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

[Mahlerian]

Trump, Breaking with Precedent, Won't Meet with American Nobel Recipients

"Two American Nobel Prize winners, when contacted by STAT, indicated they would not have attended a White House event even if invited. Columbia biophysicist Joachim Frank, awarded a Nobel in chemistry for his work in microscopy, said in an email he was "very relieved" when he learned there was no chance of an encounter with the president."

So they've been honored twice, then.

[Todd]

I mean this is hardly a non-mainstream goal in the conservative movement; the US President's former chief strategist outright stated that his goal was "the deconstruction of the administrative state"

This part is true.

Of course it's worth noting why they believe government is evil and must be deconstructed, or more accurately the parts of government they believe should be dismantled: their objection to government is that it can abrogate property rights in the interests of groups of people who are viewed as undeserving, and that therefore its ability to affect property rights needs to be dismantled.

This part is questionable, to say the least.

But no conservative ever suggests dismantling institutions such as the military and police, which exist to protect the property rights of the deserving against the undeserving.

This part is not true.  One of the most wonderful things about the Freedom Caucus is that they did what no one thought they would do when they included military spending in sequestration.  (The workaround here for statists is increased reliance on OCO lines items, the largest of which for Afghanistan exceeds the defense budget of most nation states.)  A small but growing number of conservatives, typically vaguely "libertarian" ones as opposed to hard core law and order types, have turned against mass incarceration, though not necessarily police on the street.  The shrinking the military thing turns out to be hard for a variety of reasons, since warmongering sorts - neocons on the right, liberal interventionists on the left - trot out the term "isolationism" if one dares to scale back America's war machine.  To many statists of all stripes, it is plainly unconscionable to suggest that the US Navy might be able to make due with only eight supercarriers and six amphibious assault ships, for instance. 

[amw]

This part is not true.  One of the most wonderful things about the Freedom Caucus is that they did what no one thought they would do when they included military spending in sequestration.  (The workaround here for statists is increased reliance on OCO lines items, the largest of which for Afghanistan exceeds the defense budget of most nation states.)  A small but growing number of conservatives, typically vaguely "libertarian" ones as opposed to hard core law and order types, have turned against mass incarceration, though not necessarily police on the street.  The shrinking the military thing turns out to be hard for a variety of reasons, since warmongering sorts - neocons on the right, liberal interventionists on the left - trot out the term "isolationism" if one dares to scale back America's war machine.  To many statists of all stripes, it is plainly unconscionable to suggest that the US Navy might be able to make due with only eight supercarriers and six amphibious assault ships, for instance. 

I'll grant you that. There are a handful of people on the right who I have an increasing respect for, even though I disagree with them on the function of government in other areas (eg environmental regulation)—I'll single out Justin Amash and to a certain extent Rand Paul. Hopefully there will be more.

[drogulus]

I rarely agree with what you say, but when I do, it's wholeheartedly and 100%. This is one of those instances. 

    You'll get over it.

     Yes, it's quite deliberately my fault that the government is what it's like, a fault I share with others who take their share of responsibility for the kind of government we have. I vote, I support this cause and oppose that one. I make choices that implicate me in outcomes if I get my way.

     There are liberal peacemongers who are against the prison state, and they outnumber those on the right. They may be insufficiently white, but they exist and could form a powerful coalition. Many warmongers like me would give them support in much of what they would do, though I have my own ideas about how many aircraft carriers we should have.

[Florestan]

    You'll get over it.

I already have. 

I vote, I support this cause and oppose that one. I make choices that implicate me in outcomes if I get my way.

Yes, exactly. I have always maintained that if politician X (in a presidential system) or party Y (in a parliamentary system) gets in power and screws the country, the responsibility is equally shared by those who voted for him / it. But just ask John Doe to take his responsibility: "God forbid, who, me? No way, it's them!" But hey, wiseguy, how is it that "them" got into power in the first place? Is it not because you and many more likeminded voted for them?

Democracy might very well be the least bad system overall (I wouldn't live in any other) --- but it is also the one that relies the most on irresponsibility and hypocrisy.

[Todd]

But hey, wiseguy, how is it that "them" got into power in the first place?

In the case of Trump specifically, it was the Electoral College.  That should be changed any day now.

[Pat B]

Sorry, someone is obliged to say that every time Jeb! is mentioned >_>

I forgot about that.

Anyway: this is inspiring Moore's hardcore base to come out more aggressively and loudly for him, but the thing is that even in Alabama they're not enough to win a majority. Moore is also going to need to win people who supported Luther Strange in the primary—the "chamber of commerce republicans" who dominate the Birmingham, Montgomery & Huntsville suburbs—and from what I can tell on social media at least, they are not being won over. A lot will hold their noses to vote for him but I suspect a lot more will stay home. So I'd still expect Moore to win, but by like two points, as opposed to 6-8 points a couple of weeks ago.

Honestly though, the Alabama Republican Party should not have allowed him onto the ballot way back in the primary, let alone allowed him to get this far. Especially since it now seems that the fact that he was literally a paedophile was an "open secret" and "common knowledge" in the state, as more and more people come forward, including cops from his home town and this latest accuser who's willing to testify under oath. Like, they should have known something like this would come out once he was running for a national race and attracting national interest from major investigative journalism outfits.

Agree.

[André]

The month is not over yet, but I think the Golden Turd Award for November goes to Roy Moore. Good luck, Alabama !

[Karl Henning]

Clueless, Jr. at the center of the Russia scandal again.

[drogulus]

Governments are beholden to large corporate entities and powerful special interest groups, not mere voters (who are manipulated by those same corporations and interest groups through the media).  Almost everything any elected official does is to pay back the groups and corporations that got him/her elected.   T

     If that's what you want, fine. If you want something else, go for that. Adam Smith says people pursuing self interest create good things that, from a larger point of view, are not just self interest. They use governments to do it, too. Not that there's much choice. All societies are governed, and forms of government evolve. Unlike Darwinian evolution, social evolution is partly under our control. Each stage of evolution has to survive until it gets to the next stage, revolutionaries want to leapfrog to an imagined state of innocence. It doesn't usually work out well.

     I have respect for institutions, which I'd rather transform than abolish. I don't even want to abolish churches or religions, every bit as bad as other forms of government.

[bwv 1080]

Institutions in the economic definition are both formally and informally constructed devices to impose constraints and incentives on individuals economic activity and are probably the single most important determinate of economic success.  It is why, for example, Canada is a more successful economy than Argentina when both are similarly endowed with natural and human resources

[drogulus]

Institutions in the economic definition are both formally and informally constructed devices to impose constraints and incentives on individuals economic activity and are probably the single most important determinate of economic success.  It is why, for example, Canada is a more successful economy than Argentina when both are similarly endowed with natural and human resources

     Governance problems are IMV prior to a particular form of government, so that some countries have trouble holding onto a democratic form. History is against them. The European experience of multiple centers of power in institutions and geography produced a very different outcome from any other on the globe. Walter Russell Meade has pointed out that the developments in the political culture of the English language with its global expansion has attained an even greater level of influence (it's often referred to as "the West" but it's more particular than that). His book God and Gold tells the story his way. Meade refers to our Trumpist present as a "Jacksonian revolt", distinct from prior versions of internationalism, which he terms Hamiltonian and Wilsonian.

[BasilValentine]

Why? [would Moore supporters believe the written evidence that Moore lied about knowing his latest accuser and the restaurant behind which he attempted to rape her.]

Because it is unequivocal objective evidence they can see. And because hope springs eternal?

[Florestan]

I want a dysfunctional federal government, hamstrung by gridlock and distracted by scandal.  I want our elected officials's time to be taken up with anything other than legislating.

How far back in time are you willing to push this stance?  When did the USA federal government, and your elected officials, cease to be useful, and begin to be harmful?

[drogulus]

I have no faith in the kind of democratic process you describe whereby ordinary people can create the kind of government they want.  I doubt that kind of society ever existed in the US. 

     The only way ordinary people can create the kind of government they want is to act like they can. It's not something that can happen from a passive moral superiority to the process, what you call "faith". I hate faith, it's for losers.

[Todd]

Because it is unequivocal objective evidence they can see. And because hope springs eternal?

Neither of those matter much.

So far, the Trump presidency has been a wild success.

I would call it a success more than a wild success.  Trump has stopped some of Obama's Executive Orders from being implemented; he has signed some legislation rolling back other regulations; he has already appointed a SCOTUS judge and lower court judges whom Dems can't block (thanks Senator Reid!); and he pulled out of the Paris Agreement.  (He or Pence could end up rejoining the Agreement, which ultimately doesn't matter much.)  On the downside, he pulled out of TPP, and he hasn't done much to curb the more militaristic aspects of US foreign policy, and I doubt he will, but you can't have everything.  The effect of his stance toward the Iran Nuclear Deal (another non-treaty!) is still unclear.  In doing these things, he has also helped create a political environment that, if Dems take either chamber of Congress next year, will lead to almost total paralysis and practically unending Congressional hearings, and hopefully impeachment proceedings.  (Come on Dems, take the House!)  Even if Dems take back the White House in 2020, it will take years to get back to even 2010 in some cases, looking at it from an administrative and statutory perspective.  Not bad for a political neophyte.

[Florestan]

In the case of Trump specifically, it was the Electoral College. 

Fair enough.

[Karl Henning]

Finally, if Sessions's memory is so poor, one wonders how he can reliably answer questions that the special counsel will no doubt ask about the firing of former FBI director James B. Comey and Russian collusion. An attorney general who remembers nothing might escape implicating the president or others — but it also suggests he should never have been given the job.

[drogulus]

How far back in time are you willing to push this stance?  When did the USA federal government, and your elected officials, cease to be useful, and begin to be harmful?

      What's so good about the status quo that one should want to preserve it, and how did it get that way?

[drogulus]

     'Why aren't the other hands up?' A top Trump adviser's startling response to CEOs not doing what he'd expect

     Cohn asked a bunch of CEOs to raise their hands if they would invest more if they got their tax cut. In a staggering burst of honesty and realism few did.

     What the fuck is wrong with this guy? Is he smoking his own product? Why would anyone think a company would invest money when demand didn't justify it because the government gives them more to play with? You invest because you have customers, not because you have tax breaks! When customers come in the door with cash to spend, that's when you invest, whatever the tax rate is. You are paying the CEOs not to invest, using the tax break you didn't give the customers that are not showing up. Does Cohn not know this?