Trump 2.0

[parmalee]

Possibly it will be the same sort/level of "nuance" that Clinton argued for in what the word "is" means.

Yeah, conservatives have come to employ this sort of "nuance" as a weapon. So much of the "discussion" surrounding Elon Musk's Nazi salute was utterly pointless and little more than a distraction. There were really only two relevant question: Was it a Nazi salute? Yes, essentially. Did Musk know this? We cannot know for certain, of course, but most probably. Every other question seemed ridiculous: Is Musk a Nazi? Who knows? He--demonstrably--espouses quite a number of views that are wholly consistent with Nazi ideology, but he's also a troll.

Circling back to that ADL defense of Musk, right-wing pundits seized upon that post immediately. I figure roughly half of them thought that they found a Jew who said it wasn't a Nazi salute and therefore the matter was settled; whereas the other half knew that the ADL has lost most of it's credibility but they figured that most of their audience didn't know this, so they went with it anyway. It's like they simply turn details into detritus in such a cynical fashion.

 

[(Q)]

This is how utterly stupid Trump is showing the world at the Davos Economic forum...

“My message to  every business in the world is very simple: Come make your product in America, and we will give you among the lowest taxes of any nation on earth,” Trump said.

“But if you don’t make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then very simply you will have to pay a tariff. Differing amounts, but a tariff.”

 

[(Q)]

I'll probably dismiss them out of hand considering who is submitting them.

It shouldn't matter who submits the metrics as long as they are valid.

What is there to disagree about? Debt isn't bad,

There's good debt, like the debt put towards building infrastructure, investing in the country. Then, there's bad debt, like giving the very wealthy tax breaks. Which party gave the latter?

early childhood isn't important,

The number one killer of children in the country is guns. Which party doesn't want more gun regulation? Which party is banning books?

individual responsibility isn't important?

I suppose we'd need to pull up the rap sheet of each individual politician, but I'm betting one party has committed more crimes. Can you guess which one?

 

[parmalee]

There's good debt, like the debt put towards building infrastructure, investing in the country. Then, there's bad debt, like giving the very wealthy tax breaks. Which party gave the latter?

Yeah, investment in general is often a form of debt--sometimes literally, as with buying a home and getting an education; sometimes in a more figurative sense--which I had always thought was some sort of pillar of conservative ideologies. Apparently, I was way off on that one. Investment = bad.

 

[TheVat]

Trump's argument would seem to be that illegal immigrants, and their issue, are somehow not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, but if that is the case then there would be no grounds to remove the parents, as he is seeking to do, as they would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, which would include the immigration laws.

It's such a bizarre argument. Even before famous cases like Shaughnessy v US, it was pretty settled that US law held sway on US soil. IIRC, Shaughnessy phrased it "anyone passing the gate." That everyone on US soil is subject to US jurisdiction is so deeply embedded in multiple amendments and decisions, that not even our presently stacked Court can plausibly purge it.

 

[(Q)]

Yeah, investment in general is often a form of debt--sometimes literally, as with buying a home and getting an education; sometimes in a more figurative sense--which I had always thought was some sort of pillar of conservative ideologies. Apparently, I was way off on that one. Investment = bad.

It was Reagan back in the 80's who more or less started the whole bad debt debacle with his trickle down economics. That lead to the billionaires we see creating the oligarch system now being put in place.

 

[parmalee]

It was Reagan back in the 80's who more or less started the whole bad debt debacle with his trickle down economics. That lead to the billionaires we see creating the oligarch system now being put in place.

Yeah, and no one--contrary to Republican assertions--wants to increase debt. It's simply a matter of what needs to be done, and how do we pay for it. By creating the conditions for empowering and enabling an oligarch class, resulting in extremes of inequality unparalleled in human history, Republicans have failed on both counts. Consistently, for almost a half century now.

 

[Sarkus]

This is how utterly stupid Trump is showing the world at the Davos Economic forum...

“My message to  every business in the world is very simple: Come make your product in America, and we will give you among the lowest taxes of any nation on earth,” Trump said.

“But if you don’t make your product in America, which is your prerogative, then very simply you will have to pay a tariff. Differing amounts, but a tariff.”

Yeah, he still sees tariffs as a tax that the foreign company has to pay. The sales may drop, which will hurt the exporter, but it is the US public that will suffer from those tariffs into the US.

He also doesn't seem to see that this is inflationary: the reason goods are imported is because it is cheaper to do so. If you apply a 25% tariff, the goods are now probably 25% more expensive. Yes, a US company might be able to now produce cheaper than that, but it will still be more than the price they were previously imported at. After all, if they could do it cheaper than imports then why aren't they doing it already!

Now, whether a 25% tariff, for example, starts to make sense to manufacturers to build in America, who can say. I can imagine that the manufacturing costs for many products will be significantly higher in the US, such that tariffs will need to be quite high before manufacturing in the US makes sense.

But, hey, it's Trump.
As someone has commented: if you didn't already know that Trump is stupid, just listen to him.

 

[Sarkus]

Sheesh! The guy is an absolute ****.
He's now suggesting that any financial aid to California to tackle their wildfires will likely come with conditions attached, such as them agreeing to implement voter ID - i.e. a completely unrelated and clearly political matter. Whereas North Carolina, a state that usually votes Republican, will have no conditions attached. So, basically, he's politicising a natural disaster.

What am I missing here? He claims he wants to bring America together, yet all he actually does is drive them further apart!


He's also threatening to close FEMA, claiming they're not doing their job. I don't know the details of this: have FEMA been poor in carrying out their responsibilities?

 

[(Q)]

Sheesh! The guy is an absolute ****.
He's now suggesting that any financial aid to California to tackle their wildfires will likely come with conditions attached, such as them agreeing to implement voter ID - i.e. a completely unrelated and clearly political matter. Whereas North Carolina, a state that usually votes Republican, will have no conditions attached. So, basically, he's politicising a natural disaster.

What am I missing here? He claims he wants to bring America together, yet all he actually does is drive them further apart!


He's also threatening to close FEMA, claiming they're not doing their job. I don't know the details of this: have FEMA been poor in carrying out their responsibilities?

FEMA does a very good job, but since it's a successful program from Democrats, it has to go.

 

[(Q)]

Yeah, he still sees tariffs as a tax that the foreign company has to pay. The sales may drop, which will hurt the exporter, but it is the US public that will suffer from those tariffs into the US.

He also doesn't seem to see that this is inflationary: the reason goods are imported is because it is cheaper to do so. If you apply a 25% tariff, the goods are now probably 25% more expensive. Yes, a US company might be able to now produce cheaper than that, but it will still be more than the price they were previously imported at. After all, if they could do it cheaper than imports then why aren't they doing it already!

Now, whether a 25% tariff, for example, starts to make sense to manufacturers to build in America, who can say. I can imagine that the manufacturing costs for many products will be significantly higher in the US, such that tariffs will need to be quite high before manufacturing in the US makes sense.

But, hey, it's Trump.
As someone has commented: if you didn't already know that Trump is stupid, just listen to him.

What really boggles the mind is that he stood up at a global economic forum in which everyone there clearly understood what a tariff was, everyone except Trump. Every global leader in that room was confirmed of Trumps stupidity.

 

[parmalee]

Sheesh! The guy is an absolute ****.
He's now suggesting that any financial aid to California to tackle their wildfires will likely come with conditions attached, such as them agreeing to implement voter ID - i.e. a completely unrelated and clearly political matter. Whereas North Carolina, a state that usually votes Republican, will have no conditions attached. So, basically, he's politicising a natural disaster.

What am I missing here? He claims he wants to bring America together, yet all he actually does is drive them further apart!


He's also threatening to close FEMA, claiming they're not doing their job. I don't know the details of this: have FEMA been poor in carrying out their responsibilities?

The argument has always been that even if Trump, et al, attempt to do what they say they are gonna do, we can count upon the various stopgaps we have in place to prevent these things from happening. These "stopgaps" are largely comprised of pencil-pushing, "deep state", bureaucratic types whom we often complain about, but who generally perform competently and diligently--they're the real sticklers for "the rules"! This administration is fast implementing measures to eliminate these people, these departments, these jobs--or making these jobs so unbearable or untenable that these people will be forced to resign of their own accord. So then what?

The eternal, infernal question has always been, "What does one do when every legal avenue for recourse has been exhausted or eliminated entirely?" IOW what extra-legal measures, or civil disobedience, do we find acceptable? I think most reasonable sorts accept civil disobedience as a tactic; where we differ is with regards to what sorts of measures we find appropriate or justifiable.

The King passage, from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", you posted before is worth repeating again here:

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

 

[billvon]

He's now suggesting that any financial aid to California to tackle their wildfires will likely come with conditions attached, such as them agreeing to implement voter ID - i.e. a completely unrelated and clearly political matter. Whereas North Carolina, a state that usually votes Republican, will have no conditions attached. So, basically, he's politicising a natural disaster.

What am I missing here?

?? Nothing. He is trying to hurt liberal states. He has convinced conservatives that liberals are the enemy, and thus they will celebrate his victory over the evil woke liberals. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

[(Q)]

The numbers are coming in, apparently some 3.58 million democratic voters had their votes purged, challenged or just thrown out in red states where voter suppression was high. With those numbers, Harris would have won the election. Trump actually stole the election.

 

[Sarkus]

The numbers are coming in, apparently some 3.58 million democratic voters had their votes purged, challenged or just thrown out in red states where voter suppression was high. With those numbers, Harris would have won the election. Trump actually stole the election.

Are you referring to this report?
https://hartmannreport.com/p/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won-c6f ?

Will be interesting to see if anything comes of it. I doubt it, though, other than Dems will try to reinforce things at the next election.

 

[(Q)]

So JD Vance adds in his vote to make it 51-50 making Pete Hegseth the new Secretary of Defense. Insanity.

 

[Tiassa]

#UnlimitedWater | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

President Donald Trump, yesterday, in California:

I'm signing an executive order to open up the pumps and valves in the north. We want to get that water pouring down here as quickly as possible, let hundreds of millions of gallons flow down into southern California. And that'll be a big benefit to you, and, look, if you don't want it, you're gonna tell me, but I can't imagine that― I'll tell you who does like it is the Fire Department. When I said that, they were very happy with that. They didn't mind hearing that. But we have a lot of water that is available, and I hope you can work that out among yourselves, but I think this will show that we, we have to have that water, we have to have that water. You're talking about unlimited water coming up from the Pacific Northwest, even coming up from parts of Canada, and it pours down naturally, it has for a million years, for a million years. It pours down, you'll never run out. You'll never have shortages.

(via @atrupar↱)​

No crazy stuff here; it turns out Trump voters just wanted unlimited water from the Pacific Northwest.

 

[Sarkus]

^ Not sure what he's doing getting involved in internal state matters, which is what I understand this to be? Next he'll be sacking the Governor and installing his own!!

Anyhoo - on that matter...

TOF has sacked 12 (or is it 17?) Inspectors General in Federal agencies, those supposedly independent people who are installed to ensure economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and I guess to identify fraud, abuse, waste, etc.

While not quite a Night of the Long Knives, this midnight purge apparently violates federal law, which requires Congress to be given 30 days notice of any intent to fire a Senate-confirmed position. Okay, it's a relatively minor breach in that it will not make too much difference to their removal, but that in itself begs the question of why TOF didn't simply obey the law. I guess it's for the optics, once again.
It also brings into doubt the independence of those who will subsequently be installed, especially as most (if not all) of those removed were actually appointed/nominated to their positions by Trump in his first term. Clearly not MAGA enough!

Having fun yet, America?

 

[Tiassa]

Not sure what he's doing getting involved in internal state matters, which is what I understand this to be?

That, and he's trying to sound presidential, and utterly failing.

Next he'll be sacking the Governor and installing his own!!

That's kind of the point.

The thing is, the first place that will happen is in conservative states. Meanwhile, think about the implications of where we're at. States' rights? Conservative sheriffs declaring they will not enforce laws that disagree with their personal politics? "Cancel culture"? It's one thing if we've known these political arguments were insincere, the whole time, but we also were obliged, in various ways, to pretend otherwise. It's not just at backwater discussion boards that the right kind of crackpots are empowered by the expectation of taking them seriously.

While Trump can't sack a governor, it might be worth paying attention to what goes on in North Carolina; it's a long story until it's not.

Analogously, consider the idea that the solution to firearm violence is that everybody should carry a gun. Or that the solution to disinformation is that everybody should disinform. Is the solution to tyranny that both sides should be tyrants?

In application: Should Democrats, when in the White House, withhold aid from southern states until they ... what, Texas should fix its power grid, Florida should stop suppressing its scientists and restore medical standards, &c.?

Try this one: Should a Democratic president condition aid to Florida on fixing their home insurance crisis? Go ahead and point to California as a counterpoint; they're the fourth largest economy on the planet, and might even celebrate the opportunity. (Hint: By dint of using federal money to cover health needs in the crisis, health insurance—and thus health standards—could come into play as conditional strings.)

What's happening now is kind of a psychological wreck.

The short form: While it often looks as if Trump is a complete betrayal of certain conservative political rhetoric, he is also continuing, fulfilling, and advancing certain other conservative political rhetoric. The difference is that we're not supposed to talk about that other stuff. It's one thing if Trump betrays conservatism, quite another if he fulfills it.

 

[(Q)]

And then there's the executive order from Trump repealing Lyndon Johnsons executive order from 1965 that stated any federal contractor cannot discriminate based on race or sex. So now, they can put out help wanted signs: "Whites Only" and it's perfectly legal.