U.S. Politics: Courting Trump

[Altherion]

40 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You have to be a special kind of idiot to think Trump isn't a hostile power in government.  He is decidedly so.  You also have to be a special kind of dumb to think the electorate will be able to simply vote him out in four years.  You're not paying attention at all if you think he's going to go away easily.  That's ignoring the incredible damage he's doing so far and will continue to do.  

I have not seen anything from Trump so far that would indicate that he would not leave if he fails to win reelection.

21 minutes ago, Relic said:

What the fuck are you saying? Who is the electorate Trump is accountable to? Who is going to hold him accountable?

The millions of people who voted for him. If they do feel that he has done right by them, they will not vote for him again.

13 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Well time will tell.......But i'm not too encouraged from what i'm seeing and reading thus far.

The disturbing thing about Trump is that he appears unable to acknowledge when he's wrong. He seems to approach each challenge in a combative mode, he's not a measured man. I'm not seeing the wisdom one should expect from a leader in the highest office. Its all "Shoot from the hip" with him and that will only get you so far when you have the kind of responsibilities he has now. Its pretty concerning.

I don't think this is a manner of being unable to acknowledge when he is wrong. He has, in fact, done that when it was warranted (see his reaction to the "locker room talk" tape). The reason he behaves this way is that in today's political climate, acknowledging that one is wrong is almost always the wrong move. Think about what happens to politicians who do acknowledge wrongdoing:  usually, the more they grovel, the more the media hammers them and they almost always lose influence. Trump figured out that rather than apologizing, he is almost always better off doubling down and attacking his detractors. The exceptions are situations in which 80%+ of the population would strongly agree that he is wrong and in this case he does apologize and try to minimize the extent of his actions.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

That is one way to look at it. However, there is another and I think that a lot of people would find it more compelling: unelected bureaucrats are keeping information from the lawfully elected president. Think about: even if you don't like Trump, you have to acknowledge that he was elected according to the laws of our nation and if he does not behave according to the preference of his constituents, they will vote him out in four years. Thus, Trump is accountable to the electorate. On the other hand, who are these people accountable to except themselves? There are hostile powers in the government, but the CIC is not one of them...

Maybe because he has proven to be a potential intelligence risk? I think that's a fair position to take at this point considering the Flynn story. And the CIC not hostile? Threatening judges, saber rattling towards China and Iran, the dismantling of many bureaus, an all out assualt on the press, disparaging the Intelligence Community before he even took office, etc, etc. How the hell do you define hostile? 

[Samantha Stark]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Maybe because he has proven to be a potential intelligence risk? I think that's a fair position to take at this point considering the Flynn story. And the CIC not hostile? Threatening judges, saber rattling towards China and Iran, the dismantling of many bureaus, an all out assualt on the press, disparaging the Intelligence Community before he even took office, etc, etc. How the hell do you define hostile? 

I thought the left wanted Hillary to win because they thought she would be tougher on potential threats like Iran and China? And since when is shrinking the size of government a bad thing?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

I thought the left wanted Hillary to win because they thought she would be tougher on potential threats like Iran and China? And since when is shrinking the size of government a bad thing?

Not sure what would give you that idea. It is fair to portray Hillary as a bit of a hawk, but I think that was a negative for most liberal voters. It was for me in any case. And to suggest that Hillary would be tough on China is laughable. The Clintons have been in bed with the Chinese since the late 80's. They were a centerpiece of the campaign finance scandal that hounded Bill Clinton's administration in 1996.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

I thought the left wanted Hillary to win because they thought she would be tougher on potential threats like Iran and China? And since when is shrinking the size of government a bad thing?

Shrinking the EPA and Public Education are horrible ideas in this day and age. We need these agencies more so now than ever.

[DireWolfSpirit]

11 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

I thought the left wanted Hillary to win because they thought she would be tougher on potential threats like Iran and China? And since when is shrinking the size of government a bad thing?

A lot of liberals were just the opposite of this actually. For them they were wary of Clintons Hawkishness. The Nation magazine cited that complaint primarily (the hawkishness) when they endorsed Bernie Sanders (over Hillary). I think the election was a rejection of both neoliberals and neocons. Many Americans fealt it was an election with no good options to support.

[James Arryn]

Altherion, you seem to cite this 'rage' and frustration people feel with...well, w/e form of society/government/other Trump is manifestly opposing at any given moment...as though that somehow validates both the enraged and Trump. I wonder if that's how you feel. Putting it to Godwin's test, can I ask you if you agree that this is a true statement:

In Germany in the mid 20th century, there were many who believed that a Jewish elite were largely controlling the government, reaping the benefits of gentile labour and controlling the media to keep the masses ignorant of this fact. 

 

Edit: please don't retreat into some version of 'regardless of whether we agree with it, people feel this way so it needs to be addressed' or w/e. Same is/would be true for my statement. I am wondering merely if you agree that many people felt that way at the time. 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Opinion polls and votes show that Putin is popular (anecdotally Putin is quite popular with the Russians I know).  Could those be manipulated? Sure. Does that mean the Russian opposition is effective? Nope, I'm not aware of there being any major victories against Putin despite years of effort.

Sympathy for Stalin among Russians still high, poll shows

https://www.rt.com/politics/337183-sympathy-for-stalin-among-russians/

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

I thought the left wanted Hillary to win because they thought she would be tougher on potential threats like Iran and China? 

Then, really, you don't know much. Many on the left actually had a bit of problem with Hillary's intervetionist and hawkish tendencies. That said, she still was much better than Trump.

Also our relationships with China and Iran are very complicated. And Trump just doesn't have the policy understanding to deal with these issues well. Nor does he seem to have the temperament or judgment to deal with them well.

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

 And since when is shrinking the size of government a bad thing?

See this is conservative bull pucky at its finest. When US conservatives go around talking about big government or whatever, they often mean things like Social Security and Medicare, programs that are really popular, but which do account for a large portion of US spending.

Also, "big government" is pretty much a conservative canard. People want government to do some things and they don't want it to do others. The whole thing is a useless concept. It's better to talk about specific policies and specific programs than some vague concept like "big government" or "shrinking the size of government".

Getting rid of some agency or program because it's useless or doesn't serve a very useful purpose is one thing. Just getting rid of things under the rationale of "shrinking the size of government" is something else.

But it would seem, rather than talking about specific policies and issues, some would just like to parrot a tired old cliche they heard from Rush Limbaugh.

[James Arryn]

58 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

I thought the left wanted Hillary to win because they thought she would be tougher on potential threats like Iran and China? And since when is shrinking the size of government a bad thing?

No, what? Her hawkishness was what made my support for her so grudging. I said many times before the election that a 'normal' GOP candidate would probably have me pretty apathetic about who won, and I'm pretty hard core left wing on most issues. (Edit: by American standards)

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Busta directly saluted Trump as “President Agent Orange” before “congratulating” him on his unsuccessful Muslim ban (a subject that’s very personal to Tribe members Q-Tip and Ali Shaheed Muhammad, who are both Muslim). Integrated seamlessly into the performance of their song “We the People”—itself a fierce denunciation of fear and intolerance—the performance made for the kind of genuinely moving political statement that awards shows all too rarely provide, as the group used their platform to bring Muslims onstage as a visible reminder of the very real victims of these actions. And while brief statements of unity were sprinkled throughout the evening, the song’s devastating hook (written in the voice of a very Trump-esque hatemonger) brought all these messages together:

All you black folks, you must go
All you Mexicans, you must go
And all you poor folks, you must go
Muslims and gays, boy, we hate your ways
So all you bad folks, you must go

 

A Tribe Called Quest Showed the Grammys How Political Statements Are Done

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2017/02/13/a_tribe_called_quest_showed_the_grammys_how_political_statements_are_done.html

 

Trump and the Right-Wing Populist Tradition of Judge-Bashing

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/trump-and-the-right-wing-populist-tradition-of-judge-bashing.html

[Altherion]

21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Maybe because he has proven to be a potential intelligence risk?

You seem to be thinking of intelligence as something that is controlled by the various agencies. It is not. The President cannot be a potential intelligence risk because the intelligence agencies report to him and not the other way around -- he is the ultimate authority on what should be revealed. Whether the intelligence that the President chooses to reveal should remain classified is not their call to make. If the people believe that he is misusing his access to the information, they can vote him out in the next election. If enough people believe that what he is doing presents an urgent danger that cannot wait until then, Congress can impeach him or the cabinet can declare him unfit. Until that happens, the President gets to say whatever he wants no matter how classified the intelligence agencies believe the information should be.

58 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And the CIC not hostile? Threatening judges, saber rattling towards China and Iran, the dismantling of many bureaus, an all out assualt on the press, disparaging the Intelligence Community before he even took office, etc, etc. How the hell do you define hostile?

Well yes, he is hostile to the establishment. What I meant was that he was not hostile to the nation.

18 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Altherion, you seem to cite this 'rage' and frustration people feel with...well, w/e form of society/government/other Trump is manifestly opposing at any given moment...as though that somehow validates both the enraged and Trump. I wonder if that's how you feel. Putting it to Godwin's test, can I ask you if you agree that this is a true statement:

In Germany in the mid 20th century, there were many who believed that a Jewish elite were largely controlling the government, reaping the benefits of gentile labour and controlling the media to keep the masses ignorant of this fact.

Sure. In general, there have been significant numbers of angry people before any historical upheaval and it is almost certain that at least part of the anger is directed at people who, by any reasonable interpretation, were not responsible for the plight of the angry and could not have done anything about the latter even if they wanted to.

31 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Edit: please don't retreat into some version of 'regardless of whether we agree with it, people feel this way so it needs to be addressed' or w/e. Same is/would be true for my statement. I am wondering merely if you agree that many people felt that way at the time.

You kind of set your self up for that reply with that "validates" comment.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

You seem to be thinking of intelligence as something that is controlled by the various agencies. It is not. The President cannot be a potential intelligence risk because the intelligence agencies report to him and not the other way around -- he is the ultimate authority on what should be revealed. Whether the intelligence that the President chooses to reveal should remain classified is not their call to make. If the people believe that he is misusing his access to the information, they can vote him out in the next election. If enough people believe that what he is doing presents an urgent danger that cannot wait until then, Congress can impeach him or the cabinet can declare him unfit. Until that happens, the President gets to say whatever he wants no matter how classified the intelligence agencies believe the information should be.

 

Well yes, he is hostile to the establishment. What I meant was that he was not hostile to the nation.

 

 Eh, not sure how you would expect them to operate in this fashion given what has been occurring. He basically called the CIA idiots before and after the Russian Hacking debriefing. His visit with them right after the inauguration was awkward and insulting. His National Security Adviser just got caught in a very compromising lie. Sure, they report to him, but if they don't trust him how much do you think they are going to be bothered to report? He picked a fight with the Intelligence Apparatus before he even took office. Now he's reaping the benefits.

 

I guess if you don't consider the undocumented part of this nation then you might be kinda right. I consider many of his cabinet nominees to be hostile to agencies that I feel are very important to this nation. So I'd have to disagree.

[Kalbear]

The idea that the president can simply choose what to reveal is not remotely true. They do not have the authority to classify or reclassify information. 

The security groups are tasked with giving him that information provided that they feel it is safe. That is their judgment call to make and is subject to oversight. Potus does not get to make that call without anything else.

[Martell Spy]

Report: Puzder Owes Millions to Bank

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/02/12/report-puzder-owes-millions-to-bank.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

[Altherion]

46 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The idea that the president can simply choose what to reveal is not remotely true. They do not have the authority to classify or reclassify information.

As far as I can tell, the President does actually have that authority. Here's an old Washington Post article:

Quote

Experts said the power to classify and declassify documents in the federal government flows from the president and is often delegated down the chain of command. In March 2003, Bush signed an executive order delegating declassification authority to Cheney.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? I suppose if Congress made a law that made something secret, the President might have to abide by it (or maybe not), but classification is an artifact of the executive branch and the President has control of it.

51 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The security groups are tasked with giving him that information provided that they feel it is safe. That is their judgment call to make and is subject to oversight. Potus does not get to make that call without anything else.

The President is the one who ultimately makes the decisions so withholding information from him would be an unmitigated disaster. Thus, I sure hope that it doesn't work that way. Again, do you have a link?

[mormont]

Altherion: one view you appear to share with Trump (among many) is that the US is an elective dictatorship, not a democracy.

There is more to a democracy than 'I won so now everyone must accept my authority in all things'. There are checks and balances, guarantees, systems of protection and safeguards that aren't subservient to the winner but serve to protect everyone.

[butterbumps!]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

I have not seen anything from Trump so far that would indicate that he would not leave if he fails to win reelection.

What about his multiple failures to promise he'd accept the election results if he lost?    What about his remarkable insistence that he actually won the popular by a landslide?  What about his incessant proclamations of voter fraud?     He might not be successful at it, but I couldn't say I'm super confident he wouldn't try to pull some ridiculous stunt in the event he lost.

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

Well yes, he is hostile to the establishment. What I meant was that he was not hostile to the nation.

How are you defining "establishment" vs "nation"?   He, and his administration, is pretty hostile to very large segments of the population, is working against the economic interests of pretty much everyone except "the elites," appears to be unable to separate "good for me" and "good for country," flagrantly abuses his position for personal gain, doesn't seem to read the EOs put in front of him, refuses security briefings, and needlessly compromises relations with foreign allies.   That, plus the issues Manhole mentioned (specifically undermining the judiciary branch), strikes me as kind of a hostile danger to the country.

[maarsen]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

You seem to be thinking of intelligence as something that is controlled by the various agencies. It is not. The President cannot be a potential intelligence risk because the intelligence agencies report to him and not the other way around -- he is the ultimate authority on what should be revealed. Whether the intelligence that the President chooses to reveal should remain classified is not their call to make. If the people believe that he is misusing his access to the information, they can vote him out in the next election. If enough people believe that what he is doing presents an urgent danger that cannot wait until then, Congress can impeach him or the cabinet can declare him unfit. Until that happens, the President gets to say whatever he wants no matter how classified the intelligence agencies believe the information should be.

Well yes, he is hostile to the establishment. What I meant was that he was not hostile to the nation.

Sure. In general, there have been significant numbers of angry people before any historical upheaval and it is almost certain that at least part of the anger is directed at people who, by any reasonable interpretation, were not responsible for the plight of the angry and could not have done anything about the latter even if they wanted to.

You kind of set your self up for that reply with that "validates" comment.

Imagine this conversation.

"Vlad old buddy, you'll never guess what I heard in my latest intelligence briefing.  That minister that you are so up on, turns out he works for the CIA. Imagine that!"

Orange Dumbo can't be an intelligence risk? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Altherion: one view you appear to share with Trump (among many) is that the US is an elective dictatorship, not a democracy.

There is more to a democracy than 'I won so now everyone must accept my authority in all things'. There are checks and balances, guarantees, systems of protection and safeguards that aren't subservient to the winner but serve to protect everyone.

Mormont,

No.  I do not believe that is what Altherion said.  In the limited context of intelligence agencies that are part of the Executive Branch, of which the President of the United States is literally the person in charge, being the person in charge gives the POTUS the power to say what information shall and shall not remain in classified status.

Now, if any intelligence agencies are "independent agencies" that do not report to the POTUS with regard to intelligence information obtained by such an independent agency and provided to the POTUS I believe the analysis would be different.  The key is whether or not the agency is directly part of the executive branch or independent.  If the leaders of the agency serve at the pleasure of the POTUS then the POTUS would, I believe, have the power to declassify information.