US politics: Heil to the Chief :(

[Commodore]

37 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Commodore,

Trump is doing many troubling things.  When will you be able to see it?  Does it not bother you that he brought someone into his Staff who expressly stated he was turning Breitbart into a platform for the "Alt-Right"?

Trump is a world class con artist and his shady business dealings are very troubling.I think it could lead to prosecution/impeachment (for those beneath him at the least) if he doesn't get it straightened out before he takes office. 

Best case scenario is that he lets high character people like Pence/Romney/Mattis/Sessions run the country while he enjoys the trappings and attention and twitter battles. Not holding my breath though.  

I agree with your characterization of Bannon, but what do you think the implications are, policy wise?

Quote

 He's the fucking President-elect though. The President should not attack the press. The President should not limit access for the press. The President should not diminish the press. He should be above that. Why that doesn't bother you at all is beyond me.

I don't have enough historical knowledge to say how normal it is for a POTUS to be this hostile to the press. My recollection is the press and founders said much worse things about each other. 

I do recall Obama attacking Fox News by name quite often. I also remember this(!)

Quote

On May 17, 2013, the Washington Post reported the United States Department of Justice had monitored Rosen's activities by tracking his visits to the State Department, through phone traces, timing of calls and his personal emails.

My respect for Trump and mainstream journalists is equally low. The press getting the vapors at being criticized is amusing, as if they are beyond reproach. Nobody cares if Trump yells at them (they might care if the institution of journalism had any credibility). 

This is the Internet Age. If I were Trump, I'd end the elite press' privileged access; they haven't earned it. Do daily AMAs on Reddit, force "credentialed" "journalists" to compete with citizens to have their questions up-voted along side anyone else (this is more of a fantasy, Trump is not transparent in the least). 

 

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Commodore said:

This is the Internet Age. If I were Trump, I'd end the elite press' privileged access; they haven't earned it. Do daily AMAs on Reddit, force "credentialed" "journalists" to compete with citizens to have their questions up-voted along side anyone else (this is more of a fantasy, Trump is not transparent in the least). 

 

This might be the worst idea that I've seen you post. There have been some humdingers before, but jesus.

Maybe he should just post directly in CoonTown or the other 'celebrated' areas of Reddit by the alt-right.

[Ice Queen]

4 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Trump is a world class con artist and his shady business dealings are very troubling.I think it could lead to prosecution/impeachment (for those beneath him at the least) if he doesn't get it straightened out before he takes office. 

Best case scenario is that he lets high character people like Pence/Romney/Mattis/Sessions run the country while he enjoys the trappings and attention and twitter battles. Not holding my breath though.  

I agree with your characterization of Bannon, but what do you think the implications are, policy wise?

I don't have enough historical knowledge to say how normal it is for a POTUS to be this hostile to the press. My recollection is the press and founders said much worse things about each other. 

I do recall Obama attacking Fox News by name quite often. I also remember this(!)

My respect for Trump and mainstream journalists is equally low. The press getting the vapors at being criticized is amusing, as if they are beyond reproach. Nobody cares if Trump yells at them (they might care if the institution of journalism had any credibility). 

This is the Internet Age. If I were Trump, I'd end the elite press' privileged access; they haven't earned it. Do daily AMAs on Reddit, force "credentialed" "journalists" to compete with citizens to have their questions up-voted along side anyone else (this is more of a fantasy, Trump is not transparent in the least). 

 

Reddit? Oh, great, he can pander to the alt right, white supremacists, misogynists and insecure, petty mens rights types who frequent that hell hole. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

Is that really likely? She'll be tainted, not by all the email stuff and everything else that evaporated along the way, but by simly having "lost" twice. The Democrats need someone untainted by past associations with a really good shot at taking the Presidency. Warren? The Democrats really need to start putting some thought into that.

Not likely but better than going through with the Special Prosecutor and it fails in the end,

Warren chance will be in how she will fight Trump.  If she can effectively show Trump's approaches are harmful and wrong, and even force a good change in a minority position will make her the favorite in 2020.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Commodore,

I agree with your characterization of Bannon, but what do you think the implications are, policy wise?

That, at a minimum, Trump doesn't care about White Nationalist connections.  At worst, he's sympathetic.

[A True Kaniggit]

16 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

Edit: I misread your post.  I guess you've heard of Alexander Litivenko. Anyway, as he's bragged, he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and it wouldn't make any difference.

No problem. Sorry, but the truth is I took advantage of your post to backhandly insult Trump. First by implying he wouldn't know what polonium is. And then by pointing out that if he was going to have someone poisoned, he'd probably get his plan from a show he saw on Netflix.

[mormont]

47 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

So...will tax records of candidates ever again be an issue in presidential campaigns or did Trump effectively eliminate that being a thing?

At some point, I think someone in Congress will try to make it an actual legal requirement. But for now, Trump's made it optional. Same with blind trusts. He's working on conflicts of interest, too.

28 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Best case scenario is that he lets high character people like Pence/Romney/Mattis/Sessions run the country while he enjoys the trappings and attention and twitter battles.

Bluntly, a stray dog has more 'high character' than those guys.

[Ice Queen]

10 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

No problem. Sorry, but the truth is I took advantage of your post to backhandly insult Trump. First by implying he wouldn't know what polonium is. And then by pointing out that if he was going to have someone poisoned, he'd probably get his plan from a show he saw on Netflix.

I got it.  It's the bestest show, the greatest. 

Anyway, if you don't have freedom of the press, what do you have? State run media. And we need a free press now more than ever. Had they been honest and done their job instead of looking for ratings and readership, we wouldn't be stuck with this neo-Nazi. It's time they did their jobs for a change. 

/rant

[denstorebog]

I have no idea whether Hillary would actually run, but I feel pretty confident in saying that it would be the worst idea imaginable. The Democrats need to win back some of the voters that voted in spite of Trump's failings and because of the whole dynasty connotation of the Clinton name. Very few people love Hillary enough that it would be worth another nailbiter.

[Ice Queen]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Commodore,

 

That, at a minimum, Trump doesn't care about White Nationalist connections.  At worst, he's sympathetic.

I don't know about that. Ivana Trump once said that Don slept with a book of Hitler's speeches on the nightstand. 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump grooms Ivanka for office during these four years and makes her run in 2020, instead of himself. 

That way, Trump Corp. can continue lining their pockets, while all the controversies associated with Trump in office will be forgotten because Ivanka would be running and not him.

[Prince of the North]

59 minutes ago, aceluby said:

It will be a thing again once a Democrat tries pulling this.  Just like emails were a thing, but Pence can get away w/ covering his up.  PC is bad until things are said about Republicans.  Deficits are bad unless we're giving the rich a HUGE tax cut.  Infrastructure investments can't be done unless a Republican is President.  The ACA is totally completely bad until they have the opportunity to repeal it and then have to actually come up with an alternative.  Hypocrisy ad nauseum...

Agreed.  It won't be surprising that the GOP will ignore Trump not releasing his while demanding Dems release theirs - that's to be expected.  What's galling will be how this hypocrisy will carry the day with large swaths of the public as well. 

54 minutes ago, Mexal said:

It sets precedent that's for sure. Whether it becomes a recurring action, we'll never know but what Trump proved is it won't stop 60m people from voting for him so I doubt anyone would plan on opening themselves up to that type of criticism again. One of the other issues now is the Trump Foundation doesn't have to file tax returns for at least a year after donations come in. So he could in theory use the Trump Foundation, take in donations and no one would be the wiser for a year or two.

Yep.  And something like that will only be a small part of the naked graft that we're already beginning to see.  Was it ever about anything else?

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

At some point, I think someone in Congress will try to make it an actual legal requirement. But for now, Trump's made it optional. Same with blind trusts. He's working on conflicts of interest, too.

I'd like to see that legal requirement...but I think it could be difficult.  After all, why would the majority party do it and how could the minority party do it (as a rider, maybe)?

12 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I have no idea whether Hillary would actually run, but I feel pretty confident in saying that it would be the worst idea imaginable. The Democrats need to win back some of the voters that voted in spite of Trump's failings and because of the whole dynasty connotation of the Clinton name. Very few people love Hillary enough that it would be worth another nailbiter.

Yes, unfortunately, Hillary's time is done.  Time for the Dems to find/develop some new blood.

[mormont]

It's one thing to run again after failing to win the nomination. It's another to run after failing to win the election. And it's another again to run after doing both in quick succession. Clinton is not a viable candidate. She won't run again, and even if she did she'd crash and burn in the primary.

[BloodRider]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I guessed that the Trumpsters may not do this. I mean they're frickin dumb, but maybe not that dumb. They'd have to know this wouldn't go very well for them or was at least fraught with danger.

With regard to Trump supporters, I know, oh I definitely will have to give them a big helpin of shit over this, pointing out the reason it didn't happen was because there was nothing there in the first place.

I think the correct tactic is to tell the Trumpsters that the reason why it didn't happen is because Trump got paid off by Wall Street.  

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

I think the correct tactic is to tell the Trumpsters that the reason why it didn't happen is because Trump got paid off by Wall Street.  

Well, whatever the reason, I think it's important to remind conservatives that they got played.

[butterbumps!]

32 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump grooms Ivanka for office during these four years and makes her run in 2020, instead of himself. 

That way, Trump Corp. can continue lining their pockets, while all the controversies associated with Trump in office will be forgotten because Ivanka would be running and not him.

That might be a goal, but It looks like she'll be pretty equally mired in scandal too.   She's a big part of these Conflicts of interest and nepotism allegations.

And I'm not sure how much longer the branding narrative of her being the "smart, rational, good one" will last with her increasing presence in this shit show.     

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

WRT the House, I thought the Republicans led by about 50-47% in national terms of vote share.  If so, even without gerrymandering, they'd likely have won a majority.

Nope. Other way around.

[Fez]

If someone could delete that first post of mine above this one, that'd be awesome. Something weird happened.

 

Anyway, the live tweets of Trump's meeting with the New York Times are fascinating. For the most part he sounds like someone who very badly wants the approval and acceptance of the editorial board there; likely because he's spent his whole life viewing them as the ultimate authority figure. He also sounds like Obama's been working him over on a lot of policy stuff; or at least trying to.

[Little Scribe of Naath]

11 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

That might be a goal, but It looks like she'll be pretty equally mired in scandal too.   She's a big part of these Conflicts of interest and nepotism allegations.

And I'm not sure how much longer the branding narrative of her being the "smart, rational, good one" will last with her increasing presence in this shit show.     

It all depends on what the Trump base believes. If she goes around giving speeches regularly, acting "smart" and "polished" in public, the Trumpsters are going to be impressed. They're already handwaving all these "conflict of interest" allegations involving DJT, I highly doubt they're going to look into Ivanka's role in this.

Also, we'll have the fake news train going forward in full speed courtesy Bannon, Infowars and rogues who want to make a quick buck. They'll do their best to paint Ivanka in a very flattering light the next 4 years if this is really the plan.

[butterbumps!]

24 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

It all depends on what the Trump base believes. If she goes around giving speeches regularly, acting "smart" and "polished" in public, the Trumpsters are going to be impressed. They're already handwaving all these "conflict of interest" allegations involving DJT, I highly doubt they're going to look into Ivanka's role in this.

Also, we'll have the fake news train going forward in full speed courtesy Bannon, Infowars and rogues who want to make a quick buck. They'll do their best to paint Ivanka in a very flattering light the next 4 years if this is really the plan.

I definitely agree this is a frightening possibility, and something we should be vigilant about.   I don't mean to dismiss this idea.   

My thought was more that the demographics that had been favorable to her are no longer very impressed with her generally, and becoming more critical.  I think her base is largely comprised of woman trump voters now (or at least increasingly so as her formerly tolerant parties seem to be losing patience, and are not the ones typically reading white nationalist agitprop)

While she may remain popular with women trump voters, I can't see her going into the white nationalism that propelled her father.   Nor does she project the toxic masculinity that so many of his fans were attracted to.