the ceremony, you could have argued they were Native Americans straight out of "central casting."

[Hooahguy]

Tillerson might be out soon. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42188872)

If the initial report is right, he will be replaced by CIA director Mike Pompeo, who is very hawkish. And then its said that the very hawkish Senator Tom Cotton would become head of the CIA.

So if this all plays out as they are saying it will, US foreign policy is about to become even more hawkish, especially towards Iran.

Here's a very interesting article (https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/whats-really-behind-tom-cottons-opposition-to-the-iran-nuclear-deal/) on Cotton and his opposition to the Iran deal from October:


If one reads the speech closely, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Cotton’s actual goal is not attaining a better nuclear deal, but rather confronting Iran militarily and achieving regime change. Several passages in the speech clearly telegraph this objective, as do Cotton’s prior statements. The senator also so grossly misrepresents the JCPOA that one has to question whether he is more interested in improving the agreement or destroying it. Finally, Cotton’s own arguments contradict the notion that he seeks a better deal and instead imply that military force or regime change are the only viable options. Put simply: Cotton’s advocacy for a better nuclear agreement is a smokescreen for his true objective, which is putting the United States and Iran back on a path towards war.

[Montmorency]

John Kelly was Secretary of Homeland Security, transferred to White House Chief of Staff in replacement of Scaramucci/Priebus. No confirmed replacement for the Cabinet position yet.

If Tillerson resigns or is fired, the proposal is that CIA director Mike Pompeo (whose prior career is mostly defined by three terms as a Tea Party House Representative) replace him. The proposal includes as replacement for Pompeo in the CIA Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman Senator (formerly freshman Representative) from Arkansas and hard-right stalwart. Cotton worked closely with the Trump campaign during the transition and suggested Kelly as a candidate for Secretary of Homeland Security, being himself considered for Secretary of Defense.

My sense is that Trump wants to surround himself with a very limited pool of persons, regardless of context or qualifications.

Innuendo springs readily to mind.


And what the hell is going on in Whitefish (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-23/whitefish-resumes-restoring-power-to-puerto-rico-after-payment)?

Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior, is from this Montana town of ~7000.
The better part of federal contracts for Puerto Rico reconstruction were arbitrarily awarded to what is apparently a shell company based here.
Vagabond and wannabe-privateer Erik Prince (founder of the company formerly known as Blackwater, and brother to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos) seems to be backing efforts there to establish a privatized spook agency.
Neo-fascist Richard Spencer has maintained a residence there for some years.

Hopefully the authority of the United States of America still reaches those parts.

[Hooahguy]

So Flynn has pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI about meetings with the Russian ambassador during the election.

This bit (https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/01/muellers-office-announces-flynn-will-plead-guilty-274349) is pretty interesting too:


“A very senior member of the Presidential transition team directed Flynn to contact officials from foreign governments, including Russia, to learn where each government stood on the resolution and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution,” sad a written statement of facts signed by Flynn and prosecutors.


I wonder who will be going down next.

[Montmorency]

And obstruction (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/trump-russia-senate-intel.html).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MHusGl9BeM

[HopAlongBunny]

Flynn has plead guilty to false statements and is cooperating with Mueller's investigation.
Whether this actually leads to anything against Trump is an open question, but it does indicate that those close to the president are beginning to look to self preservation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42192080

For giggles I Googled "Flynn Framed"; yes the denial machine is in full operation :clown:

[drone]

I wonder who will be going down next.

The "very senior member" is reportedly Jared Kushner...

[Hooahguy]

I was hoping it would be Trump himself, but perhaps Kushner will turn on his father in law. All this makes the passage of the dumpster fire of a tax bill a bit better.

And hey, Trump might have just admitted to obstruction of justice (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/2/16727988/trump-michael-flynn-fbi-lies-obstruction).


Trump’s Saturday tweet seems to indicate that he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he made his comments to Comey. That could play into a case of obstruction of justice against him, as many were quick to point out.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The more I see the demonstrated political skills of this administration and its campaign team...some now officially criminal...the more I think the ONLY Hillary could have managed a defeat against this crew.

[Hooahguy]

The more I see the demonstrated political skills of this administration and its campaign team...some now officially criminal...the more I think the ONLY Hillary could have managed a defeat against this crew.
That and the political immaturity of the left. The reason Republicans win is because their supporters fall in line no matter what because of the R by the name of the candidate.

[Montmorency]

Beyond the presidential race, there's something to be said of ideological clarity and consistency.

The Democratic Party offers wishy-washy incrementalism that coddles moneyed interests.

The Republican Party offers a truly RADICAL platform.

Revolution, no matter its contents or injustices, is inherently sexier than incrementalism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Beyond the presidential race, there's something to be said of ideological clarity and consistency.

The Democratic Party offers wishy-washy incrementalism that coddles moneyed interests.

The Republican Party offers a truly RADICAL platform.

Revolution, no matter its contents or injustices, is inherently sexier than incrementalism.

With the electorate's mood over the last decade or so, I have to agree with you completely. I was sorta stunned by how many Trump supporters second choice, when polled, was Sanders. Business as usual was not their...pardon me...cup of tea.

[rory_20_uk]

That and the political immaturity of the left. The reason Republicans win is because their supporters fall in line no matter what because of the R by the name of the candidate.

The terms Left and Right are so muddied to be nonsensical.

It is however true many people would rather vote for a Republican who is a 30-something man who screwed a 14 year old than contemplate voting for a Democrat.

It is not "immature" to engage one's brain when voting - it is one facet that democracy pre-supposes.

~:smoking:

[Hooahguy]

The terms Left and Right are so muddied to be nonsensical.

It is however true many people would rather vote for a Republican who is a 30-something man who screwed a 14 year old than contemplate voting for a Democrat.

It is not "immature" to engage one's brain when voting - it is one facet that democracy pre-supposes.

~:smoking:

True, the terms left and right are very generalized but as a whole the left shows much more of a "I'm going to take my ball and go home" mentality if they don't like everything about the candidate, even if the opposing candidate would be much worse. I heard so many people who identify as liberal/left railing about how they wouldnt vote for Hillary since she was so horrible. And yet now are complaining about the changes Trump is making. She might not have been the preferred candidate for many, but after seeing everything done over the past year I would be shocked if most of those wouldnt prefer Hillary elected over Trump. Engage your brain all you want when you vote, but if your vote isnt advancing your agenda in some way, did you really engage your brain at all?

The election between Roy Moore and Doug Jones in Alabama is a perfect example of this. Alabama is one of the most pro-life states in the country. Doug Jones, the Democrat, is pro-choice. I would be shocked if he won, as I have heard people are going to hold their nose and vote for Moore just because he is pro-life. But Jones couldnt be pro-life, as that would put him at odds with the Democrats as a whole. If Democrats want to start winning locally again they need to drop the purity tests and run candidates who would win in their area depending on their values, not the ones who would win in already heavily blue areas.

[Montmorency]

Engage your brain all you want when you vote, but if your vote isnt advancing your agenda in some way, did you really engage your brain at all?

This is important. Voting is not a civic duty - civic participation is a civic duty. There should be no such thing as a "symbolic" vote.

[Hooahguy]

Robert Mueller has given a subpoena Deutsche Bank for Trump's financial records.
Link (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller)


The new revelation makes it clear that Mueller and his team are investigating the president’s financial transactions. It is not clear whether Mueller is interested in the bank accounts because they are connected to the Russia probe or if he is investigating another matter.

Considering that the bank has already been fined (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/investing/deutsche-bank-us-fine-russia-money-laundering/index.html) for a Russian money laundering scheme earlier this year, I am intrigued

Wonder what Donny is going to say about this. Didnt he say something a while back how looking into his finances was a red line or something?

[CrossLOPER]

Wonder what Donny is going to say about this.

"Fake news."

[Montmorency]

Erik Prince, Oliver North, and the private security/intelligence operations thing (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/04/trump-white-house-weighing-plans-for-private-spies-to-counter-deep-state-enemies/) again.


“Pompeo can’t trust the CIA bureaucracy, so we need to create this thing that reports just directly to him,” said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with firsthand knowledge of the proposals, in describing White House discussions. “It is a direct-action arm, totally off the books,” this person said, meaning the intelligence collected would not be shared with the rest of the CIA or the larger intelligence community. “The whole point is this is supposed to report to the president and Pompeo directly.”

According to two former senior intelligence officials, Pompeo has embraced the plan and has lobbied the White House to approve the contract. Asked for comment, a CIA spokesperson said, “You have been provided wildly inaccurate information by people peddling an agenda.”


Michael Barry, who was recently named the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, worked closely with Erik Prince on a CIA assassination program during the Bush administration.
[...]
According to two people who have worked extensively with Prince in recent years, Prince has been contacting former Blackwater personnel who worked on a post-9/11 era CIA assassination program targeting Al Qaeda operatives. That program, which the Bush White House prohibited the CIA from disclosing to congressional intelligence committees, was revealed to Congress in 2009 by CIA Director Leon Panetta. The CIA says the program did not result in any assassinations.


In some ways, these plans mirror operations Prince led during the Bush-Cheney administration. When Prince was running Blackwater, he and a former CIA paramilitary officer, Enrique Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their “deniability” as a “big plus” for potential Blackwater customers, according to internal company communications obtained by The Intercept.

Prince has long admired Oliver North and viewed his role in Iran-Contra as heroic, said the Prince associate. In 2007, Prince testified defiantly before Congress following the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, in which Blackwater operatives gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Shortly after his testimony, Prince’s longtime friend, the conservative California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, praised the Blackwater chief. “Prince,” Rohrabacher said, “is on his way to being an American hero just like Ollie North was.”

[Rohrabacher? Mark that. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/us/politics/dana-rohrabacher-putin-trump-kremlin-under-fire.html)]

North, a Marine lieutenant colonel on the Reagan National Security Council, oversaw a scheme to divert proceeds from illicit arms sales to Iran to Contra death squads in Nicaragua. The resulting scandal became known as the Iran-Contra affair, and North was convicted of three felonies, though these convictions were later thrown out.


On November 30, Prince testified behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee about his January trip to the Seychelles to meet with Mohammad bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, and a Russian fund manager close to Vladimir Putin. According to the Washington Post, Prince presented himself as an unofficial envoy of President-elect Trump. The Intercept reported last week that the fund manager was Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Prince repeatedly said that he did not remember the identity of the Russian, but on Thursday, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Prince admitted that he did in fact meet with Dmitriev.

Come the :daisy: on, this should never even be up for discussion.

The aspiring dictator always seeks to subsume the instruments of state, and finally replace them as instruments of the party (or the household). Slap it down.

I feel like there must be some Roman aphorism applicable here.

[Hooahguy]

I had no idea about this development, thanks for posting.

It really is a scary thing to discuss, and the even more terrifying thing is that a good portion of the country will be totally okay with it because its Trump.

[spmetla]

I feel like there must be some Roman aphorism applicable here.

Does this suffice?

Nam si violandum est jus, regnandi gratia violandum est: aliis rebus pietatem colas
"If you must break the law, do it only to seize power: in all other cases observe it" - Julius Caesar.

[Kralizec]

With the electorate's mood over the last decade or so, I have to agree with you completely. I was sorta stunned by how many Trump supporters second choice, when polled, was Sanders. Business as usual was not their...pardon me...cup of tea.

It's baffling how those people look to Trump as a champion of the downtrodden, and keep doing so. Trump blasted the ACA, praised the healthcare system of Australia and possibly others, yet he has only supported initiatives that would be a huge step back from that perspective.

Republican congressmen may think of him as a burden, but my guess is that the 'swamp' is actually pleased with him. He could dismantle ACA, demolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pass sweeping tax cuts that largely benefit the rich and scores of other things that the Republican establishment likes. Meanwhile, his base keeps supporting him because they can always be distracted by tweets about black athletes or Crooked Hillary :rolleyes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's baffling how those people look to Trump as a champion of the downtrodden, and keep doing so. Trump blasted the ACA, praised the healthcare system of Australia and possibly others, yet he has only supported initiatives that would be a huge step back from that perspective.

Republican congressmen may think of him as a burden, but my guess is that the 'swamp' is actually pleased with him. He could dismantle ACA, demolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, pass sweeping tax cuts that largely benefit the rich and scores of other things that the Republican establishment likes. Meanwhile, his base keeps supporting him because they can always be distracted by tweets about black athletes or Crooked Hillary :rolleyes:

The GOP base, most of whom are NOT rich but advocate/adhere to "country mouse" values were staunchly against the ACA. The Tax Reform bill is likely to be popular as well, at least among the GOP base.

The GOP establishment Pols have trouble with Trump because of his asshat behaviors. They are deeply worried that, while picking up points with Trump base for supporting some of the policies on immigration and the like, Trump will undercut all their support with an asinine tweet just before the vote is taken -- Trump loves inflammatory messages and none of the GOP establishment want to pay the price for Trump's outrage de jour.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And what an amateur hour this administration is with Trump as tweeter in chief.

After a numbing list of "didn't quite get it done" legislative efforts, Trump's administration finally gets a success on a piece of legislation that was part of Trump's stated agenda, following which the Stock Market stays above 24k for the first time in history and revised growth figures top 3% for the third straight quarter and unemployment drops another tenth of a point....

Does the administration make a concerted effort to show off this economic success? To let the GOP enjoy the achievement and reinforce that things are getting better under their leadership?

Not at all. Instead they bury their own success in a furor over acknowledging the Israeli capital is Jerusalem.

AMATEUR HOUR in DC

[Montmorency]

And what an amateur hour this administration is with Trump as tweeter in chief.

After a numbing list of "didn't quite get it done" legislative efforts, Trump's administration finally gets a success on a piece of legislation that was part of Trump's stated agenda, following which the Stock Market stays above 24k for the first time in history and revised growth figures top 3% for the third straight quarter and unemployment drops another tenth of a point....

Does the administration make a concerted effort to show off this economic success? To let the GOP enjoy the achievement and reinforce that things are getting better under their leadership?

Not at all. Instead they bury their own success in a furor over acknowledging the Israeli capital is Jerusalem.

AMATEUR HOUR in DC

The Tax Bill isn't done yet (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark).


This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate.

I'd prefer to discuss it once it either fails or is signed into law.

[Kralizec]

The GOP base, most of whom are NOT rich but advocate/adhere to "country mouse" values were staunchly against the ACA. The Tax Reform bill is likely to be popular as well, at least among the GOP base.

The GOP establishment Pols have trouble with Trump because of his asshat behaviors. They are deeply worried that, while picking up points with Trump base for supporting some of the policies on immigration and the like, Trump will undercut all their support with an asinine tweet just before the vote is taken -- Trump loves inflammatory messages and none of the GOP establishment want to pay the price for Trump's outrage de jour.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'country mouse'. No argument on the popularity of tax cuts, although personally the one currently proposed seems like a terrible idea and not fiscally conservative by any stretch of definition. Repealing the individual mandate while keeping the protection against prior conditions is just a recipe for disaster and might just cause the implosion of Obamacare that some conservatives have been rooting for.

The GOP told their voters that Obamacare sucked for years, and then Trump came along with the promise of replacing it with something entirely better. 'Better' is subjective, but he clarified repeatedly that he would deliver tremendous quality and excellent coverage. Every proposal he has backed so far would have led to lesser coverage.

Point being, Trump has promised things that no conventional Republican would have. You noted that there are a good amount of people who would have backed Bernie instead of Trump if given the chance. But in my impression he's governing in a pretty mainstream Republican way, his populist rants and doubtful competence notwithstanding. Hence, the rants and the tweets serve as a useful distraction for people who'd gladly have supported someone like Bernie on issues of policy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'country mouse'. No argument on the popularity of tax cuts, although personally the one currently proposed seems like a terrible idea and not fiscally conservative by any stretch of definition. Repealing the individual mandate while keeping the protection against prior conditions is just a recipe for disaster and might just cause the implosion of Obamacare that some conservatives have been rooting for.

The GOP told their voters that Obamacare sucked for years, and then Trump came along with the promise of replacing it with something entirely better. 'Better' is subjective, but he clarified repeatedly that he would deliver tremendous quality and excellent coverage. Every proposal he has backed so far would have led to lesser coverage.

Point being, Trump has promised things that no conventional Republican would have. You noted that there are a good amount of people who would have backed Bernie instead of Trump if given the chance. But in my impression he's governing in a pretty mainstream Republican way, his populist rants and doubtful competence notwithstanding. Hence, the rants and the tweets serve as a useful distraction for people who'd gladly have supported someone like Bernie on issues of policy.

Well, the rants certainly get the political left in the USA up in arms about him. All the nattering about impeachment and using the 25th amendment is a waste of breath unless Muller develops clear evidence of Trump being naughty, so the more the lefties rant about such the less they are doing substantively. Perhaps that is the goal, assuming Trump is actually planning anything in the first place.

"County mouse" is a reference to the old city mouse/country mouse story. As is true with many polities, the USA is readily characterized by whether they live in an urban area (solidly big govt. liberal/social dem) or semirural/rural areas (which trend strongly toward social and economic conservatism and traditional values). The urbanites sneer at the backwards, undereducated bucolic hicks who are clearly out of touch with social justice and anything that really matters, while the ruralists deride the urbanites as over-educated drones who do not understand real work and want everyone suckling the big teat of government rather than standing on their own merit (yes, I am stereotyping a bit here).

England follows this pattern as well, esp. if you look at the Brexit vote in England itself.

[Montmorency]

All the nattering about impeachment and using the 25th amendment is a waste of breath unless Muller develops clear evidence of Trump being naughty, so the more the lefties rant about such the less they are doing substantively.

The fear is that evidence is irrelevant.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The fear is that evidence is irrelevant.

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

[Montmorency]

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

Does it though?

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/support-impeachment-record-high/


Attempts by Trump world, Fox News, and other affiliated interests to try to turn the Russia news back onto Hillary Clinton have had some effect. A month ago we found that among Trump voters 41% thought Russia wanted Clinton to win the election last year, to 29% who thought it wanted Trump to win. Now that’s up to 56% who think Russia wanted Clinton to win and just 18% who grant that it wanted Trump to win.

That’s part of a general pattern when it comes to Trump voters and the Russia story. Only 7% believe that members of Trump’s campaign team worked in association with Russia to help him win the election, to 83% who don’t think that happened. And even if collusion is proven they don’t care- just 11% think Trump should resign if that’s the case to 79% who believe he should remain in office. 75% dismiss the entire Russia story as ‘fake news,’ to 13% who disagree with that assessment. This poll was conducted mostly after the news that indictments were coming was out, but before the actual indictments were released.

Even if Republican Congress-people went along with impeachment, the Republican base would reject it.

Now - and there are just so many differences between the Trump case and the Nixon case, between Trump's America and Nixon's America - I'll just mention that Nixon by the end had the approval of only about ~50% of Republicans. Trump has held strong in the 80s since inauguration.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does it though?

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/polls/support-impeachment-record-high/



Even if Republican Congress-people went along with impeachment, the Republican base would reject it.

Now - and there are just so many differences between the Trump case and the Nixon case, between Trump's America and Nixon's America - I'll just mention that Nixon by the end had the approval of only about ~50% of Republicans. Trump has held strong in the 80s since inauguration.

That is because the Trump base is not gonna buy into pretty much any of the media coverage about Trump being worthy of impeachment. We have no Butterfield revealing that it was all taped...and it takes that level of hard evidence to successfully remove a President.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

Even with the evidence, Nixon's party was absurdly loyal to him.
The Republican committee votes on articles of impeachment were as follows:

64% (11/17) voted he did not obstruct justice.
59% (10/17) voted he did not abuse his power.
88% (15/17) voted he did not hold Congress in contempt.
100% (17/17) voted he did not falsify records regarding bombing of Cambodia. (Didn't the Pentagon Papers show this???)
100% (17/17) voted he did not fail to pay taxes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even with the evidence, Nixon's party was absurdly loyal to him.
The Republican committee votes on articles of impeachment were as follows:

64% (11/17) voted he did not obstruct justice.
59% (10/17) voted he did not abuse his power.
88% (15/17) voted he did not hold Congress in contempt.
100% (17/17) voted he did not falsify records regarding bombing of Cambodia. (Didn't the Pentagon Papers show this???)
100% (17/17) voted he did not fail to pay taxes.

Certainly he had his supporters right up to the end, and political parties always engender/reward loyalty to party, sometimes even when unwarranted (one of the reasons GW loathed them). There were even people genuinely sobbing during his "farewell" speech. But your numbers also indicate that, where evidence was clear, even a third of his own party would not vote in his favor in the committee, knowing full well that their vote would make it a bipartisan vote for impeachment.

The Pentagon Papers were all material Ellsberg had access to prior to 1968 prior to the Nixon administration entirely. There was no indication that Nixon's folks falsified anything about bombings outside of Vietnam. In fact, Nixon had made public declarations that such would occur. On Kissinger's advice, Nixon DID seek to discredit Ellsberg so as to preserve the "secrecy" tools of the Presidency as a whole. Nixon's tactics in this, however, were covered under obstruction of justice and abuse of power (which they were).

Nixon's resignation was the only valid choice for him. The full HoR would have voted to impeach on the first three articles had it gone to a vote and it was already clear that the Senate would've convicted on at least the first two.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fun side note. Having more-or-less endorsed Roy Moore despite the allegations from Moore's past, Trump can now revel in the fact that he isn't the only one supporting Moore.

Link (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-campaigns-with-roy-moore/ss-BBGjtJr?ocid=spartanntp) We now have Steve Bannon appearing with Judge Moore in his Alabama campaign.

I swear, if I submitted the last two years of Trump's life and the people and events swirling around him as a plot for a novel it would have been rejected as too implausible to be sold to anyone not already wearing tinfoil hats and stocking unhybridized seeds.

[Montmorency]

I'm tempted to say something, but instead let's have a humor-break (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-india-summit-name-and-location-of-summit-half-wit-saudi-arabia-prince-us-delegation-a7887731.html):


An unnamed Indian diplomat told Bobby Ghosh, the editor-in-chief of the Hindustan Times: "We regard Ivanka Trump the way we do half-wit Saudi princes. It's in our national interest to flatter them.”

He later added: “Yes, it is a shame that the US should be compared to a kingdom. But that is America's shame, not Modi's, or India's.”

Good enough for an Indian reboot of Yes, Minister.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Certainly he had his supporters right up to the end, and political parties always engender/reward loyalty to party, sometimes even when unwarranted (one of the reasons GW loathed them). There were even people genuinely sobbing during his "farewell" speech. But your numbers also indicate that, where evidence was clear, even a third of his own party would not vote in his favor in the committee, knowing full well that their vote would make it a bipartisan vote for impeachment.

The Pentagon Papers were all material Ellsberg had access to prior to 1968 prior to the Nixon administration entirely. There was no indication that Nixon's folks falsified anything about bombings outside of Vietnam. In fact, Nixon had made public declarations that such would occur. On Kissinger's advice, Nixon DID seek to discredit Ellsberg so as to preserve the "secrecy" tools of the Presidency as a whole. Nixon's tactics in this, however, were covered under obstruction of justice and abuse of power (which they were).

Nixon's resignation was the only valid choice for him. The full HoR would have voted to impeach on the first three articles had it gone to a vote and it was already clear that the Senate would've convicted on at least the first two.

My concern is that the Republican Party of today is more entrenched in party loyalty than those of Nixon's era. Today we can only rely on a handful of Senators being at best 'maybe no' for these rushed, pork laden bills that are being pushed through.

I must have been mixing up my dates for the Pentagon Papers, that's my mistake.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My concern is that the Republican Party of today is more entrenched in party loyalty than those of Nixon's era. Today we can only rely on a handful of Senators being at best 'maybe no' for these rushed, pork laden bills that are being pushed through.

I must have been mixing up my dates for the Pentagon Papers, that's my mistake.

It is easily done. The Pentagon papers DID come to light during Nixon's first term and he did authorize/encourage illegal activities to discredit Ellsberg. For all his many faults though, it was not Nixon who distorted evidence to encourage our huge ramp up of effort in Vietnam or lie about most of the cross border activities.

[HopAlongBunny]

Flynn flipped? NVM, that just proves the FBI is not only corrupt but just like the KGB.
Fox is going full bat-poop on this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/08/Fox-News-is-practically-begging-Trump-to-fire-Mueller/218781

Mueller shouldn't be fired, he should be locked up!
Because that just makes sense :dizzy2:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Flynn flipped? NVM, that just proves the FBI is not only corrupt but just like the KGB.
Fox is going full bat-poop on this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/12/08/Fox-News-is-practically-begging-Trump-to-fire-Mueller/218781

Mueller shouldn't be fired, he should be locked up!
Because that just makes sense :dizzy2:

Just remember that mediamatters has their own axes to grind.

[HopAlongBunny]

Just remember that mediamatters has their own axes to grind.

Yup.
I used it because it gave a nice compact overview of the rage machine in motion.
Fox really is losing it's mind on this; corruption? comparable to the KGB?; is trying to actively subvert confidence in law and order!?:laugh4:

[Montmorency]

Yup.
I used it because it gave a nice compact overview of the rage machine in motion.
Fox really is losing it's mind on this; corruption? comparable to the KGB?; is trying to actively subvert confidence in law and order!?:laugh4:

Radical Republicans always project.

In their mindset, if someone is punished, then they are bad and guilty of wrongdoing. If someone suffers no consequences for the same acts, then they must be good and innocent of all charges. They accuse others of their own crimes in order to absolve themselves.

Pretty sick.

[Kralizec]

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

“You could say that about America, couldn’t you? We promote a lot of bad things.” he said, about Reagan's comments on the USSR being an evil empire.

Sounds like a fairly unpatriotic thing to say in my opinion, but I never understood US republicans that well anyway.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

“You could say that about America, couldn’t you? We promote a lot of bad things.” he said, about Reagan's comments on the USSR being an evil empire.

Sounds like a fairly unpatriotic thing to say in my opinion, but I never understood US republicans that well anyway.

Roll Tide!

[Strike For The South]

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

Because the democratic party could fall into a barrel of tits and come out sucking their thumb.

It is unfathomable to me that the DNC somehow still does not understand that outside money, outside support, and leading from the national level hurts them in these races. The republicans figured out long ago that the national HQ funnels money into a "canidate X for state Y" fund.

The Georgia 6 was a great example of this. John Osoff was exactly the kind of Bougie, antiseptic transplant that local people have been "Warned" about for years. He ended up not being able to win a district filled with antiseptic transplants.

The democrats can't be afraid to attack either. I have never seen a bigger group of pearl clutching Marys in my entire life. Roy Moore is an unfit candidate with a perchant for young girls, bang that drum until it breaks.

The Jones campaign has also done a pretty freaking terrible job of reaching out to black people by running some hilariously tone deaf ads.

Also being Jewish has come back in a big way but that is a whole nother thread.

[Kralizec]

Because the democratic party could fall into a barrel of tits and come out sucking their thumb.

It is unfathomable to me that the DNC somehow still does not understand that outside money, outside support, and leading from the national level hurts them in these races. The republicans figured out long ago that the national HQ funnels money into a "canidate X for state Y" fund.

The Georgia 6 was a great example of this. John Osoff was exactly the kind of Bougie, antiseptic transplant that local people have been "Warned" about for years. He ended up not being able to win a district filled with antiseptic transplants.

The democrats can't be afraid to attack either. I have never seen a bigger group of pearl clutching Marys in my entire life. Roy Moore is an unfit candidate with a perchant for young girls, bang that drum until it breaks.

The Jones campaign has also done a pretty freaking terrible job of reaching out to black people by running some hilariously tone deaf ads.

Also being Jewish has come back in a big way but that is a whole nother thread.

Fair enough I suppose. There were quite a few republican candidates in the Alabama primary though, yet they settled for an extremist who was kicked off the Alabama supreme court twice for deliberately ignoring the law. You can't explain that by saying the democrats are useless :shrug: