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

[Marc]

I have no intention of banning the discussion of politics on this forum. It is a legitimate areas of discussion. It is not illegal and does not contravene the rules of the forum (or civilised countries) in any way, so they will stay.

Please discuss politics. Argue politics. Robustly. They deserve to be discussed and argued. But do NOT use the excuse of politics to attack any other member of the forum. You can say "I disagree with your political views". You cannot say "You are an idiot because of your political views". Simple, isn't it?

[...]

Y'all have fun here!

[bhodges]

OK guys, topic temporarily locked.

Enough with the insults and name-calling. Yes, we are going to continue to allow political discussion here, but fair warning: ad hominem attacks will be either edited or deleted.

Vigorous debate is fine. Trashing each other is not.

--Bruce

[Karl Henning]

With essentially no pretense about why he was doing it, the president brazenly retaliated Friday against two witnesses who gave truthful testimony in the House's impeachment inquiry. He fired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. And he also fired a third man, Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, merely for being the brother of the first. Trump essentially admitted his retaliatory motive on Saturday, when he tweeted that he sacked Vindman in part for having "reported contents of my 'perfect' calls incorrectly."

If this were a criminal investigation, and Alexander Vindman and Sondland had given their testimony to a grand jury, this Friday Night Massacre could have been a crime. At the very least, it ought to be impeachable: If Richard M. Nixon was to be impeached for authorizing hush money for witnesses, and Trump himself was actually impeached for directing defiance of House subpoenas, then there should be no doubt that punishing witnesses for complying with subpoenas and giving truthful testimony about presidential misconduct should make for a high crime or misdemeanor as well.

But it's really not about this one day, or this one egregious act. It's about who Trump is, who he always was and who he always will be. It's about the complete mismatch between the man and the office he holds.

It's about the fact that the presidency is a fiduciary position, the ultimate public trust. And that Trump's narcissism won't allow him to put anyone else's interests above his own, including the nation's. Indeed, he can't even distinguish between his interests and the nation's — and doesn't need to, according to his lawyers and now the judgment of the Senate. For Trump, it's always L'état, c'est Trump, as many observers have trenchantly put it.

[SimonNZ]

Draft Executive Order Would Give Trump a New Target: Modern Design

"Should every new government building in the nation's capital be created in the same style as the White House?

A draft of an executive order called "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" would establish a classical style, inspired by Greek and Roman architecture, as the default for federal buildings in Washington and many throughout the country, discouraging modern design.

The order, spearheaded by the National Civic Art Society, a nonprofit group that believes contemporary architecture has "created a built environment that is degraded and dehumanizing," would rewrite the current rules that govern the design of office buildings, headquarters, and courthouses, or any federal building project contracted through the General Services Administration that costs over $50 million.

"For too long architectural elites and bureaucrats have derided the idea of beauty, blatantly ignored public opinions on style, and have quietly spent taxpayer money constructing ugly, expensive, and inefficient buildings," Marion Smith, the group's chairman, wrote in a text message. "This executive order gives voice to the 99 percent — the ordinary American people who do not like what our government has been building."

But the proposed executive order has already drawn fierce opposition from architects who say it would have a dampening effect on architectural thought and give President Trump broad power to make aesthetic appraisals, something critics say he knows nothing about."[...]

[JBS]

Much of the Federal Government in DC is housed in massive monumental faux-classical buildings that date from the late 19th and early 20th century, whose size alone can make them deadening and brutalizing.  And a lot of modern architecture began a reaction to the dominance of the classical style. *But the complaints about modern architecture come mostly from the Right, of course.  So guess why this order exists.

*Even Ayn Rand seems to have been not thrilled by it. The architect hero of The Fountainhead finds his artistic calling by rebelling against the omnipresent mediocrity the style represented by the 1930s.

[SimonNZ]

I think there may have been an unstated subtext about the degeneracy of modern art, and a strong leader personally restoring the pure art of pre-degenerate era with his perfect taste.

[JBS]

I think there may have been an unstated subtext about the degeneracy of modern art, and a strong leader personally restoring the pure art of pre-degenerate era with his perfect taste.

Similarities to certain regimes of the 1930s did cross my mind, but I refrained. Perhaps megalomaniac minds think alike.

And it should be noted that nonmonumental neoclassical has a long history in US public architecture going back to the Founders ( most notably, Jefferson's Monticello).

[Christo]

well, Bernie's got the Finnish vote, that'll make a difference.

Another total outsider, my Dutch vote finds Klobuchar, Buttegieg and Warren all in a different way equally well qualified and convincing. On the GOP side I would consider Mitt Romney totally acceptable, a pity he didn't qualify (no doubt because of a criminal standing in the way, though that won't last long and then the GOP is simply without any candidate, a real American tragedy IMHO.

For every American, a Republican president draining the swamp (these three deeply disturbing years) would be the best possible outcome. Now that this scenario was ruled out by a small gang in the Senate, may either Buttegieg/Klobuchar or Warren/whoever do the - impossible, but decisively needed - cleansing job.   0:)

[Florestan]

Similarities to certain regimes of the 1930s did cross my mind, but I refrained. Perhaps megalomaniac minds think alike.

Honestly, I don't think that what Trump and that National Civic Art Society have in mind is even remotely similar to these:

[71 dB]

For every American, a Republican president draining the swamp (these three deeply disturbing years) would be the best possible outcome. Now that this scenario was ruled out by a small gang in the Senate, may either Buttegieg/Klobuchar or Warren/whoever do the - impossible, but decisively needed - cleansing job.   0:)

Why would Buttigieg or Klobuchar drain the swamp? Doing so they would risk stepping on the toes of their billionaire donors.

[JBS]

Honestly, I don't think that what Trump and that National Civic Art Society have in mind is even remotely similar to these:

1)Simon's statement, to which I was responding, was more generalized.

2) I had in mind Speer's plans for rebuilding Berlin, which would have adhered more closely to the classical look

[JBS]

Why would Buttigieg or Klobuchar drain the swamp? Doing so they would risk stepping on the toes of their billionaire donors.

People donating to campaigns is the least important part of corruption, because it happens where we can see it.

Lobbyists and bureaucrats writing regulations that benefit themselves is much more important, and has nothing to do with the mythical 1%.

Bernie's agenda would increase the swamp, because it would make government programs and money even more important.

Every government program attracts lobbyists and bureaucrats and money.  Which means the more programs, the more potential for corruption.  And the bigger the programs, the bigger the potential for corruption.  So if you are seriously against corruption, you'd be seriously against the progressive agenda.

[71 dB]

People donating to campaigns is the least important part of corruption, because it happens where we can see it.

How is something less harmful when we see it? Your house burning down is less harmful if you are not around witnessing it?

Lobbyists and bureaucrats writing regulations that benefit themselves is much more important, and has nothing to do with the mythical 1%.

Are you kidding me? Do you think those lobbyists are fighting for regular people? Those billionaires donating money want return for their investment.

Bernie's agenda would increase the swamp, because it would make government programs and money even more important.

Big goverment in itself is not a swamp. It's a swamp when the people working in the government are serving special interests rather than the regular people. Now, ask yourself what kind of people would Bernie hire to run those government programs. Goldman Sachs people?

Every government program attracts lobbyists and bureaucrats and money.  Which means the more programs, the more potential for corruption.  And the bigger the programs, the bigger the potential for corruption.  So if you are seriously against corruption, you'd be seriously against the progressive agenda.

What lobbying is there regarding the fire department? None, because there is nothing to gain lobbying.  Also, progressives are those MOST against corruption! You didn't know that? Money out of politics = less corruption!!

[JBS]

How is something less harmful when we see it? Your house burning down is less harmful if you are not around witnessing it?

Are you kidding me? Do you think those lobbyists are fighting for regular people? Those billionaires donating money want return for their investment. Big goverment in itself is not a swamp. It's a swamp when the people working in the government are serving special interests rather than the regular people. Now, ask yourself what kind of people would Bernie hire to run those government programs. Goldman Sachs people?

What lobbying is there regarding the fire department? None, because there is nothing to gain lobbying.  Also, progressives are those MOST against corruption! You didn't know that? Money out of politics = less corruption!!

1)The very fact that it is public means that people can push back against it.

2)A lot of lobbyists work for people who you don't think of as billionaires, or Big Business.  They get their business from anyone impacted by government regulation.  Meaning anyone in the US who wants to hire them.

3) To effectively regulate something, you need a regulator with background in the business being regulated, which means they're already have connections to the special interests when they start regulating.  Bureaucrats always team up to protect themselves when they can.   That's an observable phenomenon across the globe.  The "people they serve" end up being themselves, not the general public.

4)There's lots of corruption at the local level.  Even if it's just networking among local business and politicians, it would meet your definition of corruption, since they work primarily to help themselves, and not the public.

5) Money will always be linked to politics.  Government decisions lead to real world impacts, which means there are financial and economic consequences, and the people involved in those consequences will therefore invest money in one way or another to get the consequences that favor them.

[JBS]

In re Roger Stone
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/politics/roger-stone-sentencing-justice-department/index.html

[Karl Henning]

In re Roger Stone
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/politics/roger-stone-sentencing-justice-department/index.html

Now that the Senate has concurred that anything that Trump does is "in the nation's interest," there's no need for any branch of government to serve as a check or balance.

[JBS]

Now that the Senate has concurred that anything that Trump does is "in the nation's interest," there's no need for any branch of government to serve as a check or balance.

I don't think the Senate went full Guiliani. I think they simply decided that the only thing they could do was shaje their heads gravely, wag a finger, say naughty, naughty, and avoid the Wrath of Trump.  Profiles in Courage these men are not. Did you ever read JFK's book? One chapter is devoted to the GOP Senators who voted to acquit Johnson. For at least some of them, it meant the end of their political career.

[Karl Henning]

I don't think the Senate went full Guiliani. I think they simply decided that the only thing they could do was shaje their heads gravely, wag a finger, say naughty, naughty, and avoid the Wrath of Trump.  Profiles in Courage these men are not. Did you ever read JFK's book? One chapter is devoted to the GOP Senators who voted to acquit Johnson. For at least some of them, it meant the end of their political career.

I did read it, but long ago....

[SimonNZ]

That's at a secondhand bookshop down the road from me and I've been considering it.

Would either of you recommend it?

[JBS]

That's at a secondhand bookshop down the road from me and I've been considering it.

Would either of you recommend it?

I read it about 40 years ago, so my memory, like Karl's, may be a bit vague.
It is probably worth reading but bear in mind that as history it may not be a reliable source, if only because of the decades since it was published (1956). But it did feature a few otherwise unknown people. Still, it may provide more insight on what JFK thought was important, and what people in the 1950s were thinking than the eight senators who were the actual subjects of the book.