Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh don't sell yourself short, not even the Australians were as efficient at extermination as you.

The 'virgin field' epidemics done more or less accidentally probably did the most damage. The rest was follow through on a disparate group of micro-polities with no tech base to speak of. And we still took too long with it and didn't do it completely.

[Montmorency]

The 'virgin field' epidemics done more or less accidentally probably did the most damage. The rest was follow through on a disparate group of micro-polities with no tech base to speak of. And we still took too long with it and didn't do it completely.

It took too long because settlers didn't have sufficient manpower in all times and places, and at those times and places where we lacked sufficient manpower we liked to enjoy the fruits of their labor (i.e. trade or plunder). A hundred consistent genocides whenever we got the opportunity is a pretty strong pattern of behavior.

Heck, IIRC Andrew Jackson's illegal death march of the "Civilized Tribes" was denounced by some politicians as falling short of total annihilation. There's a reason this country is often said to be built on the bones of slaves and Indians.

The story of the Donner Party on the Oregon California Trail is an epitome of white colonialism. Set off to seize distant land without adequate planning or provisions, get disoriented and trapped amid harsh conditions, refuse to cooperate with aboriginals to extricate themselves, kill and eat their aboriginal guides, eat each other. What a Lovecraftian country this is.



Tangentially, a lot of stock has been placed in the expectation that even if the Office of the POTUS is shielded from criminal prosecution for the duration of the officeholder's term, such an individual can be prosecuted once they have departed the office. In theory this is true, but now I realize that it just cannot happen like that. In this country we have trial by jury, and the verdict must be delivered unanimously. You tell me - is there any hope of a randomly-selected jury pool that does not contain at least one diehard redcap, one who would refuse to convict no matter the evidence presented? We've already seen the like in the Manafort trial, in which IIRC a single hung (pro-Trump) juror refused to convict on around half the charges. It would be improper to winnow out and discard every potential juror who has ever voted for or supported Trump, so it's effectively guaranteed that at least one juror on any trial will be a partisan.

Trump could be tried for any number of crimes in 2021, but he would never be convicted. Trump could shoot Seamus in the face 10 years from now, and he would never be convicted. One of his sons could do the same, and would very likely enjoy a similar aegis effect. Any prosecution is an automatic fated mistrial. Therefore, even attempting to prosecute Trump would invariably strengthen his martyrhood in the eyes of millions, to no resolution. Can you imagine the cries of "witch hunt" renewed in that event? It would become a permanent cult of the GOP to venerate his name and his supposed innocence, even more so than in any other circumstances. Way more than Nixon ever got, and Nixon's resignation permanently hardened the hearts of movement conservatives.

NYT Front Page 2024: "Jury unable to find President Donald Trump guilty of conspiracy, money laundering, tax fraud, among other charges; Democrats in disarray"

So we can never even attempt to criminally prosecute Trump for anything he did before he took office, anything he has done in office, or anything he may do after he leaves office.

It's official and definitive: Trump is above the law, now and forever, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Or, we could make a habit out of sending our worst criminals to the ICC in the Hague. Outsource what we can't do ourselves - it's what international institutions are for, no?


EDIT: Another suggestion, get a Democratic trifecta to pack the courts but offer a pseudo-olive branch by also confirming Donald Trump to the Supreme Court. It would help weaken the institution's dignity in the eyes of the public, and Trump probably can't do as much damage in that position anyway. (His clerks will write everything up.)
*Warning, this is not a serious suggestion*

[drone]

Tangentially, a lot of stock has been placed in the expectation that even if the Office of the POTUS is shielded from criminal prosecution for the duration of the officeholder's term, such an individual can be prosecuted once they have departed the office. In theory this is true, but now I realize that it just cannot happen like that. In this country we have trial by jury, and the verdict must be delivered unanimously. You tell me - is there any hope of a randomly-selected jury pool that does not contain at least one diehard redcap, one who would refuse to convict no matter the evidence presented? We've already seen the like in the Manafort trial, in which IIRC a single hung (pro-Trump) juror refused to convict on around half the charges. It would be improper to winnow out and discard every potential juror who has ever voted for or supported Trump, so it's effectively guaranteed that at least one juror on any trial will be a partisan.

If the case is brought by the SDNY it would be possible to convict. Everybody in NYC already knows he's a crook and conman...

[Montmorency]

If the case is brought by the SDNY it would be possible to convict. Everybody in NYC already knows he's a crook and conman...

1/5 of the city voted Trump. 1/3 at the state level. His support here doesn't seem to have diminished over time, at least as compared to the battleground states. A jury of 12 is going to roll a Trump partisan. The prosecutor won't be able to strike every potential Trump partisan.

No dice.

EDIT: Remember that the problem is the level of risk. I don't remember how to do calculate combinations and I won't look it up. Basically, the probability of at least one juror being a 2016 (or even worse, 2020) Trump voter times the probability of at least one of these being a diehard partisan times the probability that the prosecutor can't identify and reject a Trump partisan.

The test already failed in at least one occasion (Manafort). Even a 10% risk of blowing the trial the way the feds blew the trials against the Bundys and their cohorts (remember that?) is simply way too high for this country's stability, and I believe the risk is much higher than 10%.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Monty: My comments about treatment of Native Americans did NOT claim that it wasn't genocidal in character -- just that it was haphazard. You could argue that haphazard is a fairly common characteristic defining the USA.

Drone: Monty is probably right as to the math of it. Trump's deplorables are not legion but egad are they loyal, reveling in his worst characteristics and loving him FOR those. Since he took office his support has NEVER dipped below 35% or so -- even though virtually all predecessors have dipped lower than that for one stretch of time or another. So while he has never enjoyed the huge and broad approval numbers that most of his predecessors have managed at one time or another, he has never gone really low either. Answer...his core group absolutely revels in his exercise of power. Since that is about a 1/4 of the voters overall, Monty's math as to the likelihood of getting a jury of 12 to vote guilty, as opposed to an 11-1 hung jury is probably pretty accurate.

Might get a guilty vote for shooting me in the face and killing me in broad daylight -- but only because it is a crime of personal violence. On issues of public (mis)behavior (and malfeasance?) I'd guess Monty is spot on.

[Montmorency]

Monty: My comments about treatment of Native Americans did NOT claim that it wasn't genocidal in character -- just that it was haphazard. You could argue that haphazard is a fairly common characteristic defining the USA.

Drone: Monty is probably right as to the math of it. Trump's deplorables are not legion but egad are they loyal, reveling in his worst characteristics and loving him FOR those. Since he took office his support has NEVER dipped below 35% or so -- even though virtually all predecessors have dipped lower than that for one stretch of time or another. So while he has never enjoyed the huge and broad approval numbers that most of his predecessors have managed at one time or another, he has never gone really low either. Answer...his core group absolutely revels in his exercise of power. Since that is about a 1/4 of the voters overall, Monty's math as to the likelihood of getting a jury of 12 to vote guilty, as opposed to an 11-1 hung jury is probably pretty accurate.

Might get a guilty vote for shooting me in the face and killing me in broad daylight -- but only because it is a crime of personal violence. On issues of public (mis)behavior (and malfeasance?) I'd guess Monty is spot on.

I just wanted to be clear that "haphazard" does not contradict malice aforethought. Let no one suppose that settlers bumbled their way into genocide. 'Aw shucks, did I kill all those Injuns? Was I not supposed to do that?'

[drone]

Drone: Monty is probably right as to the math of it. Trump's deplorables are not legion but egad are they loyal, reveling in his worst characteristics and loving him FOR those. Since he took office his support has NEVER dipped below 35% or so -- even though virtually all predecessors have dipped lower than that for one stretch of time or another. So while he has never enjoyed the huge and broad approval numbers that most of his predecessors have managed at one time or another, he has never gone really low either. Answer...his core group absolutely revels in his exercise of power. Since that is about a 1/4 of the voters overall, Monty's math as to the likelihood of getting a jury of 12 to vote guilty, as opposed to an 11-1 hung jury is probably pretty accurate.

I think it depends a lot on the results of the 2020 election. If he tanks the economy, loses big, and takes the Senate majority down with him, every Republican politician will disavow they ever supported him. He will no longer get fellated every day by Fox News. He is being used, either for votes or ratings, and when he can no longer deliver he will be dumped, plain and simple. His supporters love him because he's a "winner", stick a big L on his forehead and most will abandon him.

If he wins, well, we are all screwed and it doesn't matter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I just wanted to be clear that "haphazard" does not contradict malice aforethought. Let no one suppose that settlers bumbled their way into genocide. 'Aw shucks, did I kill all those Injuns? Was I not supposed to do that?'

Oh no. Lots of folks pushing Westward had the 'they are lesser beings" thing in their heads. Exploitation up through out-and-out murder was tolerated by the vast majority of the newcomers and condoned and encouraged by a large plurality or better. The needs/rights/personhood of the Native Americans were seldom considered -- or even accepted as existing by many.

[Montmorency]

I think it depends a lot on the results of the 2020 election. If he tanks the economy, loses big, and takes the Senate majority down with him, every Republican politician will disavow they ever supported him. He will no longer get fellated every day by Fox News. He is being used, either for votes or ratings, and when he can no longer deliver he will be dumped, plain and simple. His supporters love him because he's a "winner", stick a big L on his forehead and most will abandon him.

If he wins, well, we are all screwed and it doesn't matter.

I appreciate your optimism. A solid 2020 loss and subsequent run for the boats by Right media and politicians could splinter all but the most hardcore from his brand. On the other hand, most contemporary Republicans still seem to be wondering whether Nixon did nothing wrong after all, and Nixon resignation hardened hearts etc. They have their avatar in Trump, and if Trump is a "winner" because Trumpism is a phenomenon beyond Trump then it stands to reason that it will continue to be a phenomenon with Trump (regardless of behavior or electoral performance).

Oh no. Lots of folks pushing Westward had the 'they are lesser beings" thing in their heads. Exploitation up through out-and-out murder was tolerated by the vast majority of the newcomers and condoned and encouraged by a large plurality or better. The needs/rights/personhood of the Native Americans were seldom considered -- or even accepted as existing by many.

Speaking of land seizure, reset the counter on days without Trump having a despotic moment:

President Trump is so eager to complete hundreds of miles of border fence ahead of the 2020 presidential election that he has directed aides to fast-track billions of dollars’ worth of construction contracts, aggressively seize private land and disregard environmental rules, according to current and former officials involved with the project.

He also has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly, those officials said.

Trump has repeatedly promised to complete 500 miles of fencing by the time voters go to the polls in November 2020, stirring chants of “Finish the Wall!” at his political rallies as he pushes for tighter border controls. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed just about 60 miles of “replacement” barrier during the first 2½ years of Trump’s presidency, all of it in areas that previously had border infrastructure.

The president has told senior aides that a failure to deliver on the signature promise of his 2016 campaign would be a letdown to his supporters and an embarrassing defeat. With the election 14 months away and hundreds of miles of fencing plans still in blueprint form, Trump has held regular White House meetings for progress updates and to hasten the pace, according to several people involved in the discussions.

When aides have suggested that some orders are illegal or unworkable, Trump has suggested he would pardon the officials if they would just go ahead, aides said. He has waved off worries about contracting procedures and the use of eminent domain, saying “take the land,” according to officials who attended the meetings.
[...]
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper is expected to approve a White House request to divert $3.6 billion in Pentagon funds to the barrier project in coming weeks, money that Trump sought after lawmakers refused to allocate $5 billion. [Ed. You will recall the legal challenge recently failed in the Supreme Court per the lack of standing of the plaintiffs.] The funds will be pulled from Defense Department projects in 26 states, according to administration officials who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the matter.

Trump’s determination to build the barriers as quickly as possible has not diminished his interest in the aesthetic aspects of the project, particularly the requirement that the looming steel barriers be painted black and topped with sharpened tips.
[...]
Trump conceded last year in an immigration meeting with lawmakers that a wall or barrier is not the most effective mechanism to curb illegal immigration, recognizing it would accomplish less than a major expansion of U.S. enforcement powers and deportation authority. But he told lawmakers that his supporters want a wall and that he has to deliver it.
[...]
Former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly would often tell administration officials to disregard the president’s demands if Kelly did not think they were feasible or legally sound, according to current and former aides.
[...]
“They don’t care how much money is spent, whether landowners’ rights are violated, whether the environment is damaged, the law, the regs or even prudent business practices,” the senior official said.
[...]
At Trump’s behest, the Army Corps also is preparing to instruct contractors to remove from the upper part of the fence the smooth metal plates that are used to thwart climbers. The president considered that design feature unsightly, according to officials familiar with his directives.

Instead, contractors have been asked to cut the tips of the steel bollards to a sharpened point. Trump had told aides this spring he thought the barrier should be spiked to instill a fear of injury.

[Cherry]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trump has recently urged the Army Corps to award a contract to a company he favors, North Dakota-based Fisher Industries, though the firm has not been selected. Fisher has been aggressively pushed by Trump ally Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who briefly held up the confirmation of a Trump budget office nominee last month in an attempt to put pressure on the Army Corps.

Cramer demanded to see the contracts awarded to Fisher’s competitors, lashing out at the “arrogance” of the Army Corps in emails to military officials after he was told the bidding process involved proprietary information that could not be shared. The CEO of Fisher Industries is a major backer of Cramer and has donated to his campaigns.

That is cool. This is not OK. Everyone please keep in mind how serious this kind of governing philosophy is, and how consistent Trump is in advancing it and pushing the bureaucratic and cultural boundaries. It's not a joke. It has literally been happening here for years as the very worst of the country gradually suborns government or neutralizes what they can't suborn, while boiling the public consciousness like the figurative frog; don't wait until we're already in the pit to be alarmed.

This and other instances would theoretically be a clarion call for the militia types, but of course they're the ones volunteering to patrol the border while gibbering about Jade Helm.

[Montmorency]

I mean, sure, but get a load of the spoiler.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Technically, promulgating falsified weather forecasts is a crime. Add it to the list...

One way or another, this is pathological.

Now you might groan isn't the above, despite what it reaffirms about Trump's character and psychological health, far less egregious than the kinds of lies and destructive policies to which the media could be devoting the time and space it has accorded to this? You would be right, but I usually stay away from those stories in this thread because they're so numerous and profound. It's much less tedious to post about Trump's personal stupidity. For an example of what it would look like to discuss Trump's administration:

There have been a number of instances of corruption with respect to Trump properties and 'unseemly' government expenditures, and by "a number" I mean just the ones (multiple) in the British Isles, this month. Go check it out.

Worse than that, Trump has again demonstrated willingness and ability to direct the security apparatus of the United States against his political enemies, now in the form of apparently punitive antitrust investigations into automobile manufacturers. The news comes months after the White House announced deregulation of vehicle emissions standards and the companies affected above declined them because they considered the more stringent California regulations to be more suitable to their business model. Why assume Trump is behind the investigation? Besides all the other times he's reportedly or professedly tried (successfully or not) to direct improper or illegal actions against his enemies, including at the Department of Justice? Because he is also threatening to challenge California's authority to set independent standards with executive power, and has lambasted the uncooperative manufacturers directly.

This ought to be considered another impeachable offense all on its own, though for all that can be done about it Trump accumulates impeachable offenses like a drugged-up arraigned defendant cussing out the judge to provoke contempt charges.

As for the emissions deregulation itself, it is actually part of a pattern where Trump has insisted on environmentally-destructive deregulation despite the companies themselves saying it goes too far for them and may even contradict their business interests. 'Hurt the businesses to destroy the environment more' sounds like a Simpsons joke.

Oh, and speaking of abuses of power, there's one present in the hurricane bullshit spoilered above: getting government offices to release misleading official statements for the purpose of venerating the Dear Leader, who can never be wrong. (Thankfully the some at the agency are publicly rejecting this subornment.) You see, all this stuff ties together, the evil and the venality and the stupidity. Don't for a second that the latter moderates the former, rather the opposite. Trump would be the next Mugabe if he could. Just a reminder that the election of one of the most remorselessly and prolifically criminal men in American history (as of before his election!) is a society-scale catastrophic failure.

[rory_20_uk]

Trump got rid of Bolton.

I loathe the man and almost everything he stands for but it is another illustration of just how much loyalty and sycophantic behaviour are the only skills required.

[Montmorency]

Trump got rid of Bolton.

I loathe the man and almost everything he stands for but it is another illustration of just how much loyalty and sycophantic behaviour are the only skills required.

This firing is actually a good thing in itself for a change, because Bolton's lifelong career has been one of incompetent and dangerous warmonger.

On the issue of loyalty and bureaucracy, I hope you will find the following update relevant:

In today's reminder that Trump's grip on the bureaucracy gets surer and more effective with each week, an Update on why Trump's hurricane intransigence is a big deal: [Secretary] Ross threatened to fire top NOAA staff after office contradicted Trump on [Hurricane] Dorian.

From Wapo:

“This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast,” the meteorologist said. “It’s hard for me to wrap my head around. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”

I hope none of those employees is named Winston. (Once again though, there is resistance.)

Brazen political interference in state scientific and statistical agencies is only more dangerous when manipulation of fact is motivated by the pettiest personal fixations - it s9gjaps there is no bottom. It's the perfect juxtaposition to Ross's illegal lies to the courts about their regulatory agenda for the Census (which agenda was hopefully foreclosed on earlier in the summer). Even if we ultimately learn that this particular scandal in the administration was not explicitly ordered by Trump (as he avers), it nevertheless will have followed from the Henry II effect, symptomatic of deep institutional corrosion that can't be repaired in mere years.

[Beskar]

So Trump posted on twitter a couple of days ago that he invited the Taliban to a teaparty at Camp David around 11th September.

Certainly one of the most tone-deaf timing and location imaginable.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Wow...one of those times when Monty and I more or less agree (if, as usual, for somewhat different reasons). Bolton has been too much of a warmonger, and was very much one of the neocon voices in 2003 who somehow thought Sadam could be toppled and democracy would spontaneously erupt. I think Bolton WAS making good points vis-à-vis our stance towards Russia etc., but he has a track record of robust intervention without quite planning for the follow-through components.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So Trump posted on twitter a couple of days ago that he invited the Taliban to a teaparty at Camp David around 11th September.

Certainly one of the most tone-deaf timing and location imaginable.

His 'base' love him for his tone-deaf, combative, 'I am the leader' attitude -- but even most of them would admit he isn't the most glib or sensitive of communicators.

[Beskar]

His 'base' love him for his tone-deaf, combative, 'I am the leader' attitude -- but even most of them would admit he isn't the most glib or sensitive of communicators.

But if it was Hilary or Obama, they would be rioting. They accused Obama of 'palling with terrorists' whilst he is the one who ordered the hit on Osama.

[Montmorency]

But if it was Hilary or Obama, they would be rioting. They accused Obama of 'palling with terrorists' whilst he is the one who ordered the hit on Osama.

IMHO the bigger problem with this incident was Trump cancelling peace negotiations that were nearing finalization, out of pique. Not the decision to hold them or continue them or the location or time of formalization. Of course, once again Trump's handling makes America look stupid and hostile while conferring legitimacy to our adversaries.

Hopefully it's like his usual pattern of blowing up talks then coming back weeks later with concessions. Get it done.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm not joking about the pattern. It's not just North Korea or NAFTA. Trump is now at the stage of trying to buy back Iran's compliance with a pact Trump himself caused the United States to violate.

Is he literally just doing this for all our foreign policy, instigating a crisis and then walking it back having permanently weakened our diplomatic and economic position? Are there any counterexamples?

His 'base' love him for his tone-deaf, combative, 'I am the leader' attitude -- but even most of them would admit he isn't the most glib or sensitive of communicators.

One article suggested that Trump reneged after becoming upset that he wouldn't be perceived as having 'sealed the deal' (professional diplomats worked it out over months and years behind the scenes). But I haven't found confirmation so don't hold me to that.


Well beyond the Iraq War Bolton had a reputation as a wrecker. What are your reasons for disliking Bolton, Seamus? I doubt ours don't overlap significantly.

Other than that, in case anyone wants to give credit to Trump for once again being the foreign policy version of the man who killed Hitler, here is Trump's own perspective on Bolton's role:

In fact, my views on Venezuela, and especially Cuba, were far stronger than those of John Bolton. He was holding me back!

kek

[Seamus Fermanagh]

…One article suggested that Trump reneged after becoming upset that he wouldn't be perceived as having 'sealed the deal' (professional diplomats worked it out over months and years behind the scenes). But I haven't found confirmation so don't hold me to that.
Well beyond the Iraq War Bolton had a reputation as a wrecker. What are your reasons for disliking Bolton, Seamus? I doubt ours don't overlap significantly.

Other than that, in case anyone wants to give credit to Trump for once again being the foreign policy version of the man who killed Hitler, here is Trump's own perspective on Bolton's role: …

I don't hate Bolton but mostly disagree with him. His skepticism as to the efficacy of the UN, the role of diplomacy, and the value of the EU are a bit more strident than my own, but I trend in that direction. On the other hand, however, he pretty much always views US military intervention as the correct answer and very much takes a "smash it flat then leave them in their squalor" attitude towards such interventions. Bolton is considered one of the 'architects' of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and he was quite possible criminal (and certainly a negligent analyst) in his cavalier support for the evidence proffered regarding Iraqi WMDs. His attitude also helped create the simply deplorable lack of security/suppression of insurrection that characterized our involvement in Iraq following the toppling of the Saddam regime. Apparently, following Saddam's capture, his attitude was that we should have pulled out and handed them a copy of the Federalist Papers with a cheery 'good luck.' I am not opposed to intervention using military force, but the cavalier attitude for the aftermath Bolton exhibit' is, at best, poor long-term thinking about problem resolution.

If you want a better read on me over the course of the last few years, take a read of Max Boot's Wiki.

n general, Boot considers himself to be a "natural contrarian".[33] He identifies as a conservative, once joking that "I grew up in the 1980s, when conservatism was cool".[34] He is in favor of limited government at home and American leadership abroad. He strongly opposed Trump's presidential candidacy in 2016[35] and has been highly critical of the Republican Party.[36] Boot endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016 U.S. presidential election.[37] Boot was critical of the nomination of Rex Tillerson to the position of Secretary of State, believing him to be problematically pro-Russian, and subsequently called on Tillerson to resign.[38] Boot said he would "sooner vote for Josef Stalin than he would vote for Donald Trump."[39]
In an opinion piece for Foreign Policy in September 2017, Max Boot outlines his political views as follows: "I am socially liberal: I am pro-LGBTQ rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-immigration. I am fiscally conservative: I think we need to reduce the deficit and get entitlement spending under control. I am pro-environment: I think that climate change is a major threat that we need to address. I am pro-free trade: I think we should be concluding new trade treaties rather than pulling out of old ones. I am strong on defense: I think we need to beef up our military to cope with multiple enemies. And I am very much in favor of America acting as a world leader: I believe it is in our own self-interest to promote and defend freedom and free markets as we have been doing in one form or another since at least 1898."[40]
In December 2017, also in Foreign Policy, Boot wrote that recent events—particularly since the 2016 election of Donald Trump as president—had caused him to rethink some of his previous views concerning the existence of white privilege and male privilege. "In the last few years, in particular, it has become impossible for me to deny the reality of discrimination, harassment, even violence that people of color and women continue to experience in modern-day America from a power structure that remains for the most part in the hands of straight, white males. People like me, in other words. Whether I realize it or not, I have benefited from my skin color and my gender—and those of a different gender or sexuality or skin color have suffered because of it."[41]
Damon Linker of the New York Times argued in a 2018 review of Boot's The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left the Right that Boot never espoused pronounced conservative ideas, but rather followed "the expression of a particularly bellicose strand of Cold War liberalism that migrated from the center-left to the center-right in the aftermath of the Vietnam War... By the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, this brand of muscular, centrist liberalism was back."

Other than his endorsement of Hillary Clinton [I voted for my wife rather than supporting her or Trump], abortion [I view the unborn as living with the rights attached thereto, though the whole situation makes me sad], and trade treaties [one of my few areas of partial agreement with Trump. I DO believe that too many extant treaties are too lopsided against the USA and do not consider it our duty to subsidize Chinese development etc. when they don't respect intellectual property].

With those caveats, Boot's on shift in political thinking is very much in line with my own. Like Reagan once said about his break with the Democrats, "they left me."

[Montmorency]

I DO believe that too many extant treaties are too lopsided against the USA and do not consider it our duty to subsidize Chinese development etc. when they don't respect intellectual property].

More precisely, lopsided in favor of US corporations and against labor (everywhere). But if you used those terms with Sanders or Warren they would vehemently agree. Would you be able to vote for one of them next year?

With those caveats, Boot's on shift in political thinking is very much in line with my own. Like Reagan once said about his break with the Democrats, "they left me."

sigh

When the liberals were telling you what the Republican Party was, y'all should have listened.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even into the summer of 2016, I was convinced that Trump was an aberration of the moment. Not so, his Trumpeteers had taken over the party from the inside using the TEA party as a framework. It is now Trump's creature.

[Montmorency]

Even into the summer of 2016, I was convinced that Trump was an aberration of the moment. Not so, his Trumpeteers had taken over the party from the inside using the TEA party as a framework. It is now Trump's creature.

I know this will feel like I'm picking on you, but from the world-historical perspective it is necessary to understand that Trump was the party's creature, not the other way around. The party made its bed with Barry Goldwater and the John Birch Society and Jerry Falwell and the Southern Strategy. Degeneracy was overdetermined without even taking into account the party's already-hideous hundred-year history as the "Free labor" aristocracy (transitionally transmuted through Milton Friedman).

Here's a clip of Ronald Reagan campaigning for Truman in 1948. "In other words, higher prices have not been caused by higher wages, but by bigger and bigger profits." Sounds like Sanders. 'My party left me' because it became more conservative economically (than the historically unique New Deal heyday) and more socially liberal so there was no choice but to join the Republicans - is... a very telling transformation.

A Lovecraftian tale of dreadful genealogy.

[Montmorency]

Hilarious that the inciting event has been reported since ~April, but perhaps, it is finally beginning to begin in earnest.

Even Prof. Bowman comes out.

[InsaneApache]

My first post in this thread, so forgive me I havn't read it all (TLDR)

I like Trump. He's upsetting all the right people.

Oh and as a businessman he know how it goes. It shows in the economy.

Another thing he's stitched on for a 2020 win.

That is all.

[CrossLOPER]

My first post in this thread, so forgive me I havn't read it all (TLDR)

Perhaps you would have something useful to add to the discussion if you took the time to do so.

[InsaneApache]

Perhaps you would have something useful to add to the discussion if you took the time to do so.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My first post in this thread, so forgive me I havn't read it all (TLDR)

I like Trump. He's upsetting all the right people.

Oh and as a businessman he know how it goes. It shows in the economy.

Another thing he's stitched on for a 2020 win.

That is all.

Bravvah, marvellous trolling.

[CrossLOPER]

Brazzah, marvellous trolling.

LOOK, MAH, I POSTED!

[Greyblades]

Top kek.

[edyzmedieval]

For the record, Giuliani tried to do the same shazam in Romania as he did in Ukraine, trying to prop up the corrupt president of the ruling party with a letter sent to the government. That blew in his face and they quickly dropped the issue, causing even more problems to the ruling party.

He tried to attack the chief prosecutor - Laura Codruta Kovesi - who will now be the European Prosecutor. -> https://www.euractiv.com/section/jus...ic-prosecutor/

https://www.salon.com/2019/09/25/rud...rumps-payroll/

[CrossLOPER]

For the record, Giuliani tried to do the same shazam in Romania as he did in Ukraine, trying to prop up the corrupt president of the ruling party with a letter sent to the government. That blew in his face and they quickly dropped the issue, causing even more problems to the ruling party.

He tried to attack the chief prosecutor - Laura Codruta Kovesi - who will now be the European Prosecutor. -> https://www.euractiv.com/section/jus...ic-prosecutor/

https://www.salon.com/2019/09/25/rud...rumps-payroll/

I like the meltdown he had.

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