US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

[James Arryn]

I am actually bracing myself for wider usage of the old 'obviously Hitler went way too far, but' or 'people don't realize that communism killed more than fascism!' rhetoric in mainstream discourse. 

[DunderMifflin]

Yeh don't be dissin communism. 

[denstorebog]

43 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I guess I don't really see how the wiretapping tweets could possibly matter to Trump supporters.  Trump has upset "presidential norms" and made demonstrably false claims countless times in the past couple years.  Why would this time be different?

The difference with the wiretapping claim, IMO, is that this has received a lot more attention than his previous throwaway, late-night accusations. And there will be a lot of interest / focus on the hearings involving Comey. Meaning that there'll likely be more of a resolution to this particular Trump fuck-up than others, one that's not so easy to dismiss.

Many Trump supporters are more ambivalent about their Führer than you'd think. If you look at the Rasmussen polls, which measure both "approve/disapprove" and "strongly approve/disapprove", you'll see that ~60% of his supporters are strong supporters, while a whopping ~80% of the disapprovers are strong disapprovers. That means that there's a lot more room for losing supporters than for converting disapprovers at the moment.

There are different reasons why certain supporters are losing faith in Trump at the moment, healthcare obviously being the big one. But other reasons range from Trump starting to look weak and not as unassailable as he was during the election, to people growing tired of his antics (a clear majority want him to cut down on his Twitter). Both of these reasons, while applicable to very different types of supporters, could come into play if Trump is forced to walk back on his accusations for once. He'll never apologize, of course, but strong statements from the FBI or other GOP lawmakers, followed by Trump softening his statements (which were very unambiguous in this instance), followed by the media pouncing on / mocking his walkbacks, could very well amount to the same thing.

(Oh, there's a another thing - Trump's first rally is coming up, followed by others. If he really goes through with attaching himself strongly to Ryancare, that opens up a whole new avenue for disaster. Sites like Breitbart have been adamant in hating on the bill, but blaming Ryan and the "RINOs" for the whole thing while keeping Trump clear of the mess. That might be harder to pull off if the man himself starts doing a Rah Rah Healthcare Tour in person.)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

not sure you can pin this all on healthcare.

Agreed. My best guess, assuming those numbers are accurate, is that some Republicans who tried to convince themselves that Trump would change once he became President are finally starting to realize that he won't and thus aren't very supportive of him anymore.

[James Arryn]

I think what we've seen with the wiretapping (sic) furor is the greatest divide between Trump and Average Joe, not in terms of accuracy, but in terms of gravity/significance. For Trump, and I think this is pretty reasonable, this seemed like just another accusation, not unlike Lock Her Up, et al. But most AJ's pretty quickly got the fact that this was a direct accusation of criminal activity by a President, which (IMO hypocritically) upped the stakes several notches. 

Then, too, this is in the wake of declaring the media enemies of the state, and where I think normally a chunk of media types would have softened the blow (or ignored it if it could be rationalized as campaign rhetoric) he now didn't get that protection. And, lastly, this seemed to me to be the Trump move that most caught his staff flat-footed and IMO their struggles to defend something they didn't even understand and constant back-tracking were even more obvious than previously, and if he lost ground there I think this might be where/how he lost most of it. 

That said, I only think this lasts as long as it takes to find another stalking horse. An international incident of some kind might very well be on the immediate horizon.

[denstorebog]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed. My best guess, assuming those numbers are accurate, is that some Republicans who tried to convince themselves that Trump would change once he became President are finally starting to realize that he won't and thus aren't very supportive of him anymore.

This is anecdotal, but funny: For reasons I'm having a hard time understanding myself, I went to Breitbart yesterday and checked out a couple of articles, mainly to gauge the commenters' reaction to healthcare and other things. There were a lot of comments expressing apathy and disillusionment with Trump along the lines of "it seems like everyone who goes to Washington changes overnight" and "why the fuck did I expect that this time would be different?"

I'll probably head back into the hellhole in the near future to see if this is a trend, because if that's the case ... interesting times ahead for the shit-gibbon.

[DunderMifflin]

40 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Exactly.  The term is becoming more mainstream and homogenous nationalism in America now has a major voice in policy making.  The fact that a racist white supremacist has any success just changing his 'brand' shows how successful this trend has become over the last year.

Apparently every Republican since the Southern strategy has had success changing the name of their nazi brand, shouldn't be anything new. Calling every person that runs agains a Democrat a nazi probably takes a lot more bite out of the Nazi term than rebranding it ever could though.

crying wolf gets old and eventually "no this time it's a nazi for real" falls on deaf ears

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

This is anecdotal, but funny: For reasons I'm having a hard time understanding myself, I went to Breitbart yesterday and checked out a couple of articles, mainly to gauge the commenters' reaction to healthcare and other things. There were a lot of comments expressing apathy and disillusionment with Trump along the lines of "it seems like everyone who goes to Washington changes overnight" and "why the fuck did I expect that this time would be different?"

I'll probably head back into the hellhole in the near future to see if this is a trend, because if that's the case ... interesting times ahead for the shit-gibbon.

What's depressing about that is it reduces him by normalization. I mean, where's your head at when Donald Trump is iyo erring on the side of normalcy?

[DunderMifflin]

Trump looks like he's set to return the civilian mauling drone striking to Obama levels of normalcy. CIA is back in the the drone dropping business. 

Too bad killing brown civilians is an issue with bipartisan support or else he'd have some splainin to do.

[Paladin of Ice]

Largely unnoticed on Monday, Trump signed an Executive Order telling every head of an Executive Agency to see which parts of their agency should be cut, or if their agency should be cut altogether and its functions left to the state or the private sector. The reports are due in 6 months

Direct link to Executive Order text.

Key parts of the order.

Quote

(c) Within 180 days... the Director shall submit to the President a proposed plan to reorganize the executive branch in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of agencies. The proposed plan shall include, as appropriate, recommendations to eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs, and to merge functions. The proposed plan shall include recommendations for any legislation or administrative measures necessary to achieve the proposed reorganization.

(d) In developing the proposed plan described in subsection (c) of this section, the Director shall consider, in addition to any other relevant factors:

(i) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise;

(ii) whether some or all of the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are redundant, including with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iii) whether certain administrative capabilities necessary for operating an agency, a component, or a program are redundant with those of another agency, component, or program;

(iv) whether the costs of continuing to operate an agency, a component, or a program are justified by the public benefits it provides; and

(v) the costs of shutting down or merging agencies, components, or programs, including the costs of addressing the equities of affected agency staff.

It's worth remembering that just about every agency under the Executive Branch (Justice, State, Treasury Education, EPA, etc.) has been put under the "care" of people with idealogical or financial reasons to want to shut them down, reduce their scope, or reduce their ability to function. Get ready to say goodbye to every program offered by any of these departments that don't directly benefit anyone who's not a conservative rich white American male and/or a Trump family member or crony.

I don't know if Steve Bannon is going to be able to live out his fantasy of burning down the country, but he's certainly going to give it his best shot, especially when it comes to the Executive Branch.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Too bad killing brown civilians is an issue with bipartisan support or else he'd have some splainin to do.

What the fuck is this bipartisan support you speak of?

[DunderMifflin]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

What the fuck is this bipartisan support you speak of?

US droned like 7 countries during the obama years. And they are extremely innacurate.

Not racist if you kill them, totally racist if you don't allow them into your country though.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

US droned like 7 countries during the obama years. And they are extremely innacurate.

Not racist if you kill them, totally racist if you don't allow them into your country though.

And Obama had bipartisan support to do this? Liberals downplayed it, for sure, but I don't recall a lot of conservative support for those acts.

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And Obama had bipartisan support to do this? Liberals downplayed it, for sure, but I don't recall a lot of conservative support for those acts.

I call blind eye support.

Obama was maniacal with them, Trump looks set to even outpace him. 

[Paladin of Ice]

New travel ban gets put on hold by Hawaiian judge

A federal judge in Hawaii has frozen President Trump’s new executive order temporarily barring the issuance of new visas to citizens of six-Muslim majority countries and suspending the admission of new refugees.

U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson froze the order nationwide.

Watson was the second of three judges to hear arguments Wednesday on whether to freeze the ban. A federal judge in Maryland said he also could rule before day’s end after a morning hearing, and the same federal judge in Washington state who suspended Trump’s first travel ban was set to hear arguments starting at 5 p.m. Eastern.

The hearing in Hawaii came in response to a lawsuit filed by the state itself. Lawyers for Hawaii alleged the new travel ban, much like the old, violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is essentially a Muslim ban, hurts the ability of state businesses and universities to recruit top talent and damages the state’s robust tourism industry.

[denstorebog]

28 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

New travel ban gets put on hold by Hawaiian judge

Oh God, this is just ... I can't ...

Look, I know we're in the middle of autocracy in the making, the demolition of the US state apparatus, a choke hold on democracy, etc. But I just can't stop laughing. Maybe it's the thought of Trump's reaction to this while sitting in his bathrobe, watching Fox News alone. I don't know. But for some reason this is slowly moving from terrifying to absurdly comical for me. Like watching a monkey trying to be a dictator and meeting reality at every turn.

I probably won't be laughing about any of half a year from now, so please let me have this now.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Oh God, this is just ... I can't ...

Look, I know we're in the middle of autocracy in the making, the demolition of the US state apparatus, a choke hold on democracy, etc. But I just can't stop laughing. Maybe it's the thought of Trump's reaction, sitting in his bathrobe. I don't know. But for some reason this is slowly moving from terrifying to absurdly comical for me. Like watching a monkey trying to be a dictator and meeting resistance everywhere.

I probably won't be laughing in half a year, so please let me have this now.

Thank Dog the Judiciary is stepping up. Congress sure as hell hasn't shown the balls to do it.

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Agreed. My best guess, assuming those numbers are accurate, is that some Republicans who tried to convince themselves that Trump would change once he became President are finally starting to realize that he won't and thus aren't very supportive of him anymore.

yeah, that's my thinking as well.  Here's hoping you're right......

[The Anti-Targ]

Is it true that the 2 for 1 regulation thing only applies to regulations with a regulatory impact of >$100 million? I can see a whole lot of regulation going through at <$100 million regulatory impact. So easy to manipulate regulation making to get below that threshold. Probably the easiest way is to make 2, 3 or 4  <$100 million impact regs rather than 1 >$100 million impact reg.

Canada is just going through a process of consolidating its food regs to roll 13 separate regs into 1. And it is just as easy to do the opposite and create 13 regs instead of 1. 

I also see Madow is blaming the audience for having too high expectations for her Trump tax return piece. Well, it was her that tried to create some hype pre-show, for the viewers. You have totally lost the PR battle when you start talking shit about your viewers. She should just shut up and move on to something more substantial. Like Trump's false accusation of a serious crime against Obama.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Thank Dog the Judiciary is stepping up. Congress sure as hell hasn't shown the balls to do it.

What do you mean? I would think congress (or rather the party in the majority, or rather a significant and influential faction within the party of the majority) wants what Trump is selling.

It's not like in the primaries the candidates were particularly divergent on the evilness of Islam. They all thought Obama was weak, they all wanted a president who would openly say Islamic terrorism, and they all wanted to cause the Islamic world in general (with the exception of Saudi Arabia and a few other Gulf states) a whole lot of hurt.

The difference between them and Trump is that they mostly knew a travel ban probably would not fly, constitutionally speaking. But if they could make it fly constitutionally they would probably go for it. So they are more than happy for Trump to try to make it fly, constitutionally. Republicans win either way. Either Trump fails, again, and is weakened and further embarrassed, which means the rise of establishment Republicans. Or Trump succeeds and the dirty Muslims get punished by a Republican hero with the heroic Republican supporters basking in the reflected glory. In the case of the former outcome they might have to swallow an electoral defeat in 2018 as a consequence of this and other failings. But that will mostly be RINOs who exit stage left anyway