US politics: Heil to the Chief :(

[all swedes are racist]

Two separate pro-trump events reported with instances of Nazi salutes being thrown. 

But no, it's actually about ethics in journalism bringing blue collar jobs to the rust belt

[Fragile Bird]

Feeling sad and lonely here?  Don't you just hate it when everyone ignores you?

[mormont]

So Trump's response to questions about conflict of interest is basically 'you knew what I was'.

And he actually has a point, Too many people told themselves Trump 'didn't mean' the things he said that they didn't like, or that just because he was lying about one thing didn't mean he would lie about another, or ignored it when he ducked awkward questions. Too late now.

As for the wind farm discussion, it's unethical but a complete waste of time. Trump already lost a court case against the Scottish government on that subject, as previously noted, and Nigel Farage has about as much influence over the Scottish government as Big Bird. UKIP's total elected representation in Scotland is one MEP. No MPs, no MSPs, no local councillors, even. Still, even the attempt shows that Trump does not acknowledge boundaries between his personal views and his office. Expect more of this kind of thing.

[Yukle]

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

As for the wind farm discussion, it's unethical but a complete waste of time. Trump already lost a court case against the Scottish government on that subject, as previously noted, and Nigel Farage has about as much influence over the Scottish government as Big Bird. UKIP's total elected representation in Scotland is one MEP. No MPs, no MSPs, no local councillors, even. Still, even the attempt shows that Trump does not acknowledge boundaries between his personal views and his office. Expect more of this kind of thing.

The first part I'm just quoting because the line about Nigel Farage made me lol.

As for the second part - agreed. I assumed that the United States had really strict conflict of interest laws. Is this not the case?! I thought that was a huge part of the case against Hillary Clinton, that she had a conflict of interest?

And Trump isn't denying it, not even bothering, he is revelling in it. So... his lawyers would've told him to redact that quick smart if it was incriminating... and apparently it isn't.

I'm so disturbed by this.

[polishgenius]

I don't think Trump realises that asking Farage to campaign on something in Scotland is just going to make them more likely to want to implement the plans.

Especially since I get the distinct impression that putting the wind farms there in particular is in part a 'fuck you' response to the golf course being there in the first place, since 'ruining the views' was a strong argument against him building it. Like, I don't doubt there are good reasons to put the windmills there and not somewhere else, but I can't imagine that at least some of the people involved aren't experiencing a warm feeling of smug satisfaction at doing it back to him.

[mormont]

Nah. My recollection is that the Scottish government could not have been more helpful when Trump wanted to build his golf course. Many locals hated it, but they had nothing to do with the siting of the wind farms. The Scottish government gave permission for those, which incensed Trump, both because he hates wind farms and because he had thought the Scottish government's previous co-operation meant they were in his pocket.

[DreamSongs]

Every time I check the news, I find it more disturbing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

So Trump's response to questions about conflict of interest is basically 'you knew what I was'.

And he actually has a point, Too many people told themselves Trump 'didn't mean' the things he said that they didn't like, or that just because he was lying about one thing didn't mean he would lie about another, or ignored it when he ducked awkward questions. Too late now.

As for the wind farm discussion, it's unethical but a complete waste of time. Trump already lost a court case against the Scottish government on that subject, as previously noted, and Nigel Farage has about as much influence over the Scottish government as Big Bird. UKIP's total elected representation in Scotland is one MEP. No MPs, no MSPs, no local councillors, even. Still, even the attempt shows that Trump does not acknowledge boundaries between his personal views and his office. Expect more of this kind of thing.

Wow, it's going to take impeachment and successful removal from office to prevent Trump from using the POTUS as a giant cash grab.  But, then, I think that's really why he wanted the office.  I suspect he's not nearly so well off as he implied throughout his run for the Presidency and this was a "Hail Mary" pass for him to prevent personal bankruptcy.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

There is no way he will be impeached without support from a very Republican congress. If it requires a 2/3 majority, you'd need 18 Republican Senators to sign on (and I dont know how many House members). I could count maybe 5-6 who may agree (Cruz, Rubio, McCain, Snowe....).

We are in for a long time with literally no checks and balances.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

IHT,

You're probably right.  It would take a huge public outcry for the Republican controlled Congress to act and so many Trump supporters think his schtick is just great fun.

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

We are in for a long time with literally no checks and balances.

I don't think he'll push things over the edge. If he does something truly screwy there's always the chance the ultimate check happens. (i.e. armed revolution/Civil War)

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

 

We are in for a long time with literally no checks and balances.

I suspect there will be many checks, and quite a balance.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

But it's all ok because $Hillary stole hundred of millions* while she was Sectretary of state, and that's not including the Clinton Foundation or Benghazi.

 

*in all seriousness, I think hundreds of millions will be peanuts by the time the Trump's are done.

 

[Yukle]

12 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

There is no way he will be impeached without support from a very Republican congress. If it requires a 2/3 majority, you'd need 18 Republican Senators to sign on (and I dont know how many House members). I could count maybe 5-6 who may agree (Cruz, Rubio, McCain, Snowe....).

We are in for a long time with literally no checks and balances.

 

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

IHT,

You're probably right.  It would take a huge public outcry for the Republican controlled Congress to act and so many Trump supporters think his schtick is just great fun.

There's also the fact that I really don't think Trump is particularly intelligent. The Republican party was outplayed by his political style, but most politics is behind closed doors. I can't see Trump bothering to sit in many committee meetings, nor pursuing all of the bills that he has to sign. Anything other than a hugely controversial bill is not going to secure his veto as that would require him to stay on topic - something his campaign staff have said he doesn't like to do for very long.

To say nothing of the fact that his advisers appear to be Republican insiders so far. So... no checks and balances at all, since the party will definitely be steering his office.

There's also the fact that he has openly boasted that he doesn't plan much, nor really bother with tedious meetings. Worrying about Trump's ideas ignores the obvious danger: it's the Republican Party as a whole that is most powerful right now. I wouldn't be surprised if they employ Trump's most successful tactic: leap from controversial idea to controversial idea - including ones (no, especially ones) that Trump opposes. That way, the majority of their ideas get waved through, or pass in the midst of all the latest controversy about the newer ideas. The public fighting gives the illusion of acting as a check against Trump - all the while getting their legislation waved through.

Trump and the Republican part, which at this stage seem like two separate machines, aren't really going to oppose each other in practice, just in public, on select meaningless things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Yukle said:

 

There's also the fact that I really don't think Trump is particularly intelligent. The Republican party was outplayed by his political style, but most politics is behind closed doors. I can't see Trump bothering to sit in many committee meetings, nor pursuing all of the bills that he has to sign. Anything other than a hugely controversial bill is not going to secure his veto as that would require him to stay on topic - something his campaign staff have said he doesn't like to do for very long.

To say nothing of the fact that his advisers appear to be Republican insiders so far. So... no checks and balances at all, since the party will definitely be steering his office.

There's also the fact that he has openly boasted that he doesn't plan much, nor really bother with tedious meetings. Worrying about Trump's ideas ignores the obvious danger: it's the Republican Party as a whole that is most powerful right now. I wouldn't be surprised if they employ Trump's most successful tactic: leap from controversial idea to controversial idea - including ones (no, especially ones) that Trump opposes. That way, the majority of their ideas get waved through, or pass in the midst of all the latest controversy about the newer ideas. The public fighting gives the illusion of acting as a check against Trump - all the while getting their legislation waved through.

Trump and the Republican part, which at this stage seem like two separate machines, aren't really going to oppose each other in practice, just in public, on select meaningless things.

Yukle,

When Shryke said (I'm paraphrasing) that one party goverment was the only viable way for the US to function with two sincerely ideologically opposed parties I think he ment the Democratic party.  At that time I said that scared the shit out of me.  We have this with the Republicans in control, it still scares the shit out of me.

[Yukle]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yukle,

When Shryke said (I'm paraphrasing) that one party goverment was the only viable way for the US to function with two sincerely ideologically opposed parties I think he ment the Democratic party.  At that time I said that scared the shit out of me.  We have this with the Republicans in control, it still scares the shit out of me.

... ?

I'm lost, who is Shryke? What's the direct link to my comment?

[OldGimletEye]

Quote

The Rev. Kelsey Hutto said she learned about the graffiti from an organist, who had arrived at St. David’s Episcopal Church on Sunday morning.

Hutto called the authorities and went to the central Indiana church herself, where she saw what had been spray-painted on its walls.

“HEIL TRUMP,” read one message.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/11/15/this-indiana-church-was-defaced-with-heil-trump-graffiti-and-is-keeping-it/?tid=a_inl

When the Chump says we are the master race

We heil, heil, right in the Chump’s face

 

Not to love the Chump is a great disgrace

So we heil, heil, right in the Chump’s face

 

When Herr Chicken Hawk says we’re gonna drop bombs all over the place

We heil, heil, right in the Chicken Hawk's face…….

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Yukle said:

... ?

I'm lost, who is Shryke? What's the direct link to my comment?

Shryke is another boarder here.  I'm saying that I agree this situation is dangerous and frightening.  

[The guy from the Vale]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yukle,

When Shryke said (I'm paraphrasing) that one party goverment was the only viable way for the US to function with two sincerely ideologically opposed parties I think he ment the Democratic party.  At that time I said that scared the shit out of me.  We have this with the Republicans in control, it still scares the shit out of me.

Well, Scot. If the US didn't have the Electoral College, we'd now have Hillary and an entirely Republican-controlled Congress. With a proportional or hybrid-proportional House, there'd be Trump with a Republican Senate and a Democratic House. With the will of the people represented both in the presidency and the House, you'd have Hillary with a Dem House and a Rep Senate. All of these should be preferable to you (and they seem preferable to me...)

But no, your pet peeve of protecting rural interests means total control of the minority party because it has more support among rural voters. Congratulations!

I'd also argue that in many ways, unfettered power, while bad in any hands, is more dangerous under the Republican party compared to the Democrats at this time. That might change at some point, but it seems inconceivable now. How a party that gets a minority of the votes can win total control of government should scare the heck out of you... and that's precisely what happened two weeks ago.

[Yukle]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Shryke is another boarder here.  I'm saying that I agree this situation is dangerous and frightening.  

Oooooooh, okay, I get you now. That makes sense.