A new US Republican thread 2016

[seebart]

For webwit: "THE WEDDING PARTY MASSACRE" as part of an article on the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, SEAL Team 6:

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the ... al-team-6/

[vivalarevolución]

You seem triggered anytime a compliment is lobbed in the direction of Obama or the Democratic Party. I never said anything about Obama bringing about real changes. All I said is that real changes take more than speeches, but actual hard work. I personally can't stand speechifying (in most cases).

Regardless of what you think about US foreign policy, there have been some significant changes in domestic policy and trends under the Obama presidency. How much Obama had to do with it and whether the changes were entirely positive, that is a matter of debate.

But yea, our two parties do a great job of upholding the plutocracy, waging foreign war, and rallying their bases, while creating the semblance of choice, etc., the usual...

These Democrats... If you voted for fascist wedding bombers and wagers of oil wars, if you always made a conscious effort to look away and excuse the murdering, if you voted for that unprecedented Stasi hund, if you voted for a new cold war, then you should shut up forever about democracy and freedom, about how well Obama supposedly did elsewhere, about how much Trump sucks, about how much Republicans suck. You have lost any moral right to do so. You still don't get it. Trump is exactly what you begged for and deserved for all that shit. And still they continue, worse than ever... It's a low learning curve. It is a negative learning curve.

The first step to get rid of Trump and the republicans would be to get rid of your democrats and make a clean sweep, to provide a viable alternative.

Well yea, obviously.

The first candidate I ever supported was Ralph Nader. The Democrats showed their true colors when they terrorized him in 2000 because he represented a threat to their victory. Not much about political party operation has changed since then.

[fohat]

make a clean sweep, to provide a viable alternative

An entrenched bi-polar system with a juggernaut of inertia is not something that can be swept aside. At best it can be steered incrementally.

And there is no "viable alternative" anywhere on the horizon, anyway.

We are about to see, perhaps, the most abrupt and drastic course change since the one after the 1860 election.

[seebart]

We are about to see, perhaps, the most abrupt and drastic course change since the one after the 1860 election.

That harsh eh? I somehow have a feeling team Trump will be quite busy themselfs just keeping the old man in line...

[fohat]

keeping the old man in line ....

I do not believe that anybody has any intention of "keeping Trump in line" at all. I believe that the more bluster and controversy that he is able to generate around his personality, the happier his administration will be.

Trump will do nothing, but the rabid-ultra-ultra-right-wing ideologues hiding behind his shadows will be working triple-overtime in their efforts to dismantle everything that is good and honorable in the American system of governance and to accelerate the transfer of wealth to the already super-rich.

They will stroke his ego and he will sign anything that they put in front of him.

[seebart]

The way that press conference went I'd be concerned about "keeping the old man in line ...." if I was on team Trump.

[fohat]

on team Trump

There is no "Team Trump" - he is a lonely vacuous figurehead.

It is "Team Bannon/Pence/Ryan" and no one should delude himself that it isn't.

[seebart]

To me its just "team Trump". I'm pretty sure he'd be lost without whoever is on "his team".

[vivalarevolución]

This one is for webwit!

http://www.cbs46.com/category/306621/re ... -ben-swann

[Parak]

They will stroke his ego and he will sign anything that they put in front of him.

I can't resist:

[webwit]

I thought nothing much of him before except as some showbiz business man in fields that didn't interest me. For better or for worse, the guy just beat the entire apparatus of both the Republican and Democrat parties, quite some powers, I would not underestimate him now.

[fohat]

I would not underestimate him now.

But he has no ideological agenda. All he cares about are money and personal gratification.

My fear stems from the fact that he has no real assets and colossal debt, and that this is all just a play to feather his own nest. He is plenty happy to let the evil ones do whatever they want, as long as he can pull off his "long con" and gets public adoration in the meantime. It is the termites who avoid the light of day that will do the real damage.

[webwit]

I don't know the guy, I couldn't tell. Where did you get your info?

If I have to guess, a business man doesn't run for president for the money (it costs you) but for power or ego. In any case, good luck with your Trump. He has surrounded himself with an army of creeps. It's not just your country. In our country, Wilders is leading the polls. The only good thing about that is that it disgusts the establishment. Same thing.

[fohat]

This is just the beginning:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... -tells-all

[jacobolus]

Trump isn’t really a “businessman” in any traditional sense. His business dealings pretty much consist of taking on loans and then refusing to pay them back, understating his tax liabilities and using shady if not illegal tax loopholes, taking public money in unethical possibly illegal ways (e.g. taking money for post September 11 rebuilding for his properties which were not impacted in any way), hiring people for jobs and then never paying them, illegally funneling money in and out of corporate entities and then taking them through bankruptcy once they’ve been emptied out, using his personal charity as a bank account, getting paid via settlements after bogus lawsuit threats and avoiding paying out what he owes when others sue him, claiming various philanthropic acts which turn out to be complete fabrications, scamming vulnerable/gullible people (e.g. Trump University), making shady deals with mobsters, and in general being a promoter/salesman/conman. He has avoided consequences for his various failures and frauds by being so aggressive and obnoxious to deal with that trying to get money owed out of him was more trouble for everyone than just cutting losses and promising to never work with him in the future. As they say, “there’s a sucker born every minute”, and Trump the parasite has successfully been able to hop his way from host to clueless host over the decades.

All of his real “businesses” up until his TV show were abysmal failures, losing vast sums of money for his lenders, investors, partners, contractors, and clients/customers. Somehow Trump himself was the only one who managed to skate through it all relatively unscathed. (Though since we haven’t seen his tax returns, we don’t really know how deep his debts run. It’s possible his net worth is actually negative.) He managed to drive dozens of businesses out of business, single-handedly ruin a famous gambling city, single-handedly bankrupt a whole sports league, etc.

His one big money maker has been large-scale investments in Manhattan real estate during a period where real estate values in Manhattan have gone up several-fold. But overall it’s still likely that if he’d taken the original money given to him by his father and just stuck it into index funds and sat on the couch watching TV his whole life, he’d be richer now than he is (all the people he has screwed would certainly be richer).

He’s a masterful salesman in the grand American tradition of snake oil, carnival barkers, Ponzi schemes, and various entertainments and frauds large and small. I’d say he’s one of the best conmen (perhaps the best) in a generation.

Of course, the things he has always wanted and never was able to obtain (hence his lifelong misery) are (1) the love and respect of his father, and (2) recognition/respect from the socialites and celebrities of New York City, to whom he has never been more than a punchline.

[Kurplop]

I'm at a loss to understand why a few Americans here want to continue to echo the complaints of the small but loud ALT-Left movement against Trump. Most Democrats, as well as Republicans and Independents, have reluctantly accepted his presidency and are moving on. Sure, we should hold him accountable and disagree with his egregious policy decisions; that is not only appropriate but the duty of the citizenry. It is the constant muck-raking and character assassination that I find both troubling and destructive. I'm not sure what the objective is. If you're trying to point out his flaws, don't bother. We're already aware of them. No article, poll, or testimony will add information that any perceptive person isn't able to see at a glance. If you're just blowing off steam—fine. Just be careful about the possible deleterious effects that may have on the society we all care for. Trump was a bad choice and a poor choice for the office. Period. Time will tell whether he was as poor as the losing alternative.

I freely admit that I think that he has selected a quality team of individuals for his cabinet. Most of the nominees have spoken out clearly about the limitations and risks of some of the President-Elect's plans and if they can't keep him in check, the Congress and Supreme Court will. Progressives will disagree with his picks philosophically, but that is the cost of losing an election. Again, time will reveal whether a conservative agenda will be more effective at solving our many problems at this time in history.

Given the strength of the U.S. Constitution, my greater concerns have more to do with Trump's careless words. Strong, but ambiguous enough to skillfully wiggle out of, they have been used to incite a lot of ill feelings. He said he'd be the President of all and I truly hope he respects all of those he leads. As to those generously offering psychological profiles: unless you've had him on your couch for a session, it might be best to leave that for the professionals.

The world is replete with know-it-alls who have more certainty than their understandings often deserves. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is alive and well in 21st century America. A little honest doubt and a little less gloom is sometimes appropriate.

[fohat]

with Trump's careless words

unless you've had him on your couch for a session

Again I urge everyone to read at least the Mayer/Schwartz article that I linked a few entries back.

[jacobolus]

I freely admit that I think that he has selected a quality team of individuals for his cabinet. Most of the nominees have spoken out clearly about the limitations and risks of some of the President-Elect's plans and if they can't keep him in check, the Congress and Supreme Court will.

Are you serious?

Education: Betsy DeVos, a woman whose only qualification is being from a rich family which has donated a ton of money to the GOP, and has clear conflicts of interests because she has a financial stake in a number of for-profit schools. Her main prior education interest has been in Michigan, where public school have been gutted, and a number of for-profit schools have made a big bundle of money while paying teachers abyssmal salaries and doing a demonstrably worse job of educating students.

Energy: Rick Perry, a man who famously wanted to aboloish the department of energy, has no science background, and thinks global warming is a hoax. (The Dept. of Energy is among other things in charge of all the national physics labs and lots of research grants to universities.) Perry’s main qualification is deep ties to the fossil fuel industry.

State: Rex Tillerson has no diplomatic, military, or political experience, but was CEO of Exxon, which will make a large pile of money if US sanctions on Russia are eased so that Exxon can go through with its oil deal. Exxon has business interests all around the world, generally not aligned with US national interests.

Justice: Jeff Sessions, named after two famous confederates, has spent his whole career opposing civil rights and voting rights. He was not confirmed to a Judgeship in the 80s because he was too racist for the Senate at the time. On paper, Sessions is among the more relevantly experienceed of Trump’s cabinet nominees, but the impression I get is that his main qualification is early support of Trump when other high-profile Republicans were opposed.

Defense: James Mattis is a recently retired Marine Corps general. He’s the most qualified and serious of Trump’s nominees, but needs a special exemption because recent military personnel are not supposed to be made Secretary of Defense.

Labor: Andrew Pudzer is a fast food CEO (Carl’ Jr.) whose company is famous for mistreating workers. He doesn’t believe in the concept of minimum wage or basic labor rights. He apparently also used to be a wife beater.

Health and Human Services: Tom Price doesn’t have much directly relevant experience, but again was one of Trump’s early supporters. He at least has some government experience, as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Housing and Urban Deveolopment: Ben Carson has literally no relevant experience with anything except running direct mailer scams targeting gullible old conservatives (one of which somehow morphed into a quasi-serious presidential campaign to Carson’s great surprise) and being a conspiracy theorist pundit on right wing media. He was by all reports a good surgeon, but he’s also a total nutjob. E.g. he believes the Egyptian pyramids were built as grain silos.

Treasury: Steve Mnunchin is a career Goldman Sachs guy. So much for “drain the swamp”. Trump spent months railing about Clinton’s speeches to Goldman Sachs, only to turn around and nominate like 5–6 ex-Goldman people to high-profile positions in his government.

Commerce: Wilbur Ross, long-time Trump buddy, is a billionaire expert in taking companies through bankruptcy.

Small Business Administration: Linda McMahon’s qualification is being a long-time trump supporter, one of the main donors to his fake charity, and the former CEO of World Wrestling (WWE).

Environmental Protection Agency: Scott Pruit, as Oklahoma Atty. General was famous for filing a heap of frivolous lawsuits against the EPA, which he basically doesn’t believe should exist. Pruit has no environmental or science background.

National Security Advisor: Michael Flynn is a retired general who was sidelined from government because he is a crazy loose cannon, and nobody likes or trusts him (and because he allegedly shared classified info with Pakistan). He has close ties to Russia.

This is the least serious, least qualified, and most ethically conflicted cabinet in US history, by a wide margin.

Moreover, the transition has been a logistical trainwreck. Trump’s nominees and transition team have had unprecedented problems filling out their basic paperwork, communicating with government departments, and expressing policy goals for the new administration.

[fohat]

Trump’s nominees and transition team have had unprecedented problems filling out their basic paperwork

[jacobolus]

I'm at a loss to understand why a few Americans here want to continue to echo the complaints of the small but loud ALT-Left movement against Trump. Most Democrats, as well as Republicans and Independents, have reluctantly accepted his presidency and are moving on. [...] The world is replete with know-it-alls who have more certainty than their understandings often deserves. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is alive and well in 21st century America. A little honest doubt and a little less gloom is sometimes appropriate.

P.S. “ALT-Left movement” doesn’t mean anything. Did you just make that up on the spot?

Or maybe you’re getting it from some touchy white supremacists who are sad that their euphemistic name for themselves (“Alt-right”) has now become widely known to stand for bigotry and racial hatred, and so is no longer useful branding for them.

edit: okay, Kurplop didn’t make it up. He’s getting it from the conspiracy site World Net Daily and partisan hack pundit Sean Hannity. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... t-problem/

Do you know what the Dunning–Kruger effect is? It’s a metacognitive disability whereby people lacking relevant knowledge or experience make clueless decisions but don’t realize it, and think they’re doing a good job. This is in fact a perfect description of Trump and many of his cabinet picks, as they head toward a trainwreck.

Some of us listen to the doctors and public health experts about vaccines, listen to the generals about military threats, listen to the career foreign service agents about diplomacy, listen to the economists about the economy, listen to the climate scientists about global warming, listen to the physicists and energy policy specialists about energy, listen to the historians and political scientists about political changes, listen to the agronomists and farmers about soil management, listen to the engineers about infrastructure maintenance, listen to the ecologists about habitat loss and species extinctions, listen to the atmospheric scientists about the weather, listen to the teachers about education, listen to the biologists about evolution, listen to the government ethics office about conflicts of interest, listen to the constitutional law professors about the balance of powers, listen to the computer security experts about hacking, and so on. That’s called being part of the “reality-based community”. Others, like Trump and many of his followers, have decided that despite a complete lack of relevant training or experience, they know more about everything than all the experts, and are satisfied to adopt the opinions and positions of pundits and conspiracy theorists (usually without bothering look who is funding them). Here’s a nice list of Trump statements to the effect that he knows more about everything than anyone else. I’m not sure if that’s “Dunning–Kruger”, narcissistic delusions, malicious lying, or some combination of the three.

As for most people accepting Trump and moving on: he has poll numbers which are 40 points (!) below where Obama’s were at the beginning of 2009.

[vivalarevolución]

I'm at a loss to understand why a few Americans here want to continue to echo the complaints of the small but loud ALT-Left movement against Trump. Most Democrats, as well as Republicans and Independents, have reluctantly accepted his presidency and are moving on. Sure, we should hold him accountable and disagree with his egregious policy decisions; that is not only appropriate but the duty of the citizenry. It is the constant muck-raking and character assassination that I find both troubling and destructive. I'm not sure what the objective is. If you're trying to point out his flaws, don't bother. We're already aware of them. No article, poll, or testimony will add information that any perceptive person isn't able to see at a glance. If you're just blowing off steam—fine. Just be careful about the possible deleterious effects that may have on the society we all care for. Trump was a bad choice and a poor choice for the office. Period. Time will tell whether he was as poor as the losing alternative.

I freely admit that I think that he has selected a quality team of individuals for his cabinet. Most of the nominees have spoken out clearly about the limitations and risks of some of the President-Elect's plans and if they can't keep him in check, the Congress and Supreme Court will. Progressives will disagree with his picks philosophically, but that is the cost of losing an election. Again, time will reveal whether a conservative agenda will be more effective at solving our many problems at this time in history.

Given the strength of the U.S. Constitution, my greater concerns have more to do with Trump's careless words. Strong, but ambiguous enough to skillfully wiggle out of, they have been used to incite a lot of ill feelings. He said he'd be the President of all and I truly hope he respects all of those he leads. As to those generously offering psychological profiles: unless you've had him on your couch for a session, it might be best to leave that for the professionals.

The world is replete with know-it-alls who have more certainty than their understandings often deserves. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is alive and well in 21st century America. A little honest doubt and a little less gloom is sometimes appropriate.

I think you need to write down these comments and send them to your Congressional representatives immediately and the White House after January 20th. They are the people we should worry about, not petty fights with fellow citizens.

If you would like to read some leftist stuff, you will need to go beyond what is being discussed on this board. Here's a few to check out: http://www.counterpunch.org/, http://www.alternet.org/, http://www.motherjones.com/, https://www.thenation.com/

Alt left, that's a nice touch. The new thing among the right wing media is to take labels placed on them and then turn them around and throw them right back (although not offer a convincing argument in return). That's a good strategy, because labels are stupid and reductionist, they are used to reduce a debate to name calling, criticism, easy categorization, etc. They actually don't serve to solve or enlighten anything, just make it easier to label others and reduce the debate. Please come up with a better argument, people.

I often run into a consistent issue when I enter into political debates. The person does not have substansive supporting evidence for their viewpoints beyond an emotional argument, a philosophy, a premonition, a set of seemingly dogmatic beliefs based on observation, not evidence. Even if I provide a [golden] shower of evidence dismantling what they tell me, they refuse to accept a different reality or viewpoint than what they personally believe. This happens with both left-leaning and right-leaning folks. Also, on the topic of Dunning-Kruger, this is fun: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01/wh ... tter_nymag

Attack the argument and the ideas, not the person. Attacking the person only serves to breed further resentment and shut people down. Unfortunately, that idea has been hopelessly lost in our politics in recent years. When the other person doesn't care about facts and accumulated evidence, and only wants to push their viewpoint on you, that also makes for a shitty discussion.

[vivalarevolución]

Now moving on to Trump, Congress, what to expect, all that stuff.

Yea, people have accepted his presidency, but they still have very concerns about his role as president. He has about the lowest approval rating of any incoming president ever and very many Americans are concerned about the various conflicts of interest, among other things: http://www.people-press.org/2016/12/08/ ... f-interest

The professionals have offered their assessment of Trump's psychological profile and some say he is a great example that they can use for teaching purposes. Just take your pick of the various interviews with and assessments by professionals, it's been well covered, I don't have time to read them all and pick the best: https://www.google.com/#q=trump+narciss ... y+disorder

Yea, Trump's character is in the toilet, we all know that, and further criticism and character assassination is not necessary. If this recent intelligence memo is even a tiny bit true, nothing about it would be surprising. Seems about what we expect from Trump. Nice job, America!

Yet the soon-to-be most powerful man in the world sets the example for name calling, labeling, criticism, bullying, character assassination. He is the ringleader for these deleterious effects on society, showing all the impressionable teenage boys how it's done. He could choose to be more professional, but he can't help himself. Much of the TV news doesn't help, which is why I stopped watching that crap years ago. We're just ranters on a message board looking for a discussion, we don't have an influence that numbers in the millions.

I don't expect Congress to keep him in line. Congress has already show they have very little concern for ethics and conflicts of interest and Trump will be rubber stamping most of what they do unless a veto might win him some votes. The parties are mostly dead set on more power and control through any means possible. The Office of Government Ethics guy, Walter Shaub, decides to speak up about very legitimate ethics concerns,and Rep. Jason Chaffetz decides that he needs to be brought in for some questioning for doing his damn job. Everybody that doesn't serve their interests seems to be compromised. Shame on those bureaucrats for doing their jobs and trying to protect the American people!

What continually blows my mind is how Congress pretty much always votes on party lines. Is no elected official capable of independent thought anymore? I guess that's what you give up when you decide to join a political party. Look how well Bernie and Trump did when they had no strong political party affiliation before they jumped in the primaries. Amazing what happens when you think independently.

Regarding my personal assessment of his picks, a lot of them seem quite slimely that are bent on preventing the government agencies from actually doing their jobs of providing vital government services to the American people and have their own set of conflicts of interests. Yet they seem reasonable when compared to Trump. I defer to jacobolus for the explanation there.

A conversative agenda at this point seems mostly like handing off as many government programs to the private industry and states and see what happens. The plan (or lack thereof) for Obamacare repeal is a prime example. This typical benefits some well heeled and influential entities, usually ends up null for the average citizen. Also, wide-scale gerrymandering and voter suppression to make it nearly impossible for any other parties to have a shot at control. Then the obstructionism and constant criticism without an actual plan. This has been systematically carried out since Obama took office and has been quite successful, as we can see now.

Mike Pence doing the job of actually running the government gives me no confidence. He is a campaigner and Washington politician, not an effective manager. He and his people have been out of office a week and the mood around the Indiana state government already has turned more upbeat. The people in charge now are focused on effective government management rather than their next political move, so that's nice.

The Constitution, when properly respected and enforced, is a wonderful document to protect individual rights and individuals from the tyranny of their own government. Trump has shown little respect for the Constitution and I doubt he has the attention span to read through and understand the whole thing. So if he violates the Constitution, which he is on the fast track to doing with his various conflicts of interests, foreign entanglements, and promised policy moves, it would be nice to see Congress hold him accountable. Yet I am not impressed with Congress's dedication to ethics lately.

The Supreme Court tends to vote in predictable, ideological ways, which always struck me as odd considering judges are supposed to be independent and assess each case based on the merits of the arguments presented. When a controversial issues is brought before the Court, we pretty much know how it will go. Chief Justice Roberts on the Obamacare decision was an outlier. But what do I know, I'm not a legal scholar.

I do agree, more doubt and less gloom would be nice. Yet if something you care about deeply is slated to get assaulted by the incoming administration and you also personally know that the members of the administration tend to screw things up rather than solve anything, it's hard not to get worked up about it.

[jacobolus]

The GOP congress have shown themselves to be spineless cowards (“grabbed pussies? Trump’s chumps?”). We can’t expect anything from them unless they think they’ll be imminently voted out of office.

For example, Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who after the pussy-grabber comments said that he couldn’t support Trump and still look his daughter in the eye, apparently decided to sell his daughter out after Trump’s poll numbers went back up a bit a few weeks later, and now that the GOP looks to own whatever Trump does, Chaffetz is trying to bully the government ethics office into ignoring Trump & his team’s ethical conflicts and lapses.

As for the courts: after 6 years of unprecedented obstruction blocking Obama’s judicial nominees, the GOP is looking at no opposition in filling 150+ vacant Federal judgeships and packing the Federal courts with radical hard-liners who will look the other way at corporate abuses of American citizens and GOP violations of law and the constitution.

The Senate’s (notably, Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell, but every other sitting GOP senator also deserves blame) refusal to even give Judge Garland a hearing or a vote is a flagrant abuse of power and basic democratic norms.

[vivalarevolución]

This is just the beginning:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... -tells-all

I did read this before, very telling. I think we tend to overestimate any mystery in Trump's behavior, what you see is what you get. There is not a secretive stable, pensive, rational man hiding behind the curtain. But not a person we should underestimate, as clownish as it all seems, because he was able to convince enough Americans to take down the established political powers and appears to be the beginning of a western, right-leaning nationalist movement with unknown consequences.

The human ego's insatiable greed and hunger and fear is perhaps the most dangerous threat to our species and other species.

[webwit]

So I see a link to the New Yorker, which is like posting a link to Fox News about a Clinton story. A follow the link and search for the author's name. The first result:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/new-yorke ... le/2000567
This is too easy and predictable. Can't you link to respectable sources who are not into propaganda?

[fohat]

Webwit, you complain when I link to sources such as the New York Times and The New Yorker, and dismiss essays and articles written by Nobel Prize winning researchers and other peer-recognized academic luminaries.

Just what exactly is your concept of a respectable source, anyway? I am sincerely curious.

[webwit]

And you dismiss that info about the author.

My concept is not someone like Jane Mayer. Isn't that email leak great? I'd blame the Russians if I were you. Is that corrupted propaganda war-cunt a nobel prize winner or a peer-recognized luminary? And what peers are those?

[webwit]

Webwit, you complain when I link to sources such as Fox News, and dismiss essays and articles written by Nobel Prize winning researchers and other peer-recognized academic luminaries.

Just what exactly is your concept of a respectable source, anyway? I am sincerely curious.

I took the liberty of changing a word in your quote to show how ridiculous your request is.

[seebart]

Swapping Fox News with the New York Times and hence putting both on the same level is excessive webwit. I don't know Jane Mayer or that email but do you really believe that the journalism of Fox News and the New York Times are identical in their objectiveness?!?

[webwit]

Do you really believe only the right does propaganda? How naive. It has been and is a filthy propaganda war.