Nice. Who cares what the reporter asked after that? Race is the issue.
I'm trying to decide if the fact that Andrew Feinberg is Jewish makes Conway's question to him more sinister or if it was just an uncomfortable coincidence. Jews are often regarded as stateless people by those who place too much emphasis on ethnicity.
I'm trying to decide how seriously I should take the question of a Jewish friend who wants to know if I would hide her, should it come to that.
I don't think you Jewish friend has as much to worry about than your Hispanic neighbor or Muslim co-worker.
Whatever electoral advantage Trump thinks he's getting from having a settlement named after him in the Golan Heights would be pretty much canceled out were he to start with the pogroms. Even if it's only Christian Zionists who are impressed with his pro-Israeli posturing, they're still not likely going to turn against Jews at this point in their supposed eschatology.
Though I wouldn't rule out an uptick in stand-alone anti-Jewish incidents among some of Trump's supporters, since free-lancing bigots aren't always that consistent about things.
Overt racism coupled with denial may indeed be a winning strategy for 2020. Not just in the USA. I hate what it says about the busted moral compass of far too many members of our respective electorates, but it's hard to know what to do about it.
@Ohher, personally, I take that thought or question very seriously. I've already told my wonderful, compassionate (Muslim) pulmonologist that if he ever needs me to stand up for him and his family in any circumstance, I would be there.
The outrageous actions and words of that orange person, and all those who feel he gives them permission to be equally hateful, make me want to do something to help. It feels inadequate. But I think with some of us being willing to stand up to the cowardly bullying and harassment, the situation isn't completely hopeless.
Hoping, hoping, hoping that the election next year frees us from this evil lack of compassion and dictator-like insanity.
Please God. My son LL just got his voter's registration card (Woo hoo!) and is gleefully preparing to "vote the bastards out." We'll get there, with the grace of God.
First, Trump seems to be gunning for the Hispanics
Second, he does want to remove the Muslims
Third, he wants to remove other people of color.
Somewhere down the list, he will be trying to remove people of differing religions.
He has a lot of people he wants to remove because he is a white nationalist.
Yes, Jews are probably included in the list, but at this point, his first priority is to remove Hispanics and then Muslims, but the first people to protect are the Hispanics, then the Muslims.
I routinely assume everything Trump says is a lie, but, sadly, when he commented that "a lot of people agree with me" he was telling the simple truth. Racism is deep in American culture.
What is more depressing (and this is a standard Trump approach), people get so worked up over the implied racism of the "back where you came from" language that what gets overlooked is a type of birther-ism: three of the four "came from" the United States. It is mentioned in news articles, but usually just one line before the article goes on about the inherent racism of the comment and the history of the "back where you came from " comment. Few dwell on The Basic Lie: they do NOT come from some other country. They come from the U.S., and the country that Trump described so disparagingly in his tweet is the United States.
The thing is, when the fuss over these tweets dies down and it joins the ever increasing list of "old" things that we don't bother to get worked up over any more (such as pussy-grabbing or mocking the disabled), the one carry-away that Trump supporters and others will recall is....those Congresswomen aren't Americans! It is pure birther-ism.
Nixon is preferable in the sense that he didn't have twitter. Though Hunter S. Thompson was available (from wikiquote): "Jesus! How much more of this cheap-jack bullshit can we be expected to take from that stupid little gunsel? Who gives a fuck if he's lonely and depressed down there in San Clemente? If there were any such thing as true justice in this world, his rancid carcass would be somewhere down around Easter Island right now, in the belly of a hammerhead shark."
Hunter also remarked that even Nixon's funeral was illegal he was such a crook.
I suspect of trumpy isn't re-elected they'll need handcuffs to get him out of the Whitehouse and into the helicopter. Before the hammerhead shark or his next book or before he's back on TV- maybe Dancing with the Stars?
I dunno. The last few prezzes seem to have aged substantially on leaving office. Even Obama is looking more "mature." While I'd love to see Orange Occupant doing a perp walk in metal bracelets on his way out of the White House, I'd be equally happy if he were shuffled off to Mar-a-Lago, put on Haldol, and overseen 24/7 by a dedicated staff of burly male nurses.
It seems ill to wish harm upon anyone, but some incapacitation would probably be a very good thing.
I wonder what goes through Melania's head...what must it be like to have it as a husband? I realise she made her bed, but could anyone foresee just what a cretin he would be? I realise he wasn't perfect before, but the last few years have brought out (to me at least) disgusting revelation after even more putrid and disgusting revelation...
It seems ill to wish harm upon anyone, but some incapacitation would probably be a very good thing.
I wonder what goes through Melania's head...what must it be like to have it as a husband? I realise she made her bed, but could anyone foresee just what a cretin he would be? I realise he wasn't perfect before, but the last few years have brought out (to me at least) disgusting revelation after even more putrid and disgusting revelation...
I think the truth is that he hasn't really changed. The presidency has simply made known to a wider audience what was already well-established.
There's lots of evidence that he's behaved appallingly as a businessman and a TV 'star.' And his twitter feed has only really changed in quantity rather than quality.
If T has to be forced out upon losing the election (votive, re losing), 70-100 Navy SEALS and Special Forces of all the other branches of the military would probably be needed--packed 10 deep in every direction around him.
But...if he were to be actually arrested, how would that work? Would it? Could it?
Would his Secret Service detail allow it? Would the military? He's the commander-in-chief. If he were jailed until trial or upon conviction, would the prison underground network for procuring things just get him anything he wanted? Would he bully inmates? Would they bully him?
Would someone have the great good sense to quietly notify Melania ahead of time, so she could avoid the media and possibly escape T--and so she could take Barron with her, or find him a safe place to be?
If he has broken the law then yes they should. The Royal family over here are not above the law. The Queen can only be judged by the Lords but there are Lords of Justice.
I would think that Malania already has a back up plan.
It's called impugnity. Trump, Putin, Jinping, Assad, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, Erdoğan, Jong-un, Netanyahu all have it. Who doesn't? Nothing can stop any of them apart from the Machiavellianism of the others. All of their constituencies are divided and thus conquered.
But he probably always was offensive to those who he considers out of his circle. (ie anyone who criticises him or doesn’t like him).
I imagine he’s always bullied and ‘charmed’ in equal measure. I put charmed in inverted commas because I see zero charm in him, just sleaze - but his base seem to love him. 🤔🙄
So is there any point his opponent in the next election trying to appeal to his base or should they ignore huge swathes of the electorate and concentrate on getting enough votes elsewhere? I mean electoral college votes and not necessarily actual people's votes - a distinction that Mr Trump appears to have realised and used last time round.
Once in a very great while, I see glimpses of what might be who he's supposed to be--generally, he's quiet, physically relaxed, and peaceful.
And also during a "60 Minutes" interview his family did shortly after he was "elected". They appeared in various combinations. Once was when he and Melania were interviewed together, sitting a few feet from each other. Interviewer asked T something like "does anyone ever try to tell you the right thing to do?" T nodded towards M. Interviewer asked M if T ever listened and did what she said. IIRC, she said she tried to get him to, and he said he sometimes did what she said. But they were both frustrated...and then they did the very normal thing that couples often do: he rolled his eyes, she may have sighed...then they looked at each other with real, actual affection. For that one moment, he was in normal, healthy territory. If he's periodically like that with her in private, maybe that's one reason she's stayed.
The other time was when he was asked about his late, oldest brother, who died due to alcoholism and made T swear he'd never drink. T looked very sad and bereft, and said he thought maybe his brother couldn't handle the competition [in the family?]. Now, he *could* have said that in a way that made *him* look good, that he survived the competition and his brother was just poor material. But he didn't say it that way. It was normal grief for someone he really missed.
Somewhere in there are remnants of a normal, caring person. I don't know if they're recoverable.
That's very kind of you Golden Key. I had a rare kind thought about Sarah Huckabee Sanders yesterday when I saw that Kellyanne had crawled out from under her rock and was blinking in the sun. I thought that I had liked Sarah better and I hoped she quit in time to save her soul.
So is there any point his opponent in the next election trying to appeal to his base or should they ignore huge swathes of the electorate and concentrate on getting enough votes elsewhere? I mean electoral college votes and not necessarily actual people's votes - a distinction that Mr Trump appears to have realised and used last time round.
There are no votes elsewhere. They MUST appeal to his base. By embracing them where they are - frightened, ignorant - identifying with them, not criticizing them and ignoring them as Clinton did. Not in populism, but in appealing to the better angels of their self interest.
I'm trying to decide how seriously I should take the question of a Jewish friend who wants to know if I would hide her, should it come to that.
I don't think you Jewish friend has as much to worry about than your Hispanic neighbor or Muslim co-worker.
Whatever electoral advantage Trump thinks he's getting from having a settlement named after him in the Golan Heights would be pretty much canceled out were he to start with the pogroms. Even if it's only Christian Zionists who are impressed with his pro-Israeli posturing, they're still not likely going to turn against Jews at this point in their supposed eschatology.
Though I wouldn't rule out an uptick in stand-alone anti-Jewish incidents among some of Trump's supporters, since free-lancing bigots aren't always that consistent about things.
It's win-win for him as usual. He gets the Nazis and the Zionists.
So is there any point his opponent in the next election trying to appeal to his base or should they ignore huge swathes of the electorate and concentrate on getting enough votes elsewhere? I mean electoral college votes and not necessarily actual people's votes - a distinction that Mr Trump appears to have realised and used last time round.
There are no votes elsewhere. They MUST appeal to his base.
I don't think this is true - Clinton did suffer from a turnout problem. Besides people who want to vote for racist viciousness are unlikely to go for a mealy mouthed watered down version of the same thing.
Racism is ubiquitous. But it always has been in Australia and America anyway. Sometimes it wears gloves. But Trump ism't wearing gloves. The left has won before in the face of racism. I think the Democrats are setting up nicely, and I think Trump's comments have given them some unity. This is good.
So is there any point his opponent in the next election trying to appeal to his base or should they ignore huge swathes of the electorate and concentrate on getting enough votes elsewhere? I mean electoral college votes and not necessarily actual people's votes - a distinction that Mr Trump appears to have realised and used last time round.
There are no votes elsewhere. They MUST appeal to his base.
I don't think this is true - Clinton did suffer from a turnout problem. Besides people who want to vote for racist viciousness are unlikely to go for a mealy mouthed watered down version of the same thing.
There are no votes elsewhere. They MUST appeal to his base. By embracing them where they are - frightened, ignorant - identifying with them, not criticizing them and ignoring them as Clinton did. Not in populism, but in appealing to the better angels of their self interest.
That's just wrong for 3 reasons (and I'll probably add a 4th at the end).
Trump's base is very loyal and turns out in reliable numbers but it's not actually very big. This is reflected in the remarkably narrow range of his approval numbers. There seems to be a hard floor that they don't dip below but also a hard ceiling that he cannot get above. His base is not enough to win him the presidency. Absent the electoral college he would be very much a long-shot for reelection, even with the incumbency advantage.
Turnout is low in US elections across the board - there are plenty of (potential) voters out there - it was around 55% in 2016. Turnout was 48.7% in 2018. You have to go back more than a century to find higher turnout in a Midterm election.
The 2016 election turned on less than 80,000 votes in close swing states (0.03% of the US electorate). There are multiple electoral-map routes to victory for a democrat who faces him next year. These include (but not limited to) winning those key states (Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan), or simply winning Florida...
Any Democrat (at least in principle) can beat Trump by mobilising their core vote, picking up the 'undecideds' who preferred to give Trump a try than Hillary (and current polling suggests that EVERY current Democratic contender will beat Trump is a straight fight).
That's not to say that a good election strategy shouldn't seek to maximise their vote - of course they should - in this election more than ever. However, they do not need the hardcore Trumpites at all. There are lots and lots and lots of 'other' votes available; the swing voters, the Democratic turnout and the disaffected Republicans - that's enough of a coalition.
The 4th reason is that chasing populists by copying them is always doomed, both morally and strategically. And, whilst appealing 'to the better angels of their self interest' sounds good, I doubt in the real world there's really much room to manoeuvre there. These voters are very motivated, but mostly on an emotional level and thus unless and until they feel Trump has failed them (as individuals mostly) they are not amenable to persuasion by facts or figures.
Very good AFZ, Thank you. I still think the inclusive approach is key. At least using the small Trump base in the third person; acknowledging their loyalty, their fears in reaching out to the intertidal zone. Be nice to the enemy for once for God's sake!
I'm not a Vox fan, but this article succinctly explains why it is so difficult to chuck Trump Admin refuseniks like Barr in prison for contempt. Essentially, Congress has to rely on Barr's Justice Department to prosecute the bastards. Probably everyone else knew that. Its news to me.
I'm not a Vox fan, but this article succinctly explains why it is so difficult to chuck Trump Admin refuseniks like Barr in prison for contempt. Essentially, Congress has to rely on Barr's Justice Department to prosecute the bastards. Probably everyone else knew that. Its news to me.
This is an important point. On first reading I nodded along that it's all a bit old hat... I apologise, the only reason it was so obvious to me is because I've been listening to Mueller She Wrote for the past couple of months and they've covered this point, a lot.
Essentially it comes down to this: whilst the President appoints the Attorney General, that office it meant to serve the United States and not the President. This is an odd area where the separation of powers is incomplete. The Justice Department has to enforce Congressional Subpoenas and Contempt findings if required and thus Barr's allegiance to Trump is a major bulkhead against due process for Trump.
As I understand it, the only remedy is for Congress to impeach and remove Barr. The Senate would probably never convict and even if Barr was removed, Trump presumably would appoint another loyalist...
I think I've got that right; someone tell me if they know better.
When Trump tweeted his racist nonsense about four Congresswomen needing to go back to where they came from, he said that they came from countries with 'the worst, most corrupt government.' I pointed out on Twitter that the last part was true. One response said it was a bit ridiculous for me to call the USA the 'most corrupt.' I concede that I am using hyperbole but the way Trump has coopted the Justice Department, packed the Supreme Court and is using both and other strategies to protect his collusion with Russia from proper scrutiny (as well as other crimes) - in the World's only superpower - arguably justifies that label...
cheers mate. That podcast is going on my list. I think calling the USA one of the most corrupt countries is indicative of your lack of attention to developing countries or say Russia or my fairytale image of the USA being a place where many people would punch you in the nose rather than take a bribe. Trump is corrupt but how far that goes down the line is highly contentious.
This just in. Turns out the little known TV network OANN which Trump likes over FOX has connections to SPUTNIK a Russian propaganda source. Repoed on Rachel Maddow show
cheers mate. That podcast is going on my list. I think calling the USA one of the most corrupt countries is indicative of your lack of attention to developing countries or say Russia or my fairytale image of the USA being a place where many people would punch you in the nose rather than take a bribe. Trump is corrupt but how far that goes down the line is highly contentious.
You're welcome.
It's really not. This risks a bit of a diversion on the thread but I am always conflicted by discussions on corruption in wealthy nations. We should indeed appreciate how privileged we are to live in countries with functional institutions - especially a judiciary where your sentencing is not determined by who bribes the judge. But, if we're not careful this makes us complacent and blind to the corruption that does exist. There is no doubt that on a subtle, insidious level, money and power have influence.
In the case of that tweet, it was conscious hyperbole.
However, the current situation looks ever-more corrupt, the more you look at it. I haven't looked for a while at detailed studies of corruption levels and I'm sure - even now - the USA doesn't top the list, but in ostensibly the World's Greatest Democracy the level of corruption we're talking about is deeply shocking. Or would be if we hadn't been conditioned to it. And is in plain sight.
Let me expand on this slightly:
The Mueller report documents compelling evidence such that I think it's fair to state the following as true:
The Russian government used strategic various means to interfere with the 2016 Presidential election to benefit of Trump and the detriment of Clinton.
The Trump Campaign welcomed and encouraged this invention and expected to gain from it.
Mueller was not able to find sufficient evidence of point 2 to meet the standard for Criminal Conspiracy. (That is sufficient evidence to expect to secure and sustain (on appeal) a conviction).
There were several pieces of evidence that were either destroyed or otherwise not available to the investigation (i.e. encrypted messages)
There were 10 examples, fully documented of potential Obstruction of Justice by Mr Trump.
Of these 10, there is sufficient evidence to expect to obtain and sustain a conviction in at least 7 of these 10.
When the report was finished, William Barr chose to misrepresent the report before anyone else had a chance to read it such that he has (thus far successfully) controlled the narrative so large sections of the population believe that the Mueller Report exonerates Trump. I can't help contrasting the way Mueller has played everything by the book - by the law, with Starr's approach to taking an incredibly weak legal case to the nth degree to embarrass the president as much as possible.
There is some evidence that the actual counting in the election may have been compromised as well. This is very limited but Trump has thus far prevented proper investigation and more-importantly blocked funding to ensure election security going forward. This, in the long-term, is really dangerous.
I don't think you'd struggle to find a Constitutional expert who would explain why the collusion* with a foreign government was sufficient grounds for impeachment and removal from office. But even if not, there is clear precedent that Obstruction of Justice** should lead to impeachment and removal.
One can argue about whether Congress is doing all it can at this stage but Trump and Barr and trying very hard to prevent Congress from scrutinising this matter and others (such as Trump's tax returns). Furthermore, there is evidence of Trump dangling pardons to people who are prepared to lie and cover-up for him.
All this on a background of a totally corrupt Campaign Finance system and extensive gerrymandering of congressional and state districts.
And finally, the Senate that has made clear that no-matter how compelling the evidence, they will acquit this president for political reasons should the House impeach.
There are literally dozens - probably hundreds - of other strands to this but if we want to be pedantic and precise about this; Trump's America may not be the most corrupt country in the world but it is in no position to criticise anyone else. Moreover, Trump is right about one thing - those 4 congresswomen he attacked should be worrying about, and trying to fix their own country. But what offends him so much is that they are.
Leaving aside all of Trumps other failings, he has acted in a way that is so far beyond the standard set for Impeachment and Removal by the constitution that it is ridiculous. This standard is the ultimate balwalk against corruption in the most powerful office in the nation. Failure to impeach and remove is (would be) demonstration of major corruption.
AFZ
*Collusion is not a legal term in this context and Trump has successfully won the PR war so far by making it all about something that the report would never show because Mueller was looking for the legal test for Conspiracy. However, Welcoming and encouraging intervention by a foreign, hostile state is undoubtedly what the Constitution meant by 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' There is enough in part 1 to impeach and convict, probably.
**Obstruction of Justice - just to be clear and this is undebatable, there does not need to be evidence of an underlying crime that you're trying to cover-up for the charge to stick. When you think about this, that's vital because if your obstruction was effective enough then you may well hide enough evidence to prevent the prosecution being able to show their case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence obstruction would be a good way to avoid prosecution for anything. Hence, in law, obstruction of justice stands on its own.
Moreover, whilst Mueller has demonstrated that meeting the criminal standard will not be a problem, the Constitution sets a lower bar for such abuses of power.
This just in. Turns out the little known TV network OANN which Trump likes over FOX has connections to SPUTNIK a Russian propaganda source. Repoed on Rachel Maddow show
If it came to it, a very skilled legal team might be able to successfully defend T, on the grounds that he is too mentally unfit to have truly understood what was going on. It would be a risk for T, of course, 'cause success would mostly likely mean immediate...is it Article 25? The unfit president clause. OTOH, that would be better than prison. And I gather the presidency has often been a prison to him, anyway.
If it came to it, a very skilled legal team might be able to successfully defend T, on the grounds that he is too mentally unfit to have truly understood what was going on. It would be a risk for T, of course, 'cause success would mostly likely mean immediate...is it Article 25? The unfit president clause. OTOH, that would be better than prison. And I gather the presidency has often been a prison to him, anyway.
Indeed true. I am definitely not a lawyer, just an interested amateur who reads a lot.... I could see a Senate Trial failing to convict on this charge and whilst I would disagree, I don't think it would necessarily indicate the level of corruption I am implying (reasonable people could reasonably reach this conclusion, maybe, depending on the defence used). Conversely, failure to convict on the Obstruction charge would absolutely be compelling evidence of the corruptness of the USA.
Comments
I'm trying to decide if the fact that Andrew Feinberg is Jewish makes Conway's question to him more sinister or if it was just an uncomfortable coincidence. Jews are often regarded as stateless people by those who place too much emphasis on ethnicity.
I don't think you Jewish friend has as much to worry about than your Hispanic neighbor or Muslim co-worker.
Whatever electoral advantage Trump thinks he's getting from having a settlement named after him in the Golan Heights would be pretty much canceled out were he to start with the pogroms. Even if it's only Christian Zionists who are impressed with his pro-Israeli posturing, they're still not likely going to turn against Jews at this point in their supposed eschatology.
Though I wouldn't rule out an uptick in stand-alone anti-Jewish incidents among some of Trump's supporters, since free-lancing bigots aren't always that consistent about things.
A baleful Zeitgeist.
The outrageous actions and words of that orange person, and all those who feel he gives them permission to be equally hateful, make me want to do something to help. It feels inadequate. But I think with some of us being willing to stand up to the cowardly bullying and harassment, the situation isn't completely hopeless.
Hoping, hoping, hoping that the election next year frees us from this evil lack of compassion and dictator-like insanity.
Don't be so sure about that. In Western culture no matter where these things start out they always seem to end up targeting Jews as well.
I think I should have reworded what I said.
I meant that
First, Trump seems to be gunning for the Hispanics
Second, he does want to remove the Muslims
Third, he wants to remove other people of color.
Somewhere down the list, he will be trying to remove people of differing religions.
He has a lot of people he wants to remove because he is a white nationalist.
Yes, Jews are probably included in the list, but at this point, his first priority is to remove Hispanics and then Muslims, but the first people to protect are the Hispanics, then the Muslims.
What is more depressing (and this is a standard Trump approach), people get so worked up over the implied racism of the "back where you came from" language that what gets overlooked is a type of birther-ism: three of the four "came from" the United States. It is mentioned in news articles, but usually just one line before the article goes on about the inherent racism of the comment and the history of the "back where you came from " comment. Few dwell on The Basic Lie: they do NOT come from some other country. They come from the U.S., and the country that Trump described so disparagingly in his tweet is the United States.
The thing is, when the fuss over these tweets dies down and it joins the ever increasing list of "old" things that we don't bother to get worked up over any more (such as pussy-grabbing or mocking the disabled), the one carry-away that Trump supporters and others will recall is....those Congresswomen aren't Americans! It is pure birther-ism.
Hunter also remarked that even Nixon's funeral was illegal he was such a crook.
I suspect of trumpy isn't re-elected they'll need handcuffs to get him out of the Whitehouse and into the helicopter. Before the hammerhead shark or his next book or before he's back on TV- maybe Dancing with the Stars?
I wonder what goes through Melania's head...what must it be like to have it as a husband? I realise she made her bed, but could anyone foresee just what a cretin he would be? I realise he wasn't perfect before, but the last few years have brought out (to me at least) disgusting revelation after even more putrid and disgusting revelation...
I think the truth is that he hasn't really changed. The presidency has simply made known to a wider audience what was already well-established.
There's lots of evidence that he's behaved appallingly as a businessman and a TV 'star.' And his twitter feed has only really changed in quantity rather than quality.
AFZ
You're assuming he doesn't win a second term. I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption.
But...if he were to be actually arrested, how would that work? Would it? Could it?
Would his Secret Service detail allow it? Would the military? He's the commander-in-chief. If he were jailed until trial or upon conviction, would the prison underground network for procuring things just get him anything he wanted? Would he bully inmates? Would they bully him?
Would someone have the great good sense to quietly notify Melania ahead of time, so she could avoid the media and possibly escape T--and so she could take Barron with her, or find him a safe place to be?
Poetic license. I know he'll win. He can't lose. Even with a smaller minority of the plebiscite. He's discovered the charm of being offensive.
I would think that Malania already has a back up plan.
I like this line - both clever and true.
But he probably always was offensive to those who he considers out of his circle. (ie anyone who criticises him or doesn’t like him).
I imagine he’s always bullied and ‘charmed’ in equal measure. I put charmed in inverted commas because I see zero charm in him, just sleaze - but his base seem to love him. 🤔🙄
And also during a "60 Minutes" interview his family did shortly after he was "elected". They appeared in various combinations. Once was when he and Melania were interviewed together, sitting a few feet from each other. Interviewer asked T something like "does anyone ever try to tell you the right thing to do?" T nodded towards M. Interviewer asked M if T ever listened and did what she said. IIRC, she said she tried to get him to, and he said he sometimes did what she said. But they were both frustrated...and then they did the very normal thing that couples often do: he rolled his eyes, she may have sighed...then they looked at each other with real, actual affection. For that one moment, he was in normal, healthy territory. If he's periodically like that with her in private, maybe that's one reason she's stayed.
The other time was when he was asked about his late, oldest brother, who died due to alcoholism and made T swear he'd never drink. T looked very sad and bereft, and said he thought maybe his brother couldn't handle the competition [in the family?]. Now, he *could* have said that in a way that made *him* look good, that he survived the competition and his brother was just poor material. But he didn't say it that way. It was normal grief for someone he really missed.
Somewhere in there are remnants of a normal, caring person. I don't know if they're recoverable.
(votive)
There are no votes elsewhere. They MUST appeal to his base. By embracing them where they are - frightened, ignorant - identifying with them, not criticizing them and ignoring them as Clinton did. Not in populism, but in appealing to the better angels of their self interest.
It's win-win for him as usual. He gets the Nazis and the Zionists.
Hope he doesn't mix up his invite list for winter holiday parties...or his holiday cards...
I can think of possible mixed-use cards--but I don't want to put that idea out in meme land.
(shudder)
I don't think this is true - Clinton did suffer from a turnout problem. Besides people who want to vote for racist viciousness are unlikely to go for a mealy mouthed watered down version of the same thing.
Who's proposing that?
That is nicely satirical with a quantum leap to superbly sardonic.
That's just wrong for 3 reasons (and I'll probably add a 4th at the end).
Any Democrat (at least in principle) can beat Trump by mobilising their core vote, picking up the 'undecideds' who preferred to give Trump a try than Hillary (and current polling suggests that EVERY current Democratic contender will beat Trump is a straight fight).
That's not to say that a good election strategy shouldn't seek to maximise their vote - of course they should - in this election more than ever. However, they do not need the hardcore Trumpites at all. There are lots and lots and lots of 'other' votes available; the swing voters, the Democratic turnout and the disaffected Republicans - that's enough of a coalition.
The 4th reason is that chasing populists by copying them is always doomed, both morally and strategically. And, whilst appealing 'to the better angels of their self interest' sounds good, I doubt in the real world there's really much room to manoeuvre there. These voters are very motivated, but mostly on an emotional level and thus unless and until they feel Trump has failed them (as individuals mostly) they are not amenable to persuasion by facts or figures.
AFZ
This is an important point. On first reading I nodded along that it's all a bit old hat... I apologise, the only reason it was so obvious to me is because I've been listening to Mueller She Wrote for the past couple of months and they've covered this point, a lot.
Essentially it comes down to this: whilst the President appoints the Attorney General, that office it meant to serve the United States and not the President. This is an odd area where the separation of powers is incomplete. The Justice Department has to enforce Congressional Subpoenas and Contempt findings if required and thus Barr's allegiance to Trump is a major bulkhead against due process for Trump.
As I understand it, the only remedy is for Congress to impeach and remove Barr. The Senate would probably never convict and even if Barr was removed, Trump presumably would appoint another loyalist...
I think I've got that right; someone tell me if they know better.
When Trump tweeted his racist nonsense about four Congresswomen needing to go back to where they came from, he said that they came from countries with 'the worst, most corrupt government.' I pointed out on Twitter that the last part was true. One response said it was a bit ridiculous for me to call the USA the 'most corrupt.' I concede that I am using hyperbole but the way Trump has coopted the Justice Department, packed the Supreme Court and is using both and other strategies to protect his collusion with Russia from proper scrutiny (as well as other crimes) - in the World's only superpower - arguably justifies that label...
AFZ
(No offense to those who do believe they're having that kind of experience.)
You're welcome.
It's really not. This risks a bit of a diversion on the thread but I am always conflicted by discussions on corruption in wealthy nations. We should indeed appreciate how privileged we are to live in countries with functional institutions - especially a judiciary where your sentencing is not determined by who bribes the judge. But, if we're not careful this makes us complacent and blind to the corruption that does exist. There is no doubt that on a subtle, insidious level, money and power have influence.
In the case of that tweet, it was conscious hyperbole.
However, the current situation looks ever-more corrupt, the more you look at it. I haven't looked for a while at detailed studies of corruption levels and I'm sure - even now - the USA doesn't top the list, but in ostensibly the World's Greatest Democracy the level of corruption we're talking about is deeply shocking. Or would be if we hadn't been conditioned to it. And is in plain sight.
Let me expand on this slightly:
The Mueller report documents compelling evidence such that I think it's fair to state the following as true:
When the report was finished, William Barr chose to misrepresent the report before anyone else had a chance to read it such that he has (thus far successfully) controlled the narrative so large sections of the population believe that the Mueller Report exonerates Trump. I can't help contrasting the way Mueller has played everything by the book - by the law, with Starr's approach to taking an incredibly weak legal case to the nth degree to embarrass the president as much as possible.
There is some evidence that the actual counting in the election may have been compromised as well. This is very limited but Trump has thus far prevented proper investigation and more-importantly blocked funding to ensure election security going forward. This, in the long-term, is really dangerous.
I don't think you'd struggle to find a Constitutional expert who would explain why the collusion* with a foreign government was sufficient grounds for impeachment and removal from office. But even if not, there is clear precedent that Obstruction of Justice** should lead to impeachment and removal.
One can argue about whether Congress is doing all it can at this stage but Trump and Barr and trying very hard to prevent Congress from scrutinising this matter and others (such as Trump's tax returns). Furthermore, there is evidence of Trump dangling pardons to people who are prepared to lie and cover-up for him.
All this on a background of a totally corrupt Campaign Finance system and extensive gerrymandering of congressional and state districts.
And finally, the Senate that has made clear that no-matter how compelling the evidence, they will acquit this president for political reasons should the House impeach.
There are literally dozens - probably hundreds - of other strands to this but if we want to be pedantic and precise about this; Trump's America may not be the most corrupt country in the world but it is in no position to criticise anyone else. Moreover, Trump is right about one thing - those 4 congresswomen he attacked should be worrying about, and trying to fix their own country. But what offends him so much is that they are.
Leaving aside all of Trumps other failings, he has acted in a way that is so far beyond the standard set for Impeachment and Removal by the constitution that it is ridiculous. This standard is the ultimate balwalk against corruption in the most powerful office in the nation. Failure to impeach and remove is (would be) demonstration of major corruption.
AFZ
*Collusion is not a legal term in this context and Trump has successfully won the PR war so far by making it all about something that the report would never show because Mueller was looking for the legal test for Conspiracy. However, Welcoming and encouraging intervention by a foreign, hostile state is undoubtedly what the Constitution meant by 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' There is enough in part 1 to impeach and convict, probably.
**Obstruction of Justice - just to be clear and this is undebatable, there does not need to be evidence of an underlying crime that you're trying to cover-up for the charge to stick. When you think about this, that's vital because if your obstruction was effective enough then you may well hide enough evidence to prevent the prosecution being able to show their case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence obstruction would be a good way to avoid prosecution for anything. Hence, in law, obstruction of justice stands on its own.
Moreover, whilst Mueller has demonstrated that meeting the criminal standard will not be a problem, the Constitution sets a lower bar for such abuses of power.
Feeding compliments to his hungry ears?
Re #2:
If it came to it, a very skilled legal team might be able to successfully defend T, on the grounds that he is too mentally unfit to have truly understood what was going on. It would be a risk for T, of course, 'cause success would mostly likely mean immediate...is it Article 25? The unfit president clause. OTOH, that would be better than prison. And I gather the presidency has often been a prison to him, anyway.
Indeed true. I am definitely not a lawyer, just an interested amateur who reads a lot.... I could see a Senate Trial failing to convict on this charge and whilst I would disagree, I don't think it would necessarily indicate the level of corruption I am implying (reasonable people could reasonably reach this conclusion, maybe, depending on the defence used). Conversely, failure to convict on the Obstruction charge would absolutely be compelling evidence of the corruptness of the USA.
AFZ