Trump Thread

[Gilrandir]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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

[Gilrandir]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Montmorency]

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

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

Border traffic rate's been down long-term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HopAlongBunny]

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

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

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

[Beskar]

You know it is pretty bad when Germans are calling out the American president on it.

[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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhel...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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhel...German_Emperor

The Great War Week 157

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.