Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

03-13-2017 , 07:50 AM
A lot of us assumed that this nation has a core set of shared American values that we all stand by. Like, all the apple pie jazz about freedom of religion and being a nation of immigrants and respecting the troops and whatnot. What Trump has shown is that a frightful segment of the population is either opposed or indifferent to all that ****. You can kick out refugees bc of their religion and piss on Gold Star families and cuddle up to dictators like Putin, and it's still all good with these people. As someone who watched Republicans constantly spazz out about Russia in the 80s, it's shocking to see that it was all more or less pageantry. Basically, the only two things that are sacred are low taxes for the wealthy and hating women & minorities.
03-13-2017 , 08:09 AM
I would argue, given our multi-faceted history of great conflict and turmoil, we clearly don't have a core set of shared American values. Therefor, I think any patriotic calls to return to the great old days of shared American values is specious.
03-13-2017 , 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
A lot of us assumed that this nation has a core set of shared American values that we all stand by. Like, all the apple pie jazz about freedom of religion and being a nation of immigrants and respecting the troops and whatnot. What Trump has shown is that a frightful segment of the population is either opposed or indifferent to all that ****. You can kick out refugees bc of their religion and piss on Gold Star families and cuddle up to dictators like Putin, and it's still all good with these people. As someone who watched Republicans constantly spazz out about Russia in the 80s, it's shocking to see that it was all more or less pageantry. Basically, the only two things that are sacred are low taxes for the wealthy and hating women & minorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllCowsEatGrass
I would argue, given our multi-faceted history of great conflict and turmoil, we clearly don't have a core set of shared American values. Therefor, I think any patriotic calls to return to the great old days of shared American values is specious.
One way to square this is sort of what we're talking about in the LC thread -- the grand idea of Harari's Sapiens is that we all operate with a bunch of shared fictions and our success depends on a level of cognitive dissonance to put aside empiricism and what you can really touch and allow collective unrealities to drive us.

One way you might describe the pre-Trump America during say the 1980s-1990s of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years and even reaching back to the immediate post WWII era is that BOTH sides were engaged in a bit of pageantry and consensus-building-by-fiction. The GOP played along with the rhetoric and virtues of human rights and cosmopolitan values as a way to differentiate against the Soviets and build consensus with the left against a common enemy. The Democrats trigulated and nominated a guy like Clinton who could comfortably campaign on Sister Souljah and sidelining Jesse Jackson as a way to signal that we remained collectively beholden to the white identity and preserving the special status of white people in America.
03-13-2017 , 08:20 AM
Which is why all the "Trump is tweeting to distract us from his Rosneft derivative swap" 12D chess bullshit is SO BAD.

This NEED of Dems to invent an opposition that doesn't exist instead of fighting the one that does is ****ing pathological.
03-13-2017 , 08:42 AM
Conway is on form.



https://twitter.com/DanielSchulman/s...63974159118336
03-13-2017 , 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich
Exxon under deals made by Tillerson, still stand to make a lot of $ if sanctions are removed. Tillerson still has a lot of Exxon stock. He might not be in the Putin pocket, but he certainly wouldn't mind filling it.
This isn't true. He had to sell of all of his Exxon stock. And his "future" stock options were paid out in cash, into a trust, not allowed to invest in Exxon.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/inve...-donald-trump/
03-13-2017 , 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Sure, that. And that is important to note about my argument: that the political attacks which start and end with Trump's personal failures or highlight his personal corruption are ultimately limited in scope and don't serve any long-term political interests short of destroying Trump. Destroying Trump is important but doesn't get you THAT much in the end. See all my posts above on this.

But remember too a corollary point: Bush didn't get taken down with Iraq. At least not in the ways you would think a total cluster**** disaster of a war that plunged a whole region into chaos and achieved basically no strategic interest should sink a politician. I grant it probably eroded his standing but he was able to get re-elected and maintain broad-enough popular support to govern after Iraq; after it became clear Iraq was disasterous.

It was Katrina that ultimately undid Bush and erased his political capital. His largest week to week drops in popular support were during the Katrina aftermath.

The Undoing of George W. Bush







It proves the principle, imo -- one of the ones I'm talking about: Republicans could thump their chest enough and yell about national security and scaremonger about evil Muslims and hide behind the flag and the military and whatever else, and weather the storm, pun intended, of Iraq.

Democrats aren't going to land a crushing blow to Trump on Russia without the seminal smoking gun evidence/investigation because MOST of the meta messages are all fundamentally right-wing ones. A lot of the public simply doesn't have the imagination to deduce why Trump would genuflect to Putin; he wants to Make America Great Again, he's a rich old white guy, it doesn't make sense. Oh, he wants to enrich himself, you say? Well that we understand, but isn't that what great negotiating is? He's such a great businessman negotiator, he's got this, we're sure of it.

Democrats aren't going to win long term there, in the same way they never were able to cripple Bush on Iraq. You're not going to out-patriot the GOP in ways that are fundamentally questioning the right's Americanness. You're fighting like generations of political stereotypes there. Plus, while I find it totally plausible Trump and Putin are colluding to scam people, it's like actually highly unlike they worked up some kind of secret "Plan of Transfer of American Assets to Russia for Krelmin Dominance of USA" dossier together. The sort of scams are going to be the more simple garden variety wealth transfer grifts. The most likely sort of corruption and collusion between Trump and Putin isn't anything that actually genuinely threatens national sovereignty but instead simple graft, e.g., the Trump Admin gives Russian and extraction/oil industry a more friendly American regulatory climate to operate in and in exchange, Trump et al get money. That's probably the best Democrats can hope for to prove that. It's still going to be pretty distant and esoteric for a lot of voters.

But being inept at governing was beyond the pale for Bush. THAT was the moment Bush went from a product of a sharp partisan divide (basically where Trump is now) that still has political space and capital to operate, and morphed to reviled and widely disliked, the guy that was effectively abandoned by his party and highly toxic and couldn't move on his agenda after that.

Obviously Democrats can't manufacture a national disaster and make Trump seem aloof and inept, and ldo no one should root that on. So Democrats can't Katrina Trump without outside help. But it shows how you can break through partisanship and really crush Trump; unfortunately it's hard for Democrats to move the needle in ways that question the right-wing's strongman, America First bonafides. Even if they wage globe-altering, catastrophic wars.

But being seen as fundamentally inept is politically crippling.

This really shouldn't be a hard case for Democrats to make about Trump since the dude is a walking clownshow who can't manage to even scam people competently. But it's harder when you're spending a lot of time on Russian co-option.
Excellent post DVault. (Of course most of your posts are).

While we don't yet know how Trump would respond to a national emergency, somehow, I don't think he'd take the "Bush" approach. Trump is a showman. No doubt he would fly down, "help out", get the positive media coverage, "demand" the Congress send money and help. He wouldn't be Katrina'd like Bush was. In my opinion of course.
03-13-2017 , 09:04 AM
Or maybe he would send in troops just to stop looting and do some light deportation hunting, assuming, of course, it was not during a weekend off at his southern plantation.
03-13-2017 , 09:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cut
Or maybe he would send in troops just to stop looting and do some light deportation hunting, assuming, of course, it was not during a weekend off at his southern plantation.
Was just gonna say, if it happens on a Friday, maybe he will go down and give awval's rah rah speech, but he'll have to wait until Monday, since the weekends belong to Mar A Lago.
03-13-2017 , 09:10 AM
"A terrible disaster, a shame, really a shame. Almost as bad as Arnold's ratings."
03-13-2017 , 09:27 AM
When it turns out bad: "Obama's failed emergency response structure must be dismantled!"
03-13-2017 , 09:44 AM
Responding to a natural disaster is not whether you make a personal appearance. In fact, an idiotic rally is just the thing Trump would do. The actual response will be a deficit of aid followed by a surplus of graft.

Last edited by microbet; 03-13-2017 at 10:03 AM.
03-13-2017 , 09:50 AM
A Katrina style natural disaster where the problems beset a city or a region would probably play out in the Trump style much like it did with the Bush Admin, just amplified -- so Trump blames local officials, and all the better if they are largely black and/or Democrats. That was part and parcel of the right-wing response to Katrina -- all Ray Nagin's fault, all Blanco's fault, look at all those school buses just sitting there unused, clearly Democrats fell asleep on the job, tsk tsk.

The second Trumpian wrinkle would likely to be even more conspiratorial, paranoid, and entrenched in denying reality. So Trump would say the people on the roofs pleading for help were actually criminal thugs who were just play-acting desperate on the hopes they might get to shoot an unsuspecting hero white cop, and in fact the levees only failed because egghead liberal enemy-of-the-people scientists seized the opportunity to make Trump look bad, and actually everyone is thrilled to have the extra water and the enemy media is making a big deal out of nothing, and also, the real problem here is all the rioters stealing food or whatever.

That's more or less how Katrina played out if your only source of news was Drudge and AM radio, and that is more or less Trump's main source of news.
03-13-2017 , 09:52 AM
I figure he'll completely ignore it and tweet something that would get the news coverage instead.
03-13-2017 , 09:56 AM
Quote:
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) will soon be given a plum United Nations job by President Donald Trump, multiple news outlets in the state reported last week.
Neither the governor’s office nor the White House has confirmed the reports, which quote sources alternately describe it as a “done deal” and “more tentative than that.” The job would take Brownback to and from Rome, where the cluster of U.N. agencies he would be be charged with assisting are based.

Under normal circumstances there might be little to say about one politician setting another up with a cushy gig on the Mediterranean. But Brownback would be fleeing a political and economic crisis, leaving about 3 million Kansans behind in a budgetary inferno of his own devising.


https://thinkprogress.org/is-sam-bro...628#.q5yy651lv
03-13-2017 , 10:17 AM
Good planet money episode a few years about his economic plan.

Looks like it didn't pan out
03-13-2017 , 10:36 AM
Re: Putin/Trump collusion, there's definitely a Rounders analogy that can be made there.
03-13-2017 , 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Pretty hard to make contact with the people, when you're out floating in the Gulf of Tonkin.
03-13-2017 , 10:41 AM
Quote:
She (Conway) claimed surveillance could be conducted with "microwaves that turn into cameras," and added: “We know this is a fact of modern life.
03-13-2017 , 10:57 AM
It is known.
03-13-2017 , 11:02 AM
Trumpkins talk about surveillance the way the olds talk about using credit cards on the internet. I assume the Venn diagram is a huge overlap though. So like the olds hear some anecdotal story on cable or local news about an old who got fleeced out of their social security money because they had their identity stolen due to the fact they used a credit card to buy their grandson a book on google.aol therefore the entire internet exists to steal their credit card and all transactions on the internet are fundamentally insecure and in fact, they personally are the targets.

Trumpkins up to people who serve in the Trump Administration have heard about the internet of things and the existence of PRISM so therefore Barack Obama watched Trump shower with a local microwave because that's just the way the world is these days, just a topsy turvy world out there.
03-13-2017 , 11:21 AM
lol @ Conway thinking that your microwave can spy on you. Any idiot knows that it's only your television, Amazon Echo, iphone, and laptop webcam that can be used that way!
03-13-2017 , 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
... so therefore Barack Obama watched Trump shower with a local microwave...
The post-shower Hot Pocket is an essential part of Trump's daily routine.
03-13-2017 , 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by awval999
Excellent post DVault. (Of course most of your posts are).

While we don't yet know how Trump would respond to a national emergency, somehow, I don't think he'd take the "Bush" approach. Trump is a showman. No doubt he would fly down, "help out", get the positive media coverage, "demand" the Congress send money and help. He wouldn't be Katrina'd like Bush was. In my opinion of course.
We kind of know. This is exactly what he did during the Louisiana floods last year while still campaigning. Even though the Governor said he didn't want politicians visiting and interfering with the recovery efforts.

He has also dealt with a couple minor emergencies with the tornados in Georgia/Alabama just after the inauguration and the Oroville dam. As far as I can tell he just authorized federal help through FEMA and I haven't heard any complaints so I guess he hasn't bungled anything to Katrina levels yet.
03-13-2017 , 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Maybe Kansas can replace him with someone who isn't an economic disaster but since they reelected him in 2014 even after over 100 state Republicans endorsed his Democratic opponent, odds are slim.

      
m