People who work in nursing homes who have seen dementia patients become violent to the point of killing other patients will likely recognise trump's evolving behaviour.
Because he's a social media/internet age figurehead for powerful people who get to use him for their own ends while keeping themselves safely in the shadows. He's got marketability, popularity, and loyalty with the masses (at least enough of them) which means he remains a valuable tool for them to wield for as long as he lasts. None of the rest of them have the recognition Trump has, which means they can't just ditch him.
He's actually pretty unpopular with the masses. Even some of the MAGA support for him is being eroded. But that doesn't really matter, as he's a lame duck, and he doesn't really care anymore if he's actually popular. The people around him flatter him enough to convince him that he is, I'm sure.
People who work in nursing homes who have seen dementia patients become violent to the point of killing other patients will likely recognise trump's evolving behaviour.
I can remember when the husband of one of my parishioners attacked her with a hammer due to dementia. Fortunately, she escaped and called me. I was able to rescue her.
How is it that the POTUS has so much power ie 'Executive Order: Tariffs here there and everywhere ' ?
He has as much power as SCOTUS and Congress allow him. SCOTUS might clip his wings regarding tariffs, but congress are unlikely to do anything substantial even assuming free and fair mid-term elections.
Pretty sure there is a way of stopping him, on the grounds of ill health for example, but the people in a position to use it have no interest in doing so.
I've a friend who is an eminent neuro-psychologist and who has published papers about frontotemporal dementia. His views on DJT are interesting and, given the position held by him and the group of enablers around him, frightening.
I've a friend who is an eminent neuro-psychologist and who has published papers about frontotemporal dementia. His views on DJT are interesting and, given the position held by him and the group of enablers around him, frightening.
Perhaps his enablers are more responsible for the mayhem than Trump is himself. If the man really is suffering from frontotemporal dementia, surely he must reasonably be deemed to be incapable of being President?
How is it that the POTUS has so much power ie 'Executive Order: Tariffs here there and everywhere ' ?
Trump knows it takes up to four years for something to get to the Supreme Court so he is going to throw as much shit as he can to see if something sticks. By the time the SC or Congress scraps it off, he will be out of office.
It doesn't appear that Trump would care about some people in the US suffering, and dying, for lack of basic medicine (the entire US medical system seems to be designed to let some die as long as the insurance companies make profits)
Trump might not care about a collapse in the insulin supply, but I think it's sonething that would seriously get attention from the people who need insulin to survive.
...I'd hope that European leaders would have more compassion than doing something that would have such impacts on ordinary people. War, even a trade war, should have limits to restrict harm to civilians.
I dunno. I mean, Trump went to the American electorate and said "Vote for me and I'll give you non-stop trade wars!!" And the electorate, as a whole, replied "Woo-hoo! Non-stop trade wars! Let's roll!!" Well, what we're seeing now is exactly what non-stop trade wars look like.
And sure, half the electorate didn't vote for the non-stop trade wars. But when the repercussions of a given policy start to hit, it's not like there's a form you can fill out and send to the relevant decision-makers that says "I didn't vote for this, so please exempt me from the consequences."
Previously I linked to an article that shows the US exports about 50% of the world's supply of insulin. In other words, we are producing more than enough insulin to take care of those who need it in the US. So, that is off the table.
But, I did come across another article that I think speaks to the mind of Trump as well as those in the background who use him for their ends. It is in The New Republic. Basically, it says Trump is purposely setting up divisions so he can do what he wants--at least that is what I got out of the article.
Latest Trump utterance. “Norway calls the shots on the Nobel Peace Prize”. It just shows how little he understands anything.
The peace prize is not awarded by the Nobel committee, but by the Norwegian Parliament (unlike the rest of the categories). This is because at the time Nobel wrote his will, Norway was still a Swedish colony, and as such the Norwegian Parliament had no foreign policy, and Nobel thought that this made them an impartial judge of which statesmen were contributing most to the maintenance of peace.
Isn’t it awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, deliberately appointed by the Norwegian Parliament to be independent of the Norwegian Government?
You can’t help but feel that if the Norwegian Government controlled (directly of indirectly) the award, it might very well have gone to Trump instead of Machado.
How far will the current challenge to Trump go?
The Church Times carries an article on the writer Jeff Sharlet whose most recent book is sub-titled 'Scenes from a Slow Civil War'.
Civil wars arise out of just such street-level clashes as we are currently seeing in the US. Inconceivable, one would say... But history has many examples to suggest otherwise.
Or will he? If he doesn't die, or get sent to jail, or become totally insane, might he not declare himself President for ever?
That may sound stupid, but from here, it seems not impossible...
Earlier today I heard an interview with his niece Mary L Trump who, it would be fair to say, isn’t his number one fan. She was asked if she thought he would attempt to run for a third time. She said it was more likely that he’d simply refuse to go
Earlier today I heard an interview with his niece Mary L Trump who, it would be fair to say, isn’t his number one fan. She was asked if she thought he would attempt to run for a third time. She said it was more likely that he’d simply refuse to go
I think even Trump is going to find it hard to refuse to die. Over Christmas I watched a round up of the year's news and Trump looked a whole lot better at his inauguration than he does now, and he didn't look that great then.
Isn’t it awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, deliberately appointed by the Norwegian Parliament to be independent of the Norwegian Government?
It is but as is the case in many places the appointment tends to favour a particular type of person.
Still makes Trump’s comment idiotic.
Mind you, it was in good company in that absurd press conference. Talk about the King’s new clothes. How much more ridiculous does he have to get before they wheel out the 25th Amendment? The leader of the free world is bonkers.
How far will the current challenge to Trump go?
The Church Times carries an article on the writer Jeff Sharlet whose most recent book is sub-titled 'Scenes from a Slow Civil War'.
Civil wars arise out of just such street-level clashes as we are currently seeing in the US. Inconceivable, one would say... But history has many examples to suggest otherwise.
No I don't think that is the way civil wars arise. Civil wars arise when there are competing power centres that can exercise significant organisational, financial and military muscle independent of each other: like the English Crown and Parliament, or the Union and the confederate States, or the Russian Whites and Reds. Street clashes are civil disorder, not civil war, unless some organising principle harnesses them. And I don't see that happening. The powers-that-be have the whip hand here.
Isn’t it awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, deliberately appointed by the Norwegian Parliament to be independent of the Norwegian Government?
It is but as is the case in many places the appointment tends to favour a particular type of person.
Still makes Trump’s comment idiotic.
Not really. Trump understands - perhaps more than most - that the parliament only appoints those who can be relied upon to nominate people acceptable to Western political elites (be that Kissinger, Obama or Machado - who hasn't come out of this entire episode particularly well).
That looks like a belief that power must always insist on its own way. Isn’t that precisely the sort of abuse of power that Trump insists is normal, even inevitable. That the creation of an independent body is a cynical sham.
Of course that can happen, maybe happens a lot. But it’s not inevitable.
Maybe I’m naive? Or maybe you’re a cynic?
I don’t buy that power inevitably corrupts in that way.
That looks like a belief that power must always insist on its own way. Isn’t that precisely the sort of abuse of power that Trump insists is normal, even inevitable. That the creation of an independent body is a cynical sham.
Of course that can happen, maybe happens a lot. But it’s not inevitable.
Maybe I’m naive? Or maybe you’re a cynic?
I don’t buy that power inevitably corrupts in that way.
I don't know if the issue is really corruption, but moreso the basic ideological predictability of any given organization.
For example, a liberal Catholic school somewhere might get named after Father Daniel Berrigan in honour of Berrigan's opposition to the Vietnam War, but they wouldn't name a school after Father Robert Drinan, even though Drinan also opposed the Vietnam War, because, unlike Berrigan, Drinan went against the Catholic's church's views on the legality of abortion.
That's not corruption, in the sense of deliberately breaking rules for direct self-enrichment, it's just RC institutions having pre-set ideological parameters for who they'll honour and who they won't. Pretty much like every other group that bestows such gestures upon individuals.
Of course that can happen, maybe happens a lot. But it’s not inevitable.
Maybe it's not inevitable but it fits the facts here (can you point to a counter example?)
I'm guessing the ANC was Soviet-leaning by the time Albert Luthuli won the Nobel in 1960, and that was likely known in the relevant Norweigan circles. But briefly scanning Luthuli's wiki bio, he doesn't seem to have been part of the official SACP faction. So, possibly a relatively pro-western voice in movement against a godawful regime that even the most cynical realpolitikker really didn't want us "our SOB".
I believe Rigoberta Menchù also fought against western-backed regimes, but the Guatemalan were probably mostly viewed as US clients, which I'm guessing most respectable Scandinavian social-democrats a) saw little material interest in defending, and hence b) viewed with greater-than-average contempt.
And I think it's now generally accepted that that the leadership of Physicians For Nuclear Disarmament consisted of an American NOT officially loyal to the foreign-policy of the USA, and a Soviet who WAS officially loyal to the foreign-policy of the USSR. IOW the ideological slant tilted eastward.
In that case, I suspect it might have made a difference that Gorbachev had come to power a few months earlier, and some people were already assuming that the USSR was well on its way to liberalization.
How did Machado fulfil the best interests of the Norwegian Government better than Trump?
Or is Norway indifferent to the concerns of its good neighbour Denmark and its own concerns of its Russian border in the far north?
It was surely predictable that Trump would be offended. After all, he had dropped enough hints. At the very least, Trump would have been a more cautious choice.
How did Machado fulfil the best interests of the Norwegian Government better than Trump?
My own guess is they were wary about what Trump would do to them if he didn't get the prize, but they didn't wanna give it to him 'cuz then they would be a laughingstock and lose all credibility forever. So...
...they gave it to someone who fit into the slight venn overlap between "On The Same Side Of A Geopolitical Issue As Trump" and "Acceptable To Centrist Opinion In Europe And The Anglosphere".
Turns out, of course, that Trump appears not to really care if Machado herself gets to rule Venezuela, but the Academy might not have foreseen that position at the time of the decision.
...they gave it to someone who fit into the slight venn overlap between "On The Same Side Of A Geopolitical Issue As Trump" and "Acceptable To Centrist Opinion In Europe And The Anglosphere".
Trump appears not to really care if Machado herself gets to rule Venezuela
And one of the reasons she is acceptable to centrist opinion in the west is her social liberalism(pro-choice, pro-lgbqt), which is something that has conversely made her into a villain to the anti-interventionist right in the USA, and may or may not account at least partly for Trump's own coolness towards her.
...they gave it to someone who fit into the slight venn overlap between "On The Same Side Of A Geopolitical Issue As Trump" and "Acceptable To Centrist Opinion In Europe And The Anglosphere".
Trump appears not to really care if Machado herself gets to rule Venezuela
And one of the reasons she is acceptable to centrist opinion in the west is her social liberalism(pro-choice, pro-lgbqt)
It's also possible that the economic liberalism came first, and the social liberalism is a good way of laundering the former.
Pretty sure there is a way of stopping him, on the grounds of ill health for example, but the people in a position to use it have no interest in doing so.
As an honest hypothetical question, is there anything he could do that WOULD make it in the interests of those who hold to power to change president? Or is it just in their best interests not to change?
Pretty sure there is a way of stopping him, on the grounds of ill health for example, but the people in a position to use it have no interest in doing so.
As an honest hypothetical question, is there anything he could do that WOULD make it in the interests of those who hold to power to change president? Or is it just in their best interests not to change?
I think the threshold would be an earnest threat on his part to use nuclear weapons on a US city. Anything short of that is fine by the spineless supine sycophants he surrounds himself with.
That said, I'm sure the thought of using nukes anywhere would give Hegseth a hardon.
Pretty sure there is a way of stopping him, on the grounds of ill health for example, but the people in a position to use it have no interest in doing so.
As an honest hypothetical question, is there anything he could do that WOULD make it in the interests of those who hold to power to change president? Or is it just in their best interests not to change?
I think the threshold would be an earnest threat on his part to use nuclear weapons on a US city. Anything short of that is fine by the spineless supine sycophants he surrounds himself with.
That said, I'm sure the thought of using nukes anywhere would give Hegseth a hardon.
I'm obliged for job reasons to be fairly politically impartial so I shall confine myself to commending your awesome alliteration.
For those who are interested, former Special Counsel Jack Smith is publicly testifying before the House Judiciary Committee right now. For those who are interested, it can be watched live here.
Comments
He's actually pretty unpopular with the masses. Even some of the MAGA support for him is being eroded. But that doesn't really matter, as he's a lame duck, and he doesn't really care anymore if he's actually popular. The people around him flatter him enough to convince him that he is, I'm sure.
I can remember when the husband of one of my parishioners attacked her with a hammer due to dementia. Fortunately, she escaped and called me. I was able to rescue her.
He has as much power as SCOTUS and Congress allow him. SCOTUS might clip his wings regarding tariffs, but congress are unlikely to do anything substantial even assuming free and fair mid-term elections.
I know what you mean, but so far his violence has all been verbal and in his executive orders etc.
Surely something would have to be done if he becomes physically aggressive - like @Gramps49 acquaintance who took a hammer to a person.
Perhaps his enablers are more responsible for the mayhem than Trump is himself. If the man really is suffering from frontotemporal dementia, surely he must reasonably be deemed to be incapable of being President?
Trump knows it takes up to four years for something to get to the Supreme Court so he is going to throw as much shit as he can to see if something sticks. By the time the SC or Congress scraps it off, he will be out of office.
That may sound stupid, but from here, it seems not impossible...
Here is a decent explanation of the scope of "executive orders."
Trump might not care about a collapse in the insulin supply, but I think it's sonething that would seriously get attention from the people who need insulin to survive.
I dunno. I mean, Trump went to the American electorate and said "Vote for me and I'll give you non-stop trade wars!!" And the electorate, as a whole, replied "Woo-hoo! Non-stop trade wars! Let's roll!!" Well, what we're seeing now is exactly what non-stop trade wars look like.
And sure, half the electorate didn't vote for the non-stop trade wars. But when the repercussions of a given policy start to hit, it's not like there's a form you can fill out and send to the relevant decision-makers that says "I didn't vote for this, so please exempt me from the consequences."
But, I did come across another article that I think speaks to the mind of Trump as well as those in the background who use him for their ends. It is in The New Republic. Basically, it says Trump is purposely setting up divisions so he can do what he wants--at least that is what I got out of the article.
The peace prize is not awarded by the Nobel committee, but by the Norwegian Parliament (unlike the rest of the categories). This is because at the time Nobel wrote his will, Norway was still a Swedish colony, and as such the Norwegian Parliament had no foreign policy, and Nobel thought that this made them an impartial judge of which statesmen were contributing most to the maintenance of peace.
You can’t help but feel that if the Norwegian Government controlled (directly of indirectly) the award, it might very well have gone to Trump instead of Machado.
It is but as is the case in many places the appointment tends to favour a particular type of person.
The Church Times carries an article on the writer Jeff Sharlet whose most recent book is sub-titled 'Scenes from a Slow Civil War'.
Civil wars arise out of just such street-level clashes as we are currently seeing in the US. Inconceivable, one would say... But history has many examples to suggest otherwise.
I think even Trump is going to find it hard to refuse to die. Over Christmas I watched a round up of the year's news and Trump looked a whole lot better at his inauguration than he does now, and he didn't look that great then.
Still makes Trump’s comment idiotic.
Mind you, it was in good company in that absurd press conference. Talk about the King’s new clothes. How much more ridiculous does he have to get before they wheel out the 25th Amendment? The leader of the free world is bonkers.
No I don't think that is the way civil wars arise. Civil wars arise when there are competing power centres that can exercise significant organisational, financial and military muscle independent of each other: like the English Crown and Parliament, or the Union and the confederate States, or the Russian Whites and Reds. Street clashes are civil disorder, not civil war, unless some organising principle harnesses them. And I don't see that happening. The powers-that-be have the whip hand here.
Not really. Trump understands - perhaps more than most - that the parliament only appoints those who can be relied upon to nominate people acceptable to Western political elites (be that Kissinger, Obama or Machado - who hasn't come out of this entire episode particularly well).
That looks like a belief that power must always insist on its own way. Isn’t that precisely the sort of abuse of power that Trump insists is normal, even inevitable. That the creation of an independent body is a cynical sham.
Of course that can happen, maybe happens a lot. But it’s not inevitable.
Maybe I’m naive? Or maybe you’re a cynic?
I don’t buy that power inevitably corrupts in that way.
I don't know if the issue is really corruption, but moreso the basic ideological predictability of any given organization.
For example, a liberal Catholic school somewhere might get named after Father Daniel Berrigan in honour of Berrigan's opposition to the Vietnam War, but they wouldn't name a school after Father Robert Drinan, even though Drinan also opposed the Vietnam War, because, unlike Berrigan, Drinan went against the Catholic's church's views on the legality of abortion.
That's not corruption, in the sense of deliberately breaking rules for direct self-enrichment, it's just RC institutions having pre-set ideological parameters for who they'll honour and who they won't. Pretty much like every other group that bestows such gestures upon individuals.
Maybe it's not inevitable but it fits the facts here (can you point to a counter example?)
I'm guessing the ANC was Soviet-leaning by the time Albert Luthuli won the Nobel in 1960, and that was likely known in the relevant Norweigan circles. But briefly scanning Luthuli's wiki bio, he doesn't seem to have been part of the official SACP faction. So, possibly a relatively pro-western voice in movement against a godawful regime that even the most cynical realpolitikker really didn't want us "our SOB".
I believe Rigoberta Menchù also fought against western-backed regimes, but the Guatemalan were probably mostly viewed as US clients, which I'm guessing most respectable Scandinavian social-democrats a) saw little material interest in defending, and hence b) viewed with greater-than-average contempt.
In that case, I suspect it might have made a difference that Gorbachev had come to power a few months earlier, and some people were already assuming that the USSR was well on its way to liberalization.
Or is Norway indifferent to the concerns of its good neighbour Denmark and its own concerns of its Russian border in the far north?
It was surely predictable that Trump would be offended. After all, he had dropped enough hints. At the very least, Trump would have been a more cautious choice.
My own guess is they were wary about what Trump would do to them if he didn't get the prize, but they didn't wanna give it to him 'cuz then they would be a laughingstock and lose all credibility forever. So...
...they gave it to someone who fit into the slight venn overlap between "On The Same Side Of A Geopolitical Issue As Trump" and "Acceptable To Centrist Opinion In Europe And The Anglosphere".
Turns out, of course, that Trump appears not to really care if Machado herself gets to rule Venezuela, but the Academy might not have foreseen that position at the time of the decision.
And one of the reasons she is acceptable to centrist opinion in the west is her social liberalism(pro-choice, pro-lgbqt), which is something that has conversely made her into a villain to the anti-interventionist right in the USA, and may or may not account at least partly for Trump's own coolness towards her.
It's also possible that the economic liberalism came first, and the social liberalism is a good way of laundering the former.
As an honest hypothetical question, is there anything he could do that WOULD make it in the interests of those who hold to power to change president? Or is it just in their best interests not to change?
I think the threshold would be an earnest threat on his part to use nuclear weapons on a US city. Anything short of that is fine by the spineless supine sycophants he surrounds himself with.
That said, I'm sure the thought of using nukes anywhere would give Hegseth a hardon.
I'm obliged for job reasons to be fairly politically impartial so I shall confine myself to commending your awesome alliteration.