Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Todd]

That's not the same as sexually molestation of a 14 year old or attempted rape of a 16 year old by a prosecutor who used his position of power to intimidate his victims.

It does not have to be.

[Parsifal]

I stand by what I wrote: hypocrisy!

Utter nonsense. Concern for the suffering of people in different contexts is not proportional to the extent of blathering on and on an inconsequential internet discussion board. People can be legitimately concerned about those other issues without feeling there is any need to bring it up here.

[Karl Henning]

Nothing about North Korea's latest launch at The National Review.

They have more urgent articles about Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi, of course.

North Korea hasn't been cowed by [El Tupé]

[Todd]

Nothing about North Korea's latest launch at The National Review.

It was the third story on NBC News last night, so even the most mainstream of mainstream corporate press does not consider it the top story in today's climate.

[Karl Henning]

It's distinctly possible Alabama voters — with encouragement from the White House — will give an alleged child sex predator with not a single solution for improving lives of Alabamans a victory. We'd prefer Alabama not humiliate themselves and not further sully our political culture by sending a crackpot and alleged sexual miscreant to the Senate. But if it does, we won't be surprised.

[Parsifal]

It does not have to be.

Nothing has to be anything.

What he is accused of does not rise to a criminal offense and I don't think that it justifies his removal from office or resignation, unless he feels his ability to work on behalf of his constituencies has been significantly compromised. That may be the case. In the end, it is up to the voters to decide whether they want to return him to office when he is up for re-election. Just as it is up to the voters in Alabama to decide if they would be proud to be represented in the senate by a serial child molester.

[Karl Henning]

Nothing has to be anything.

What he is accused of does not rise to a criminal offense and I don't think that it justifies his removal from office or resignation, unless he feels his ability to work on behalf of his constituencies has been significantly compromised. That may be the case. In the end, it is up to the voters to decide whether they want to return him to office when he is up for re-election. Just as it is up to the voters in Alabama to decide if they would be proud to be represented in the senate by a serial child molester.

White Grievance Boy knows the crowd he is playing to:

And just as it did decades ago, that burning hatred of outsiders rather than concern about the lives of Alabama residents drives the state's politics. Routinely rated in the bottom five in education, health care, wealth, etc., and weathering another corruption scandal, Alabama, one would think, would be ripe for political rebellion against the reactionary forces that have run the state for decades, yet arch-conservative pols somehow manage to avoid accountability by channeling anger and resentment toward outsiders. It's the oldest trick in the book — telling voters with real problems that their misery actually is the result of malignant forces, conspiracies and modernity itself. That lets politicians off the hook; in place of solutions all they need give is a channel for resentment.

[Karl Henning]

Raise your hand if you voted for him because "he's such a hot negotiator!"

This is a quintessential Trump-made crisis. He provoked a needless confrontation (tweeting Tuesday morning that he didn't see a deal on a spending bill), tried to use it to buck up his base and now faces the very real possibility he won't have the votes to keep the government running. He can tell his base whatever fable he wants, but the problem of a shutdown rests on his shoulders and those of the GOP majority in both houses.

[Todd]

What he is accused of does not rise to a criminal offense and I don't think that it justifies his removal from office or resignation

The more important test here is whether the Ethics Committee thinks it might justify expulsion.  I doubt it, but maybe in the current climate.  The saving grace here is that any investigation will take a while.  One thing seems fairly certain, Al Franken's national ambitions, to the extent he truly had any, are probably toast.  (And his public statement apology where he said he couldn't guarantee that there would not be more accusers is not so good and can, and will, quite easily be turned against him, including by potential Dem challengers; behaviors he thought were just fine were not.) 

Public officials making sure to emphasize how different the allegations against Franken or Conyers (Pelosi called him an icon over the weekend, just before he was stripped of his ranking member role on the Judiciary Committee) are when compared to Moore are ultimately just creating an opening for future political attacks, and such attacks will work in that they will probably sway a few voters, or by disgust convince them to not vote, but sometimes a few is all that is needed to secure a desired electoral outcome.

This is a quintessential Trump-made crisis. He provoked a needless confrontation (tweeting Tuesday morning that he didn't see a deal on a spending bill), tried to use it to buck up his base and now faces the very real possibility he won't have the votes to keep the government running. He can tell his base whatever fable he wants, but the problem of a shutdown rests on his shoulders and those of the GOP majority in both houses.

With any luck, Trump will surpass Jimmy Carter's record of three federal government shutdowns in one calendar year.

[Florestan]

Concern for the suffering of people in different contexts is not proportional to the extent of blathering on and on an inconsequential internet discussion board.

Agreed, but time and again we see here on GMG "concerning" people (1) blathering on and on over an inconsequential internet discussion board, (2) copypaste-ing (links to) newspapers articles pretty much nobody cares to read, and/or (3) feigning concern for people(s) about whose fate they care much less than about which of their 137 recordings of the Well Tempered Clavier they should listen tonight.

I do stand by what I wrote: hypocrisy!

[Karl Henning]

Nor is our coquette alone!

It seems to be a given among those who know Trump best that he is out of touch with reality. ("Mr. Trump's friends did not bother denying that the president was creating an alternative version of events. One Republican lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said that Mr. Trump's false statements had become familiar to people over time. The president continues to boast of winning districts that he did not in fact win, the lawmaker said, and of receiving 52 percent of the women's vote, even though exit polls show that 42 percent of women supported him.") Rather than reveal the person with his finger on the nuclear button is disconnected from reality, his enablers work to conceal Trump's malady. ("Mr. Trump's journeys into the realm of manufactured facts have been frequent enough that his own staff has sought to nudge friendly lawmakers to ask questions of Mr. Trump in meetings that will steer him toward safer terrain.")

Some Republicans find this all amusing....

Never alone, our coquette!

[SimonNZ]

Agreed, but time and again we see here on GMG "concerning" people (1) blathering on and on over an inconsequential internet discussion board, (2) copypaste-ing (links to) newspapers articles pretty much nobody cares to read, and/or (3) feigning concern for people(s) about whose fate they care much less than about which of their 137 recordings of the Well Tempered Clavier they should listen tonight.

I do stand by what I wrote: hypocrisy!

Um..."feigning"? Please expand on this thought.

[Florestan]

Um..."feigning"? Please expand on this thought.

Willingly. When was the last time you didn't sleep over the fate of the white farmers Mugabe and his thugs expropriated and killed?

[SimonNZ]

Willingly. When was the last time you didn't sleep over the fate of the white farmers Mugabe and his thugs expropriated and killed?

That's not what "feigning concern for people" means. And certainly not in the context of this thread. It would mean an insincere empty rhetoric in one of my posts.

[Parsifal]

As for Trump being "more important [... ]because of the many ways he can cause global calamity", this is an open, albeit unintentional, acknowledgment of the fact that peoples' lives don't matter as long as they don't count as "global".

I have no idea what you are even trying to say. I am aware of what goes on in my country, and that is something I can at least hope to have some influence on, by voting, by donating to political campaigns that I think will promote justice, and by trying to spend money in a way that will tend to promote justice and equality. That is what you call "feigning concern for people?" I'm a hypocrite unless I set sail in the Sea of Japan in a rubber dingy, armed with a pistol and vowing to pop a cap in Jim Jong-un's ass? Or I can get a dispensation if I loose sleep?

[SimonNZ]

Willingly. When was the last time you didn't sleep over the fate of the white farmers Mugabe and his thugs expropriated and killed?

Okay: why did you single out the white farmers there, out of all Mugabe's human rights violations?

If we pull at this thread will we get a little closer to your problem with our critism of Trump and his fellow travellers?

Do you want us to spend more time concerned with other world events or more time criticising Africans Asians and south Americans? Is this the "hypocricy" of which you speak?

[amw]

For the record I am totally fine with Mugabe reclaiming stolen land and wealth through force. Not all the torture and killing he did, but the white farmers kind of deserved to lose their property.

Also the only reason people think Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are bad is because of decades of US propaganda and efforts to undermine any non-capitalist political system. I would much rather live under Chavez than Trump and so would a lot of people tbh...... there's a reason Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US and Corbyn's Labour has been leading in opinion polls for months >.>

Anyway, Trump is perpetuating the cycle of American hegemony by allowing a free hand to the military and the CIA, which favour highly aggressive military policy. We're seeing civilian deaths skyrocket in eg Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc as a result. Those who really want a noninterventionist foreign policy will probably have to wait for President Ann Coulter.

[Todd]

Anyway, Trump is perpetuating the cycle of American hegemony by allowing a free hand to the military and the CIA, which favour highly aggressive military policy.

Sure is.  'Murica!

[amw]

The Chapo crew also bring this up frequently, most recently in reference to the liberal-conservative anti-Trump alliance playing out among former Obama/Hillary people and neocon columnists like Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, David Frum etc—their only objection to trump is his style, not the actual substance of what he's doing, which is the same as what Obama did except with less public facing concern about humanitarian issues.

I do think the substance is materially different though in that prior to 2017, some liberals and Rand Paul would have all agreed that there need to be serious checks on the military and intelligence agencies. Trump has not only granted those agencies more freedom but has shifted the Overton window pretty far towards the neocon side: now no one is willing to speak out against the military or intelligence agencies at all and actually gave them something like $700 billion in funds.

The historical trend is for powerful empires that are starting to lose hegemony to become increasingly militaristic abroad and repressive at home. Russia is a good contemporary example. Trump marks a shift in US politics in that direction even if we might have had the opportunity under eg a President Sanders to shift in the opposite direction. I guess we'll see what the long term trends are.

[Todd]

[N]ow no one is willing to speak out against the military or intelligence agencies at all and actually gave them something like $700 billion in funds.

They promised to.  If the 2011 sequester is not rejiggered or repealed, the $630 billion baseline won't fully be appropriated.  The OCO line items (for Afghanistan, Iraq & Syria, etc) will, and they will likely be expanded.  But vote totals indicate wide bi-partisan support for the American war machine.

The historical trend is for powerful empires that are starting to lose hegemony to become increasingly militaristic abroad and repressive at home.

This is true.  There is a distinct possibility that this occurs in the US, though so far it has not really materialized.  The Trump administration has not even been able to live up to promises on deportations.  I hate to mention Chomsky twice in one day, but he mentioned in an interview available on YouTube that Trump's success indicates that the US is susceptible to the machinations of an "honest" ideologue, whereas Trump is in his estimation a con man.  Or to repeat a prior post, Trump is the first, but he won't be the worst. 

I would add that the increasing use of sanctions, economic pressure, and more aggressive actions by the Treasury via the long-standing OFAC and the new-ish Terrorist Finance Tracking Program are also actions being undertaken by a declining power to get other nation states to cooperate.  This type of coercive economic activity has caused some issues with even long-standing allies, and understandably so.  This, too, enjoys bi-partisan support.