Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1121122124126127169

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    There remains a very deep racial divide within the United States, and 45 is the epitome of it. He ran on racism, and he won on it.

    Last week, Obama had a discussion on how bad the current administration has handled the crisis. Mitch McConnell fires back that Obama should keep his mouth shut. This is racism at its worse. No uppity black man should speak out against the master rac(ist). When Mitch was a young man, such a situation would have resulted in a lynching.

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Gramps--

    Yes, but.

    People aren't always happy when a former president speaks up about anything important. McConnell may well mean it exactly as you said. But it might also be a matter of "we've got enough trouble without you speaking up; you had your turn, you can't run again, and you're distracting voters from their proper true allegiance to T; and I'm so scared about Republicans losing the White House, AND about this bozo *keeping* it for another 4 years that I can't think at all".
  • Except that no voters owe any allegiance to T (though granted, McConnell may THINK so), and surely he wouldn't consider T a bozo? Given he's been propping him up for so long at the expense of everything, including personal honor and integrity.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    LC--

    Well, thinking through possible reasons for his comments, it occurred to me that he *might* hate T for just those reasons. He may feel/be in a hellish situation where he's wayyyyy down an acid-lined rabbit hole which was *supposed* to lead to a golden crown, a pot of gold, and delicious golden carrots. There's something further down the hole, but it growls and stinks--and not of carrots.

    So he can continue down, and meet The Thing; climb back up, burning from acid all the while; stay exactly where he is, and carry himself as if Everything's All Right, Except For Obama and the Democrats; or, if desperate enough, paw diagonally up through the soil, and perhaps crawl out more safely.

    T certainly thinks voters--his base, at least--owe him allegiance. And McConnell may well believe (or say he does) that (all right-thinking) voters owe their allegiance to the Republican Party, possibly to T--and maybe to *himself*. If McC has any discontent with T, it must be galling for him to "preserve, protect, and defend"* T and all his works.**

    *Part of various government oaths to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America".

    **Paraphrase of "the devil and all his works". Not saying T = devil (though I sometimes wonder if he's the Anti-Christ, or maybe the Beast); but if McC hates T, he may well think it--whether meant literally or not.

    FWIW.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Fair enough, I think but the kind of culture that sits up and takes notice when a film star criticises government policy is exactly the kind of culture that elects populists.

    I'm not following that argument. What am I missing? What does "exactly" mean?

    It's often been said of Trump that he approaches the presidency as if it were a reality TV show. The culture is a celebrity, showbiz culture. It's all show and no substance.

    There are no end of substantive criticisms that can be made of his presidency, and be made by people who are qualified to make them - politicians, government officials, economists, and so on. But what grabs the headlines is when a film star complains.

    De Niro is undoubtedly an accomplished actor, producer, and director, but essentially he meets the famous definition "The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness”. His comments stand out not on the grounds of any particular expertise in the field but on the grounds of his general notoriety.

    And when a culture takes notice of comments on the grounds of general notoriety rather than actual expertise, I think the stage is set to elect populists.
  • The thing is, the idea of "owing allegiance" to a person rather than to the country itself is a freaky innovation to the vast majority of us. I'm not saying some kook here and there in the past might not have thought or demanded it--we've had crazy leaders before--but in my own admittedly limited knowledge, Trump's demand for personal allegiance, loyalty, hell, even worship it seems, is a major break with the past.

    To be sure, McConnell could delude himself into thinking it is not. He has already sacrificed the historic freedom and dignity of the Senate to the overbearing fuckwittery of a different branch of the government--a thing that ordinary self-interest should have prevented, if not integrity. It will be interesting some day when the dust has settled (please God) to see what the fuck caused such a supine attitude on the part of McConnell and many others. I keep thinking they're smoking something.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Is that right? Is it just the phrase that causes you to think that way LC? I reckon it is an ordinary thing to be loyal to a person...
  • Not in this country, not as a part of our citizen-ly ethos. We are loyal to a country, pledge allegiance to a nation (and to a flag as a symbol of that nation)--not to a person. It's actually something we tend to pride ourselves on as Americans, and comes bundled up with all that stuff about 1776 and not having a king and so on and so forth. Trump is on thin ice demanding "loyalty", and "allegiance" is right out.

    Now if we're talking personal, non-political life, I could agree with you. We have loyal fans of sports teams, we are loyal to our friends and family, and so forth. But even there the term "allegiance" is ... odd. It's got a heavy flavor of the old "I pledge allegiance to the flag... and to the republic" thing that we all learnt in school. It makes us twitchy when it's used of a person-to-person relationship among Americans (what y'all do overseas is up to you).

    You can see this feature in other aspects of our political system. We have very few positions that are "for life"--most of our politicians have to seek re-election more or less constantly, and presidents in particular have term limits. It makes no sense to demand loyalty or God forbid, "allegiance" to a person who may be gone in four years and will certainly be gone in eight. By attempting to break this norm, Trump has gone right against the grain of mainstream American politics. I'm not saying that nobody's ever tried that before, and I'm not even saying he won't succeed (though I think he won't). But I'm trying to explain just how unnatural that sort of thing is to us.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    OK, I see what you mean. I would use allegiance and loyalty as synonyms. People talk about being loyal in politics. Party loyalty is highly valued, because our executive branch comes out of our legislative branch. Failure to tow the party line is regarded as a very grave sin, and can get you expelled.
  • Now, as for Obama speaking out. There is a deep-felt norm that former presidents ought not to undermine their successors, nor publicly comment on their idiocies, nor behave in any way that is likely to make the current president's office more difficult for him to carry out. As a former president, your job is to write books, found a library, make speeches, be on call for words of wisdom (and occasionally more substantial efforts as an elder statesman, though always under the direction of the current POTUS), and keep a decorous distance from the political fray. Obama's problem (besides the massive historical one of being the first mixed-race/black/whatever you want to call it POTUS) is that he was an exceptionally competent and well-loved (though not by all) POTUS, and therefore a hard act to follow even by a competent man. And we all know what Trump is. By merely existing Obama is a rebuke to Trump. And I give Obama massive credit for holding his tongue this long and this well. It cannot be easy to watch your successor behave in such a consistently stupid, malicious, and detrimental fashion. It must be even harder when any number of people are urging you to intervene in some fashion, and you know damned well that a) it'll do more harm than good, and b) given your unique historical position, the norms for former presidents are even MORE binding on you than on everybody else, and c) upholding and strengthening the norms is probably the most important thing you can do, given that norm-breaking is this POTUS's modus operandi and at the root of all his shit.

    Now Mitch McConnell--well, and we see what he is, too. He ought not to have spoken as he did. I don't disagree with those who say "racism," but what I see is "T has fucked up, I'm fucked up along with him, there is no way to defuckify what we've gotten ourselves into, and now Obama (from the distant Olympian heights of nonfuckedupness) has laid a finger on my extremely sore spot and I'm going to erupt."
  • Now if we're talking personal, non-political life, I could agree with you. We have loyal fans of sports teams, we are loyal to our friends and family, and so forth. But even there the term "allegiance" is ... odd. It's got a heavy flavor of the old "I pledge allegiance to the flag... and to the republic" thing that we all learnt in school. It makes us twitchy when it's used of a person-to-person relationship among Americans (what y'all do overseas is up to you).

    Thanks LC, you've given me the thinnest excuse to link to my favourite one of these. I don't know anything about American football, but I just substitute Man City (before the Arabs), or (my own team) West Ham - many UK readers will have their favourite shit team :smile:

    GK - I liked your rabbit-hole analogy. But the comic link suggests another, nobler, stronger reason for sticking with Trump through thick and, err, thick :smiley:
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Fair enough, I think but the kind of culture that sits up and takes notice when a film star criticises government policy is exactly the kind of culture that elects populists.

    I'm not following that argument. What am I missing? What does "exactly" mean?

    It's often been said of Trump that he approaches the presidency as if it were a reality TV show. The culture is a celebrity, showbiz culture. It's all show and no substance.

    There are no end of substantive criticisms that can be made of his presidency, and be made by people who are qualified to make them - politicians, government officials, economists, and so on. But what grabs the headlines is when a film star complains.

    De Niro is undoubtedly an accomplished actor, producer, and director, but essentially he meets the famous definition "The celebrity is a person who is known for his well-knownness”. His comments stand out not on the grounds of any particular expertise in the field but on the grounds of his general notoriety.

    And when a culture takes notice of comments on the grounds of general notoriety rather than actual expertise, I think the stage is set to elect populists.

    Yeah, but it's me who enjoyed watching De Niro attack Trump, not a culture. I didn't enjoy it because he's a film star, but because he's articulate, impassioned and eccentric. Presumably, you would predict that I'm "exactly" the person to be seduced by populists. Turning it into a generalization makes it meaningless.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Now if we're talking personal, non-political life, I could agree with you. We have loyal fans of sports teams, we are loyal to our friends and family, and so forth. But even there the term "allegiance" is ... odd. It's got a heavy flavor of the old "I pledge allegiance to the flag... and to the republic" thing that we all learnt in school. It makes us twitchy when it's used of a person-to-person relationship among Americans (what y'all do overseas is up to you).

    Thanks LC, you've given me the thinnest excuse to link to my favourite one of these. I don't know anything about American football, but I just substitute Man City (before the Arabs), or (my own team) West Ham - many UK readers will have their favourite shit team :smile:

    GK - I liked your rabbit-hole analogy. But the comic link suggests another, nobler, stronger reason for sticking with Trump through thick and, err, thick :smiley:

    I have been loyal to one football team since my Dad bribed me to barrack for them by buying me their guernsey in or about 1973. They were booted out of the league and abolished in 1996. I still barrack for them.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @Eutychus said
    It's often been said of Trump that he approaches the presidency as if it were a reality TV show. The culture is a celebrity, showbiz culture. It's all show and no substance.

    Absolutely. This has been clear for years. It’s all about popularity - and, if he becomes unpopular, ratings. The crazy celebs get higher ratings than the talented ones.

    It’s a sign of the times.

    My worry is that, where the US leads the U.K. tends to follow. (Look at shopping malls ruining the high street and 1000 other examples)
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Yeah, but it's me who enjoyed watching De Niro attack Trump, not a culture. I didn't enjoy it because he's a film star, but because he's articulate, impassioned and eccentric. Presumably, you would predict that I'm "exactly" the person to be seduced by populists. Turning it into a generalization makes it meaningless.
    Enjoying it is all fine and good.

    However, quoting a criticism and thus assigning it value because it's been made by a celebrity is, I believe, the kind of behaviour that does get populists elected, because it ranks the superfluous over the substantial, the appearence over the essence - and that is at the heart of the criticisms of both Trump and Johnson in this forum.

    It depresses me when people's criticism of these mandates adopts similar tactics to the ones used by those being criticised.

  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Yeah, but it's me who enjoyed watching De Niro attack Trump, not a culture. I didn't enjoy it because he's a film star, but because he's articulate, impassioned and eccentric. Presumably, you would predict that I'm "exactly" the person to be seduced by populists. Turning it into a generalization makes it meaningless.
    Enjoying it is all fine and good.

    However, quoting a criticism and thus assigning it value because it's been made by a celebrity is, I believe, the kind of behaviour that does get populists elected, because it ranks the superfluous over the substantial, the appearence over the essence - and that is at the heart of the criticisms of both Trump and Johnson in this forum.

    It depresses me when people's criticism of these mandates adopts similar tactics to the ones used by those being criticised.

    Yeah, but it was me who fucking enjoyed watching De Niro, and who presumably is exactly likely to vote populist. Drowning in generalizations, can you actually see another person?
  • I forgot this was a Christian forum, and generalizations are the main food.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Is a symptom a generalisation?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I suppose the issue is not what Robert de Niro said (which I thought was a proper trenchant criticism and I would have agreed with anybody else who said it) but that his celebrity (or notoriety) got him the air time.

    My perspective has always been to judge statements on their merits regardless of who says them. But I do qualify that in the case of proven liars! So my generalisation about the American President is that I know he is lying because he is speaking or tweeting. I have no such preconceptions about Robert de Niro.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Is a symptom a generalisation?

    You miss the person in front of you.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Is a symptom a generalisation?

    You miss the person in front of you.

    Do I? You have plenty of interesting and cogent things to say, but when all I have to go on in a post is basically the equivalent of a shared Facebook post from some celebrity, I'm not sure I'm missing much, or that I'm wide of the mark.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I observe that a more important communications issue is Trump's systematic demeaning and sidelining of professional medical and scientific advice. He is rubbishing facts and figures, describing advice as 'unacceptable to him' and is receiving enthusiastic support for his alternative narrative from Fox News and GOP senators. When the figures take a turn for the worse, it will be the figures that are wrong. If infection clusters start in various States it will be the fault of the Governors.

    He is relentlessly pursuing his policy of opening up America come what may and he has an alternative facts narrative already in place.

    Now that matters a lot more than whatever publicity de Niro gets for his very reasonable opinions.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Fundamentally, T always has to be the rightest, smartest, richest, bigliest, and loudest guy in the room. He always has to be better than someone. Plus he's a flim-flam man, a con artist, the worst kind of used car salesman. Plus some combo of mental and physical illness. Plus being just generally lost.

    Something that worries me: It's been a long time, AFAIK, since he made meaningless sounds and spoke in word salad. He speaks more coherently--which is not to say he knows what he's talking about, or that any of his ideas are reality based. His way of speaking is more normal, which makes him seem more normal, and even more presidential.

    I think they've gradually put him on some kinds of meds, and this is the result. I think that was done to Dubyah/Bush, too.

    I don't begrudge either of them their meds--clearly, they both need(ed) a lot of help. But IMHO the result is that they seem more "normal"...and some voters--maybe without even realizing it--might think T more worthy of presidency.

    I don't know how or why so many people don't see what a severely-broken, hot mess T is--even many people who oppose him. I know some Shipmates have said that he's not broken, unintelligent, suffering from dementia, etc.--just evil/bad. Part of my own learning curve is reminding myself that there are always reasons for the way a person is. "Evil" can be a handy shorthand, especially when you need to vent. But ISTM it doesn't really deal with the whys, and those are needed if you want to try to help the person be better, so they don't cause so much harm. The whys can also help you realize that maybe *next* time, you should look out for certain clues so you can avoid being ensnared by another such person.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Well, thinking through possible reasons for his comments, it occurred to me that he *might* hate T for just those reasons. He may feel/be in a hellish situation where he's wayyyyy down an acid-lined rabbit hole which was *supposed* to lead to a golden crown, a pot of gold, and delicious golden carrots. There's something further down the hole, but it growls and stinks--and not of carrots.

    McConnell already has his golden crown / pot of gold / delicious golden carrots / whatever other metaphor you want to use. Mitch McConnell's goal is power for its own sake, and the current arrangement gives him plenty. So any pretense that McConnell is concerned about traditions or decorum is just that: a pretense.
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I suppose the issue is not what Robert de Niro said (which I thought was a proper trenchant criticism and I would have agreed with anybody else who said it) but that his celebrity (or notoriety) got him the air time.

    If you have a platform given to you I don't think there's any reasonable argument that you have a moral obligation not to use it to discuss important issues. I'm reminded of an incident back in 2003 when actress Janeane Garofalo was invited on various talk show to discuss the Iraq War (she was noted for her vocal opposition to invading Iraq) and would then be denigrated as an actress who shouldn't have opinions on things like that. Garofalo usually made the point that these shows could very easily have invited someone else to discuss whether invading Iraq was a good idea but they reached out to her.

    There's also a bit of a double bind here. Robert De Niro isn't allowed to criticize Donald Trump because he's not enough of an expert (though as a voting-age citizen I'd say he meets at least a minimum standard of expertise). On the other hand Barack Obama isn't allowed to criticize Donald Trump because he's too much of an expert. Eventually you get the idea that no one is allowed to criticize Donald Trump.

    Shut Up and Sing, indeed.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    @Eutychus said
    It's often been said of Trump that he approaches the presidency as if it were a reality TV show. The culture is a celebrity, showbiz culture. It's all show and no substance.

    Absolutely. This has been clear for years. It’s all about popularity - and, if he becomes unpopular, ratings. The crazy celebs get higher ratings than the talented ones.

    ...

    The way he creates a crisis - which he can't deal with - and then jumps to another crisis is classic "tune in next week" stuff.

  • edited May 2020
    I watched the De Niro interview. He's correct that no-one ever takes trump on.

    Apparently when you're elected as president of America, it is assumed you'll behave in accord with the office, and the equivalent of divine right of kings and queens must always apply. Apparently he cannot be prosecuted for anything, can say and do anything, and everyone will do what he says. Pravda (Russian leading news outlet) speculated recently that if the COVID-19 issues appear to be sinking his bid for a second term as king president, he is very likely to provoke a serious war in the middle east, probably with Iran. Pretext will be something threatening to Saudi Arabia. (Which is another topic we've visited before: support for murderous dictatorships)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Hey, speaking of Donald Trump's criminally convicted former associates, ever wonder what's happening with Paul Manafort (35207-016)?
    Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was released from prison Wednesday following a request by his lawyers due to the coronavirus pandemic, his attorney Kevin Downing said.

    Downing told CNN that Manafort is going to serve the rest of his term in home confinement after serving about a third of his sentence at a federal prison in Western Pennsylvania.

    Manafort is currently 71 years old and prisons are one of the major potential COVID-19 hotspots, along with nursing homes, meat packing plants, and the White House, so it makes sense to release non-violent felons to home confinement. On the other hand Michael Cohen (86067-054) is still in prison, as are a whole bunch of other felons who aren't connected to the president* and might benefit from some kind of compassionate release.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I suppose the issue is not what Robert de Niro said (which I thought was a proper trenchant criticism and I would have agreed with anybody else who said it) but that his celebrity (or notoriety) got him the air time.

    If you have a platform given to you I don't think there's any reasonable argument that you have a moral obligation not to use it to discuss important issues. I'm reminded of an incident back in 2003 when actress Janeane Garofalo was invited on various talk show to discuss the Iraq War (she was noted for her vocal opposition to invading Iraq) and would then be denigrated as an actress who shouldn't have opinions on things like that. Garofalo usually made the point that these shows could very easily have invited someone else to discuss whether invading Iraq was a good idea but they reached out to her.

    There's also a bit of a double bind here. Robert De Niro isn't allowed to criticize Donald Trump because he's not enough of an expert (though as a voting-age citizen I'd say he meets at least a minimum standard of expertise). On the other hand Barack Obama isn't allowed to criticize Donald Trump because he's too much of an expert. Eventually you get the idea that no one is allowed to criticize Donald Trump.

    Shut Up and Sing, indeed.
    I agree! It's not an issue for me, BTW. The editorial decisions of the media about who they interview and what standards of public interest or balance they use in making those decisions are an interesting but separate question. I see and hear plenty of media criticisms of Donald Trump on both sides of the pond, and I see and hear plenty of evidence from the Trump administration that they seek to control all narratives that might in any way assert that he deserves criticism. I've got good grounds for which of those siren voices I find to be more credible.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    But there was no known case of COVID 19 in the federal prison where Manifold was incarcerated.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    There's also a bit of a double bind here. Robert De Niro isn't allowed to criticize Donald Trump because he's not enough of an expert (though as a voting-age citizen I'd say he meets at least a minimum standard of expertise). On the other hand Barack Obama isn't allowed to criticize Donald Trump because he's too much of an expert. Eventually you get the idea that no one is allowed to criticize Donald Trump.
    Just in case that's a swipe at my post above, I'd point out that a double bind can only be imposed by one party, or two people working in collusion, and that I made no contribution regarding Obama's criticisms, therefore there is no double bind in play here.

    Secondly, I didn't prohibit anyone from criticising Trump. What I said, and what I maintain, is that drawing attention to criticisms made by celebrities works in favour of the debate taking place in Trump's preferred, um, theatre, in other words that of showbusiness, celebrities, and personalities, where style, brand recognition, and notoriety matter more than substance, and populism can gain traction.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    @Eutychus
    Secondly, I didn't prohibit anyone from criticising Trump. What I said, and what I maintain, is that drawing attention to criticisms made by celebrities works in favour of the debate taking place in Trump's preferred, um, theatre, in other words that of showbusiness, celebrities, and personalities, where style, brand recognition, and notoriety matter more than substance, and populism can gain traction.

    Eutychus...

    This is a pretty nebulous connection that you are positing here. "Celebrities have populist appeal, Ttump is a populist, therefore if people listen to celebrities criticizing Trump, it reinforces populism and ultimately helps people like Trump."

    Which is a little like saying that since populists talk in empty sound-bites, their opponents should only speak in full, well-constructed paragraphs, lest they perpetuate the sound-bite culture that populists like.

    All of which might have some validity, but the fact is, we do live in a world where sound-bites are the medium through which a lot of political discourse takes place, and if you don't adjust to that reality, you can forget about having any significant number of voters hearing you.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What I said, and what I maintain, is that drawing attention to criticisms made by celebrities works in favour of the debate taking place in Trump's preferred, um, theatre, in other words that of showbusiness, celebrities, and personalities, where style, brand recognition, and notoriety matter more than substance, and populism can gain traction.

    You have a point of course. We used to call it "the cult of personality" I think. Someday everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. And of course you get a reverse phenomenon. Tony Fauci is now a personality. But what makes him so? Is it the exposure or the fact that he provides clear facts-based argument? He looks trustworthy so he is? Or he is trustworthy because of his presentations?

    Someone like me (a child of the modernist, not post-modernist age) probably sees Dr Fauci differently to many others. What he says is verifiable so my confidence in him as a pretty reliable facts-based communicator is based on my ingrained habit of seeking verification, rather than taking anything purely on face value.

    You are right to be concerned about any processes which give aid and comfort to a populist culture. That way lies the death of truth, of facts-based decision making. I don't think the short de Niro interview did a lot to reinforce that particular trend but YMMV.


  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Croesos--
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Well, thinking through possible reasons for his comments, it occurred to me that he *might* hate T for just those reasons. He may feel/be in a hellish situation where he's wayyyyy down an acid-lined rabbit hole which was *supposed* to lead to a golden crown, a pot of gold, and delicious golden carrots. There's something further down the hole, but it growls and stinks--and not of carrots.

    McConnell already has his golden crown / pot of gold / delicious golden carrots / whatever other metaphor you want to use. Mitch McConnell's goal is power for its own sake, and the current arrangement gives him plenty. So any pretense that McConnell is concerned about traditions or decorum is just that: a pretense.

    McC has power and status and such. He may well want more. But where can he go from here? Only way I know for him to publicly increase what he has is to run for president. He can't really run against T--that would probably shatter the Republican party, possibly causing so much division that angry Republicans might just vote for Biden (just as some Democrats who loathed Hillary voted for T). And that might carry over so that the Democrats win both the House *and* the Senate. And McC would likely be blamed.

    So, even if McC really believes T is fit to be president, McC may well feel that he's working against his own best interests and desires. Anything he might do would feel and be seen as a betrayal: of the party, of T, of the Senate, of the country, of himself.

    Hence being down a rabbit hole with no place to go.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    All of which might have some validity, but the fact is, we do live in a world where sound-bites are the medium through which a lot of political discourse takes place, and if you don't adjust to that reality, you can forget about having any significant number of voters hearing you.

    I live in the hope that the Ship and its content are not part of that world, nor called to promote it. We're supposed to be at least a bit unrestful, after all.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    McC has power and status and such. He may well want more. But where can he go from here? Only way I know for him to publicly increase what he has is to run for president.

    Mitch McConnell runs the Senate and has a president* who will sign anything McConnell puts in front of him. Why would abandoning the Senate to run for president increase McConnell's power? As far as status goes, I've never seen any indication that McConnell has any interest in status beyond maintaining the approval of enough registered Kentucky voters to keep him in office.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    If (perish the thought!) McConnell were to become POTUS, wouldn't his wife have to give up her Cabinet position? Or have all those rules fallen by the wayside?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    But there was no known case of COVID 19 in the federal prison where Manifold was incarcerated.

    My take on this is that if you wait until you identify the first case in a crowded facility like a prison, you've waited too long. This does not, however, seem to be the position of the Bureau of Prisons, the Justice Department, or the Trump administration* in general, leading to questions of why Manafort (35207-016) specifically got this special dispensation. I mean, we all suspect why, I'd just like to hear someone in an official position acknowledge it.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    ...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If (perish the thought!) McConnell were to become POTUS, wouldn't his wife have to give up her Cabinet position? Or have all those rules fallen by the wayside?

    Was such a rule implemented some time following Bobby's stint as Attorney-General?
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If (perish the thought!) McConnell were to become POTUS, wouldn't his wife have to give up her Cabinet position? Or have all those rules fallen by the wayside?

    Was such a rule implemented some time following Bobby's stint as Attorney-General?

    Yes, I believe that was when it was enacted.

    I'm wondering if Ms. Chao might be "grandfathered" in, so to speak, since she would have held the position before McConnell became POTUS. (This is all hypothetical -- I seriously doubt McConnell will wind up in the White House.)
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If (perish the thought!) McConnell were to become POTUS, wouldn't his wife have to give up her Cabinet position? Or have all those rules fallen by the wayside?

    Was such a rule implemented some time following Bobby's stint as Attorney-General?

    It was indeed, and exactly because of it. Of course with Trump appointing his children and children-in-law to advisory posts, it seems to have been forgotten, or at least unenforced.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    ^ Well, if the law were written so as to cover advisory posts, where would that leave Hillary Clinton's health-care proposals?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    When she was First Lady? Many people got really upset that she was "interfering" that way. Traditionally, the role of a first lady is to be a hostess; support her husband; and take on some charitable-type project. Hillary wanted more, and could do more. But she wasn't elected--or officially appointed. So there was backlash. IIRC, she was pulled/forced off her health care policy work.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    If (perish the thought!) McConnell were to become POTUS, wouldn't his wife have to give up her Cabinet position? Or have all those rules fallen by the wayside?

    Was such a rule implemented some time following Bobby's stint as Attorney-General?

    It was indeed, and exactly because of it. Of course with Trump appointing his children and children-in-law to advisory posts, it seems to have been forgotten, or at least unenforced.

    An additional reason for presidents not appointing relatives to positions of power: Bobby/RFK blamed himself for Jack/JFK's death. As the attorney general, he was going after...organized crime, IIRC, and he thought they killed Jack as retribution.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    When she was First Lady? Many people got really upset that she was "interfering" that way. Traditionally, the role of a first lady is to be a hostess; support her husband; and take on some charitable-type project. Hillary wanted more, and could do more. But she wasn't elected--or officially appointed. So there was backlash. IIRC, she was pulled/forced off her health care policy work.

    According to the wiki article on the Clinton health-care plan, there was a an attempt to get her removed from the task-force, but the courts ruled that the First Lady could be considered a governmental position to begin with, so she stayed on till the end.




  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Ok, fair enough. :)
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited May 2020
    LC--
    It will be interesting some day when the dust has settled (please God) to see what the fuck caused such a supine attitude on the part of McConnell and many others. I keep thinking they're smoking something.

    The Constitution?

    Fixed quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Ha. Please God, no.

    (D'ye suppose somebody's got a big old chest of compromising material on all these folks, squirreled away somewhere safe? Thumb drive, more likely)
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    LC--

    {Cue Wikileaks, Anonymous, Rolling Stone, WaPo, NYT, the ghost of The Village Voice...}

    Not sure whether you mean the compromising material is being used to force them to do what they're doing, or it *could* be used to to force them to *stop* what they're doing, or just embarrass the hell out of them.

    But whatever works...
    ;)

    Oh, and I meant that they might be smoking the Constitution instead of using it, 'cause they've sure got parts of it going up in flames. Maybe they're high to the point of being psychotic?

    Didn't some of the Founding Guys smoke some sort of marijuana? Maybe there are chemical traces of it in the document.
    ;)
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    LC--

    {Cue Wikileaks, Anonymous, Rolling Stone, WaPo, NYT, the ghost of The Village Voice...}

    Not sure whether you mean the compromising material is being used to force them to do what they're doing, or it *could* be used to to force them to *stop* what they're doing, or just embarrass the hell out of them.

    But whatever works...
    ;)

    Oh, and I meant that they might be smoking the Constitution instead of using it, 'cause they've sure got parts of it going up in flames. Maybe they're high to the point of being psychotic?

    Didn't some of the Founding Guys smoke some sort of marijuana? Maybe there are chemical traces of it in the document.
    ;)

    There's always ergot poisoning.
This discussion has been closed.