The Trump Presidency

[JayUtah]

A lot of his speech, outside of cases where he's reading material written for him, is very much stream of consciousness. And he doesn't have much of that; he also has no focus and no discipline.

To be fair, this is why a lot of his base likes him.  If you consider that his political base are generally less educated, less urban, and less sophisticated, then it makes sense to talk to them in plain language.  Speaking articulately in complete sentences and paragraph structure appeals to what those folk dismiss as the "coastal elites" or the "liberal elites."  But they simply don't want a President who sounds like college professor.  Now whether an incoherent stream of semi-conciousness qualifies as the plain speech they're after is obviously still in question.  But by differentiating himself in this way, he appeals to voters who don't what just more of the same elitist politicians.  He comes across sounding like a "man of the people."  Even though, of course, the rank and file American is the last person Donald Trump cares about.

He is just not qualified for any leadership role in so many ways...

Not at all.  His behavior runs the gamut of anti-leadership qualities.  He's had everything handed to him, and as a narcissist he believes he earned it all by his superior acumen.  This leads him to treat underlings either as comparatively incompetent, or else as the cause of his failures.  It's no wonder nearly all his original Cabinet has abandoned him.  People think they can endure a problematic boss and just do their jobs.  They cannot.  And of course this is all spun as their own incompetence and stupidity; they just don't recognize the special genius that is Donald J. Trump.

So many people in the US don't just seem to realize the damage he's done to the country, especially internationally...

Americans not only have a broad streak of exceptionalism, it blends with a broad streak of individualism.  Americans -- broadly painted, of course -- are so collectively narcissistic they (1) don't care what the rest of the world thinks of them, and (2) don't have much good to say, in most cases, about the rest of the world.  As has been pointed out, Americans have been fed such a constant stream of indoctrination about how good they have it and how successful American capitalism is that they literally disregard any appearance of success or affluence in other countries.  Many American's really don't care that the world views their country with derision, because they simply "know" they are still the best in the world and always will be.

I'm so very thankful to have lived outside the United States in many places for a considerable enough number of years both to see the U.S. from a different perspective, and to see why.

President Trump is both the epitome and the symptom of America's steady loss of prestige and power.  The symptom, because this started long before the Trump Presidency.  Although he has certainly accelerated it, it is by no means valid to lay it all at his feet, or even just to include the circle of enablers around him.  This has been happening for many years, probably since the late 1980s or early 1990s.  And the people responsible for it have been the increasingly blurry combination of U.S. big business and business-friendly politicians.

Donald Trump is the epitome of it because the U.S. is just doing what Donald Trump has done:  play games with brand name recognition in order to squander and plunder it for the benefit of an otherwise indifferent elite.  While the average American doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about the country, I'm convinced that the average American business mogul or high-ranking politician (if there's even a difference anymore) doesn't care about anything idealist or institutional about any country.  America, Russia, the United Kingdom -- they're all just the same.  As long as there's a capitalist economic system, an exploitable labor force, and a pushover government, it's all just the same to them.  "America" is a just a brand they're going to plunder until the resources are used up.  Then they'll move on.

The difference, of course, is that the populations of other countries seem to catch this before it becomes a chronic problem and reign it in.  But again, the marketing of the American Dream has been so wildly successful that we'll stand on the deck of the sinking ship with our hands over our hearts to the tune of "Stars and Stripes Forever" and listen to people tell us the water lapping around our ankles is just a socialist conspiracy theory.

Even in Canada, which had a good relationship with the country up to now, the majority of the people view the country with suspicion.

It's worth pointing out -- and Gillianren can correct my colonial history recollection, if needed -- but I believe Canada is one of the few countries that has beaten the U.S. militarily. 

[raven]

Nonetheless, as much fun as it is to poke at this side of him, and by All is it fun, it shouldn't distract from the vile things he is doing and encouraging and allowing to happen.

And the vile things being done in relative secrecy by the Republican-controlled machinery of government while the media remains obsessed with Donald Trump.  At one time I believed that's why they nominated George W. Bush.  He was an incompetent buffoon with an electable pedigree. His job was to distract attention away from Dick Cheney, who was more in charge of the White House, and from the Republicans elsewhere in government who would then be free to enact policy with the media's eye focused on Bush.

There is that, but he's too much of a wannabe autocrat for it to be the whole thing. He's done plenty of things on his lonesome with his speeches, his tweets, and his executive orders.

[JayUtah]

Make no mistake, Donald J. Trump has done more damage to America and Americans than any other single person in recent memory.  And he does it loudly, publicly, and often rudely and childishly.

I just mean that there is much more happening behind the scenes, and it has been happening for a decade at least.  It may not have been their intent to nominate such a horror-clown, but one of the ways the idiot is useful to Republicans is by distracting the media.  Far away from the feeding frenzy that covers Trump tweets and such, others in government can do the legwork of quietly dismantling the institutions and rights that favor the common men and women.

[Peter B]

Also, "don't worry about the new Supreme Court appointment" is honestly terrible advice.  Most Americans may not care, but that's because most Americans aren't really thinking about how important a Supreme Court justice is to their daily lives.  Keeping this woman out of the Supreme Court isn't just partisan bickering; the Supreme Court would, with a 6-3 Republican majority, eliminate vast swathes of rights from the American people, and there's a lot of speculation that it would be used to override the will of the people come November.

I see your point, and I also realise there are times that it's worth fighting a fight you can't win in order to light a fire in others.

But my concern is that the Democrats have for too long been fighting tactically rather than strategically - that there are times when you concede a battle in order to use your resources more carefully. Consider that the shocks from the release of the Woodward book are completely forgotten, even though they're only a couple of weeks in the past. Any expectation that the revelations in the book might damage Trump's reputation are long gone. And it'll be the same with the Supreme Court nomination.

The Democratic Party would be better off concentrating on simply getting as many people out to vote as possible, even if it means getting them to queue up to vote on the day, and educating people to make sure they vote for the House and Senate, and for whatever state elections are happening. Winning the Presidency would be good, but the Dems need to win the Senate as well, and winning control of any state governments up for grabs would be good too. If you want to get democracy back into the USA, you're going to have to start from the bottom as well as from the top.

[LunarOrbit]

Make no mistake, Donald J. Trump has done more damage to America and Americans than any other single person in recent memory.  And he does it loudly, publicly, and often rudely and childishly.

I just mean that there is much more happening behind the scenes, and it has been happening for a decade at least.  It may not have been their intent to nominate such a horror-clown, but one of the ways the idiot is useful to Republicans is by distracting the media.  Far away from the feeding frenzy that covers Trump tweets and such, others in government can do the legwork of quietly dismantling the institutions and rights that favor the common men and women.

Would it be fair to say things have been leading to this since at least the 1990s, if not since Nixon? It seems to me like ever since Watergate the Republicans have been fighting dirty and doing whatever it took to win, and then it went into overdrive when Bill Clinton took office. And Fox News sure hasn't been helping to improve anything.

[Peter B]

Make no mistake, Donald J. Trump has done more damage to America and Americans than any other single person in recent memory.  And he does it loudly, publicly, and often rudely and childishly.

I just mean that there is much more happening behind the scenes, and it has been happening for a decade at least.  It may not have been their intent to nominate such a horror-clown, but one of the ways the idiot is useful to Republicans is by distracting the media.  Far away from the feeding frenzy that covers Trump tweets and such, others in government can do the legwork of quietly dismantling the institutions and rights that favor the common men and women.

Would it be fair to say things have been leading to this since at least the 1990s, if not since Nixon? It seems to me like ever since Watergate the Republicans have been fighting dirty and doing whatever it took to win, and then it went into overdrive when Bill Clinton took office. And Fox News sure hasn't been helping to improve anything.

That's certainly how it seems to me.

Junior people in Nixon's team became senior players in Reagan's team, junior players in Reagan's team became senior players in GWB's team...

[Peter B]

...President Trump is both the epitome and the symptom of America's steady loss of prestige and power.  The symptom, because this started long before the Trump Presidency.  Although he has certainly accelerated it, it is by no means valid to lay it all at his feet, or even just to include the circle of enablers around him.  This has been happening for many years, probably since the late 1980s or early 1990s.  And the people responsible for it have been the increasingly blurry combination of U.S. big business and business-friendly politicians.

Donald Trump is the epitome of it because the U.S. is just doing what Donald Trump has done:  play games with brand name recognition in order to squander and plunder it for the benefit of an otherwise indifferent elite.  While the average American doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about the country, I'm convinced that the average American business mogul or high-ranking politician (if there's even a difference anymore) doesn't care about anything idealist or institutional about any country.  America, Russia, the United Kingdom -- they're all just the same.  As long as there's a capitalist economic system, an exploitable labor force, and a pushover government, it's all just the same to them.  "America" is a just a brand they're going to plunder until the resources are used up.  Then they'll move on.

The difference, of course, is that the populations of other countries seem to catch this before it becomes a chronic problem and reign it in.  But again, the marketing of the American Dream has been so wildly successful that we'll stand on the deck of the sinking ship with our hands over our hearts to the tune of "Stars and Stripes Forever" and listen to people tell us the water lapping around our ankles is just a socialist conspiracy theory.

So what is the end-game for them? Are they just content to accumulate what wealth they can through non-productive means, or do they have thoughts of making money through production and sale of goods and services?

I'm reminded of the board game "Shanghai Trader". The players try to make money from businesses in 1930s Shanghai, knowing the Japanese are coming. If you're still in Shanghai when the Japanese arrive, then you automatically lose. But if you leave Shanghai too soon, then the players who risk staying in Shanghai a little longer may end up with more money, and the player with the most money wins.

[molesworth]

The Democratic Party would be better off concentrating on simply getting as many people out to vote as possible, even if it means getting them to queue up to vote on the day, and educating people to make sure they vote for the House and Senate, and for whatever state elections are happening. Winning the Presidency would be good, but the Dems need to win the Senate as well, and winning control of any state governments up for grabs would be good too. If you want to get democracy back into the USA, you're going to have to start from the bottom as well as from the top.

It's only through the ballot box that real change can be achieved.  However, you now have to take into account just how effective well-targeted propaganda can be, esepecially with the power of modern technology behind it.  UK's C4 has released an expose of Cambridge Analytica and their role in the US election. Effectively a campaign of voter suppression via highly targeted social media ads (the same Cambridge Analytica who were so influential in the Brexit referendum).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/28/trump-2016-campaign-targeted-35m-black-americans-to-deter-them-from-voting

[ I'm surprised nobody's posting about his tax situation, but I'll leave that for now as I think this is far more important. ]

[JayUtah]

Would it be fair to say things have been leading to this since at least the 1990s, if not since Nixon?

Probably.  Politicians have always manipulated the machinery of the governments they operate to some sort of partisan advantage.  If you want to consider things like that, we'd have to go back to the first parliaments.  But has there been a noticeable shift since, say, Nixon where a political win became the all-encompassing goal?  Maybe.  Keep in mind it was the Democrats who set the precedent of eliminating the filibuster rule on some nominations, leaving the door open for Senate Republicans to simply widen the gap.  That's now going to give us an abominable Supreme Court.

(It was a longstanding rule of the Senate, designed as the more stable, deliberative body, that a vote of three-fifths of those in attendance was required to close debate on many subjects, including the nominations to the executive and the judiciary.)

Since the normal checks and balances are no longer working, the only options left are the nuclear ones.

And Fox News sure hasn't been helping to improve anything.

No.  Fox News and talk radio have been vigorously stoking the partisan fires.  Whether the media has become more sensationalist as a symptom or as a cause of political breakdown, I can't say.  Grandstanding Presidents give them a steady stream of train wrecks to report on, which then gives them the eyeballs and clicks they seek.

[JayUtah]

So what is the end-game for them? Are they just content to accumulate what wealth they can through non-productive means, or do they have thoughts of making money through production and sale of goods and services?

At a certain point it seems the accumulation of more wealth becomes the only goal.  The non-productive means are generally easier, but of course goods and services have to factor in.  That's why they need cheap labor and why wages in the U.S. are so low for many workers.  There doesn't appear to be an end game.  Which is to say, I don't see any sign that the One Percent desire to transition to some other form of commerce.  It seems they believe their wealth to arise from some inexhaustible source, developed largely through financial structuring and economic rents rather than meaningful investment in actual economic value.

[JayUtah]

UK's C4 has released an expose of Cambridge Analytica and their role in the US election. Effectively a campaign of voter suppression via highly targeted social media ads (the same Cambridge Analytica who were so influential in the Brexit referendum).

Indeed, that was a delightful bit of news to wake up to this morning.  None of what they did is strictly illegal in the U.S., although Cambridge Analytica's acquisition of Facebook data may break European law and may have violated their terms of service with Facebook.  But the latter is a civil matter between the two companies.  It is unlikely any actual voter would have a cause of action to hold anyone responsible.  Targeted campaigning is perfectly legal, as is negative campaigning.  What makes it so terribly insidious in this case is, as you say, the ease with which modern technology can surgically target individual voters.  Like gerrymandering, it has been allowed because it was previously not thought possible to do well or effectively.  We can use high-performance computers to draw district boundaries that statistically guarantee political victory.  And we can now literally target individual voters with messages.  This is pretty scary.

I'm surprised nobody's posting about his tax situation, but I'll leave that for now as I think this is far more important.

I'm about two-thirds of the way through the article in the New York Times.  It's very dense reading, with lots of facts and figures.  And you're right:  in two weeks we'll have forgotten all about it.

If the evidence is to be believed, then it's almost certain that President Trump has committed tax fraud.  But a great deal of what I've read so far describes common practices in American business to reduce tax liability.  It's part and parcel of the larger problem that much American wealth is held in the private funds of corporations who all pay little or no tax.  The U.S. Tax Code is purposely byzantine in order to allow for such maneuvers, although the rank and file American is generally unable to take advantage of them.  The Trump tax "cut" restructured this further to shift the tax burden: my rental properties saw a net increase in their business tax liability as the result of newly disallowed deductions and limits on expenses while deficit-funding a large tax break for big businesses so they could "create jobs."  (Few used it for that; as has been explained, they used the cash infusion to buy back their own stock and artificially inflate its prices.)

While the shockingly low net taxes paid by the Trump Organization has some people shaking their heads in disgust, Donald Trump's supporters are applauding.  In their world, taxation is theft.  It's basically characterized as wealth transfer from the hardworking people of America (the Makers) to support layabout minorities.  As such, any way you can succeed in paying as little tax as possible -- even if it means bending the rules -- is sticking it to the Takers.  The capitalist conservatives are all taking a victory lap.

But the overall picture I'm gleaning from the Times' reporting is that of an organization deeply in debt, with no credible future revenue and dwindling residuals.  This supports the suggestion that Trump ran for President not expecting to win, but only to increase his prestige.  Now it appears he's using the Presidency quite blatantly to enrich his business interests, either by brokering business deals using the office, or by selecting his business interests to supply services the taxpayers pay for, such as accommodating visitors.

[gillianren]

It's worth pointing out -- and Gillianren can correct my colonial history recollection, if needed -- but I believe Canada is one of the few countries that has beaten the U.S. militarily. 

Quite right!

But my concern is that the Democrats have for too long been fighting tactically rather than strategically - that there are times when you concede a battle in order to use your resources more carefully. Consider that the shocks from the release of the Woodward book are completely forgotten, even though they're only a couple of weeks in the past. Any expectation that the revelations in the book might damage Trump's reputation are long gone. And it'll be the same with the Supreme Court nomination.

I don't think the fight against a Supreme Court Justice is against its reputation.  (And good Lord, that woman's reputation.)  I think it is literally attempting to block an appointment.  It's worth noting that the average appointment takes at least three months, including vetting--which they're I guess just not doing this time--and they're trying to get her in place in five weeks.  And Trump has explicitly said this is to ensure that he will be able to challenge the election and win.  Preventing that is really, really important.  This isn't about persuading voters; this is about the act of governing the country.

The Democratic Party would be better off concentrating on simply getting as many people out to vote as possible, even if it means getting them to queue up to vote on the day, and educating people to make sure they vote for the House and Senate, and for whatever state elections are happening. Winning the Presidency would be good, but the Dems need to win the Senate as well, and winning control of any state governments up for grabs would be good too. If you want to get democracy back into the USA, you're going to have to start from the bottom as well as from the top.

With the voter suppression permitted by the Supreme Court already, allowing this woman on the Supreme Court is just allowing it to be impossible to start from the bottom.

[LunarOrbit]

However, you now have to take into account just how effective well-targeted propaganda can be, esepecially with the power of modern technology behind it.  UK's C4 has released an expose of Cambridge Analytica and their role in the US election. Effectively a campaign of voter suppression via highly targeted social media ads (the same Cambridge Analytica who were so influential in the Brexit referendum).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/28/trump-2016-campaign-targeted-35m-black-americans-to-deter-them-from-voting

That is scary. Social analytics like that need to be more regulated.

I just watched a documentary on Netflix called "The Social Dilemma" which was sort of about the same issue (although not specific to just the election, Facebook, or Cambridge Analytica). It demonstrated how social media algorithms feed conspiracy theories to people who are the most susceptible to believing them. It's not so much that the social networks want people believing conspiracy theories, they just want to make sure people spend more time looking at their apps and seeing ads.

I'm surprised nobody's posting about his tax situation, but I'll leave that for now as I think this is far more important.

I'm just not surprised by it. The New York Times confirmed something we already suspected. I mean, why wouldn't he have shared his taxes if they were above board?

It does scare me that the most powerful man on the planet is so heavily in debt and susceptible to foreign influence.

[jfb]

I'm surprised nobody's posting about his tax situation, but I'll leave that for now as I think this is far more important.

I'm about two-thirds of the way through the article in the New York Times.  It's very dense reading, with lots of facts and figures.  And you're right:  in two weeks we'll have forgotten all about it.

If the evidence is to be believed, then it's almost certain that President Trump has committed tax fraud.  But a great deal of what I've read so far describes common practices in American business to reduce tax liability.  It's part and parcel of the larger problem that much American wealth is held in the private funds of corporations who all pay little or no tax.  The U.S. Tax Code is purposely byzantine in order to allow for such maneuvers, although the rank and file American is generally unable to take advantage of them.  The Trump tax "cut" restructured this further to shift the tax burden: my rental properties saw a net increase in their business tax liability as the result of newly disallowed deductions and limits on expenses while deficit-funding a large tax break for big businesses so they could "create jobs."  (Few used it for that; as has been explained, they used the cash infusion to buy back their own stock and artificially inflate its prices.)

I don't give a crap about taxes or tax avoidance - what disturbs me is the $300 million in personal debt that comes due in a couple of years (not owed by the Trump Org. or any Trump business, but by Donald himself).  That's a helluva lot of leverage to exploit. There's a reason you can't get a security clearance if there's anything hinky in your financial history (such as $300 million in personal debt).  And now we have a freaking President, with access to all the intel, owing 9 figures to God knows whom.  That is scary. 

Assuming we come out the other side and get these yahoos out of government, just how much damage are we going to find? 

I now have two Constitutional amendments to propose:

Amendment to prohibit family members of prior Presidents and Vice Presidents from being eligible to run for President or Vice President - No person who is related to a President or Vice President by two degrees or less, through birth, marriage, or adoption, shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.  This shall include but not necessarily be limited to: grandparents; parents and step-parents; siblings, half-siblings, step-siblings, spouses or partners of same; children, step-children, spouses or partners of same; grandchildren, step-granchildren, spouses or partners of same; aunts and uncles; first cousins, spouses or partners of same; nieces, nephews, spouses or partners of same.

Political dynasties are bad, y'all, regardless of political affiliation.  Be it the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Trumps, the Clintons, the Obamas, or any other family. 

Amendment to require financial disclosure prior to running for office - No person shall be eligible to hold office in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches who does not also provide an accounting of their personal finances for a period of 5 years prior to running or being nominated for office.

Sorry, national security wins out over privacy.  You want to be President, Congressman, Senator, or Supreme Court Justice, you publicly prove you aren't in somebody else's pocket.  Trump has convincingly demonstrated the honor system doesn't work anymore, assuming it ever did. 

[LunarOrbit]

And another scary thing to keep you up at night is that the national security risk Trump posed won't go away when he is out of office. He knows secrets, and he will sell them in a flat second if someone offers him money.