The Trump presidency

[brogdale]

"We have seen him in court twice, and we're two for two."

--Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson

SAD!

 

[bimble]

 

[teqniq]

Petulance in spades

 

[CrabbedOne]

There was an online comment I came across yesterday that, in all of this, just blew my mind.

It was to the effect that the inauguration protestors should permanently lose their right to vote.

I know it's not directly related to the point you're making but, holy shit...this is where we are now? a country formed on dissent, a government formed on the principles of democracy, and this is what we've come to?

Be fair the USA came into being after a huge hissy fit by brutal slavers in fear of abolition, profiteering smugglers, backwoods Christian-Taliban types and lawyers (yes lawyers!) treacherously in league with their traditional enemy the French who basically won the war for them while Gen Washington ran away from the British. It was all about paying The Crown for their own defence from outraged injuns who some of the whiny colonials wanted to murder and steal land from against pre-existing treaties. Think of it as an early very hard Brexit conducted by a bunch of recovering Englishmen who absolutely loathed each other in the proper UKIP manner.

The second President John Adams fighting an undeclared war against the French (the slippery Yanks had reneged on huge war debts owed to their former French allies) was so convinced the place was crawling with Jacobins out to steal the colonial gentry's silver promptly passed the Aliens and Sedition Acts allowing him to deport non-citizens and criminalising spreading "Fake News" about the Government. Opponents accused "His Rotundity" of nakedly using hyped nation security concerns as means to suppress the vote.

Trump is practically going back to the golden era of The Founders.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Petulance in spades

Can You Spot 10 Signs of a Childish Adult?

 

[CrabbedOne]

he gets up at 5am, watches the telly , gets incredibly irate, and starts tweeting

From the crapper... allegedly.

 

[ruffneck23]

From the crapper... allegedly.

yeah its all alledged

 

[CrabbedOne]

Petulance in spades

It may be bogus but:

Which is what he should have done after about five hours.

That would be typical he's a really reckless litagator.

 

[teqniq]

It may be bogus but:

Which is what he should have done after about five hours.

That would be typical he's a really reckless litagator.

Well, quite and that would be reflected in the amount of times throughout his business career that he's had to settle litigation with large sums of money.

 

[gosub]

Petulance in spades

In a state that voted 60% democrat Do something that will reduce your teams chances of winning and piss off the majority of your supporters, coz, I, the fascist tangerine tell you to.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Any similar polling for Obama in 2009 I wonder?

Probably not: Obama didn't publicly question the Constitutional separation of powers, and the tripartite government system.

It's this new idiot who talks of 'so-called judges', who said the court 'seems so political', because the Appeal judges questioned the DoJ lawyer.

In other words, it hasn't been an issue before now; so no reason to poll about it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

There was an online comment I came across yesterday that, in all of this, just blew my mind.

It was to the effect that the inauguration protestors should permanently lose their right to vote.

I know it's not directly related to the point you're making but, holy shit...this is where we are now? a country formed on dissent, a government formed on the principles of democracy, and this is what we've come to?

Don't forget the Michigan Republican official who said that the protestors need 'another Kent State' to set them straight.

Good news is that that particular deplorable has resigned.

Michigan Republican official resigns after suggesting repeat of Kent State shootings

 

[Miss Caphat]

Be fair the USA came into being after a huge hissy fit by brutal slavers in fear of abolition, profiteering smugglers, backwoods Christian-Taliban types and lawyers (yes lawyers!) treacherously in league with their traditional enemy the French who basically won the war for them while Gen Washington ran away from the British. It was all about paying The Crown for their own defence from outraged injuns who some of the whiny colonials wanted to murder and steal land from against pre-existing treaties. Think of it as an early very hard Brexit conducted by a bunch of recovering Englishmen who absolutely loathed each other in the proper UKIP manner.

The second President John Adams fighting an undeclared war against the French (the slippery Yanks had reneged on huge war debts owed to their former French allies) was so convinced the place was crawling with Jacobins out to steal the colonial gentry's silver promptly passed the Aliens and Sedition Acts allowing him to deport non-citizens and criminalising spreading "Fake News" about the Government. Opponents accused "His Rotundity" of nakedly using hyped nation security concerns as means to suppress the vote.

Trump is practically going back to the golden era of The Founders.

Thanks for Brit-splaining American history to me

 

[CrabbedOne]

Probably not: Obama didn't publicly question the Constitutional separation of powers, and the tripartite government system.

It's this new idiot who talks of 'so-called judges', who said the court 'seems so political', because the Appeal judges questioned the DoJ lawyer.

In other words, it hasn't been an issue before now; so no reason to poll about it.

Well Obama had been a Senator and taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School for a dozen years so he would know these things. Partly explains his aversion to "cruel and unusual" torture and failed ambition to close Gitmo. Extrajudicially executing folk with drone strikes is just so much tidier legally.

 

[J Ed]

Probably not: Obama didn't publicly question the Constitutional separation of powers, and the tripartite government system.

It's this new idiot who talks of 'so-called judges', who said the court 'seems so political', because the Appeal judges questioned the DoJ lawyer.

In other words, it hasn't been an issue before now; so no reason to poll about it.

Non issues are polled, e.g should the US go communist?

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Politico Trump vexed by challenges, scale of government

...
The administration’s rocky opening days have been a setback for a president who, as a billionaire businessman, sold himself to voters as being uniquely qualified to fix what ailed the nation. Yet it has become apparent, say those close to the president, most of whom requested anonymity to describe the inner workings of the White House, that the transition from overseeing a family business to running the country has been tough on him.

Trump often asks simple questions about policies, proposals and personnel. And, when discussions get bogged down in details, the president has been known to quickly change the subject — to "seem in control at all times," one senior government official said — or direct questions about details to his chief strategist Steve Bannon, his son-in-law Jared Kushner or House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump has privately expressed disbelief over the ability of judges, bureaucrats or lawmakers to delay — or even stop — him from filling positions and implementing policies.
...

Some correctly accused Obama of naivety in thinking he could really change how The Hill worked. Hope&Change would unlock the partisan deadlock. It didn't but as a campaign strategy it certainly appealed to voters. In interviews late in his presidency he complained of The Blob (the policy establishment) thwarting him.

He is more Rage&Strange Trump brings even greater transformative expectations. It does seem he had little idea what he was letting himself in for. Trump's a man not without ability but he's really unqualified to do this job. A jumpy critter by nature with an awful lot of technocratic detail to acquire. He's meant to be a fast study but it ain't showing. He screwed up his Casino business trying to wing that. He probably needs to purge his team and get more real expertise on board and delegate heavily. Article suggests Governor Christie is anticipating a return to favour.

 

[camouflage]

Thanks for Brit-splaining American history to me

To be fair, Britsplanations are rarely that accurate.

 

[Miss Caphat]

To be fair, Britsplanations are rarely that accurate.

meh. It didn't really have much to do with my point.

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Mother Jones Bombshell Report Suggests Trump's National Security Adviser Is Dishonest and a Threat to US Policy

...
Which brings us to the not-very-smart part of this story. How do all these officials know what was really said between Flynn and the Russian? US intelligence routinely conducts surveillance aimed at Russian diplomats and monitors their communications. The Post story clearly indicates that Flynn's conversation with Kislyak was intercepted and that a transcript of it has been passed throughout the intelligence community. Flynn, of course, should have been aware that any discussion he had with the Russian ambassador was vulnerable to surveillance. After all, not too long ago he was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

This makes Flynn's behavior dumb on two counts. First, he should not have explicitly discussed undermining US policy with Kislyak, for he ought to have realized this conversation would be picked up by US intelligence. Second, he should not have told Pence and others that sanctions had not been covered in the conversation, for he should have known there was evidence of what had actually transpired during his chat.

On Wednesday, Flynn denied to the Post that he had discussed the sanctions with Kislyak. The next day, the paper reports, "Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn 'indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up.'" So he has shifted from an emphatic denial to weasel words. The FBI, according to the paper, is continuing to investigate, though it's unclear if any laws were broken. The Logan Act of 1799 does prohibit US citizens from meddling in US foreign policy matters, but it has never been successfully applied.
...

Flynn was offering the Russian Ambassador reassurances about US sanctions before Trump took office and in the midst of a scandal about the Trump Team's possible collusion with Russia. This does seem like very rash behaviour. Flynn has form for that:

...
In private emails hacked and leaked to the press, Colin Powell, former secretary of state and chairman of the Joint Chiefs, called Trump a "national disgrace and an international pariah" and Flynn “right-wing nutty” for empowering him. "Flynn got fired as head of DIA. … I asked why Flynn got fired. Abusive with staff, didn't listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc. He has been and was right-wing nutty every [sic] since,” Powell wrote, later wondering "how [Flynn] got that far in the Army?"
...

He has been described as an over-promoted JSOC targeter.

Article does have some praise for him as a one man awkward squad not buying the Obama Team line that the GWOT had the terrorists on the run as it was clear Iraq was combusting.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Only 3 weeks in......

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Off to a bad START:

Trump paused a call with Putin to make an aide explain a nuclear arms treaty

 

[Pickman's model]

If they'd drafted the "Muslim Ban" properly, made a couple of phone calls and dialed back on a Tweet storm suggesting unconstitutional intent it would have have sailed through; this wasn't hard to get right and it was an issue where the Presidency is greatly empowered. He has a right to do this. Trump just didn't get it right.

It's not unusual for a new POTUS to have difficulty starting. The shine went off Obama's "Hopey Changey thing" quickly. But this is different whole flurry of EOs has been full of vacuous content and unforced legal errors. He's made some very dubious appointments that were barely vetted. Sowed confusion among other world leaders and does not seems to be running a very loose ship in which cove's like Bannon can easily pull fast ones on him. And there's no evidence of Trump learning. He doesn't even know the basics of US treaties with Russia for instance. There's no feedback loop; anything displeasing is just "Fake News" suppressed by a barrage of obvious lies.

It doesn't look like a clever scheme to challenge the different arms of government to me. It looks like too much of Team Trump is simply from a universe incompatible with the US system. It's like Putin had been parachuted in run the US with a few thick ex-KGB necked aides. Putin would probably have made a better fist of it.

Off to a bad START:

Trump paused a call with Putin to make an aide explain a nuclear arms treaty

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Politico 3 key Trump mistakes that led to the travel ban court defeat

...
1. The green-card debacle

The White House failure to make clear from the outset that the travel ban did not include U.S. permanent residents, so-called green-card holders, was both a political and legal gaffe of the first order. The confusion led to the detention of more than 100 green-card holders during the first 24 hours the order was in effect and many more thereafter.

That caused major blowback from Congress, because many green-card holders are longtime residents of the U.S. It included many Iranians who fled their country in the 1980s to escape Islamic fundamentalism, a bizarre result for an executive order allegedly aimed at combating radical Islamic terrorism.

But strictly as a matter of legal strategy, the impact on green-card holders was a serious error. Permanent residents have more U.S. constitutional rights than any other category of foreigners. The green-card issue all but guaranteed that opponents of the travel ban would win the early rounds of litigation by persuading judges that these long-term U.S. residents were being unfairly denied entry or detained.

White House officials have insisted that green-card holders were never supposed to be covered by the order, but many experts don't believe that.

"I think they clearly intended to include legal permanent residents," said Jonathan Meyer, a former Department of Homeland Security deputy general counsel. "It was a mistake to do so, compounded by the fact and shows that they did not vet this sufficiently. There's no question that it meant they would face legal defeats ... It's definitely hurt them."
...

A lot of Americans might see some sense in a temporary suspension of taking in new refugees from terrorist plagued countries like Iraq. It's a small risk given the tiny well vetted trickle of GWOT refugees into the US but IS hates people fleeing the Caliphate and has a clear intent to place sleepers in such flows. It's a Human Rights question but then a lot of the current debates around these things are about 90s internationalised HR fundamentally not being compatible with the concept of national sovereignty.

Americans are generally much more tolerant of hard working economic migrants than Europeans. A lot were shocked when the ban was hastily applied to long term US residents. Most Americans know people relying on Green Cards that suddenly appeared a weak guarantee of the right to reside. Many citizens started that way. This part was an obvious case of over reach probably by Bannon.

This whole thing has been Trump's first test as a President. Inevitably Presidents make serious mistakes. How they deal with that is a real test of character. Predictably Trump failed to back down and it just escalated into a stupid fight with the judicial arm of government. It looks like he'll try to ram it through the Supreme Court having successively weakened his legal case by Tweeting indignantly. It's damaging all the more for just being obviously sloppy legally and finally rather more harmful to US security than not doing it at all.

Consider Obama's hastily declared redline on use of CW in Syria. When Assad crossed it no drama Obama found himself dramatically stuck on a slippery slope to another disastrous Libyan intervention with feeble political support in Congress and the country for making good on his previous threat. Finally the Russians brokered a US climb down that at least removed the bulk of Syrian CW capability from an unstable country. Looking how things went in Syria it's pretty certain the other option would have caused the Russians and Iranians to escalate earlier. Obama will forever be criticised for it by interventionists but it probably was the sober thing to do.

I doubt Trump is capable of taking such an off ramp from probable folly. Because for Trump that would all be about his carefully combed over braggart's brand not sucking it up and doing the least worst thing for the country.

 

[bimble]

"By a 51/23 margin Trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump's immigration policy is needed."

& '51% of them think he should personally be able to overturn decisions he doesn't agree with'

Americans Now Evenly Divided on Impeaching Trump
It's not ignorance it's more like religious faith isn't it.

 

[J Ed]

Thanks for Brit-splaining American history to me

Are we seriously doing this now? Because this is really fucking stupid. There are thousands of US academics in US universities, and no doubt non-US universities, with far superior knowledge of all sorts of aspects of British history than probably the top 1% of British history-knowers. The idea that someone of one nationality cannot dispute, or discuss, the history of another country without a person from that country claiming superior knowledge purely on the basis of their nationality is seriously moronic. More ignorant than most of the crap Trump comes out with.

It isn't the first time that I've seen this sort of attitude displayed on this thread but it's the first time that I have seen it actually referred to explicitly.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are thousands of US academics in US universities, and no doubt non-US universities, with far superior knowledge of all sorts of aspects of British history than probably the top 1% of British history-knowers.

this does not make sense.

 

[J Ed]

this does not make sense.

...but I used such precise language, I don't see how it's possible that there could be any confusion.

 

[Pickman's model]

...but I used such precise language, I don't see how it's possible that there could be any confusion.

what i think you mean is that there are american historians with a greater knowledge of british history than most britons, but that's not quite what you've said.

There are thousands of US academics in US universities, and no doubt non-US universities, with far superior knowledge of all sorts of aspects of British history than probably the top 1% of British history-knowers.

not sure here whether your 'british history-knowers' are a) british people who know about history; or b) people who know about british history (in which case it would include your american academics).
there's probably a c) to be had too.

 

[J Ed]

what i think you mean is that there are american historians with a greater knowledge of british history than most britons, but that's not quite what you've said.

What I said was that there are large numbers US academics with superior knowledge of British history than not just British people in general, but British people who themselves have a very good knowledge of history.

 

[J Ed]

Of course, I shouldn't have qualified what I said with 'academic' really, the same is true no doubt of many non-academics.