The Trump Presidency

[Obviousman]

I'm actually surprised that the Queen agreed to this. I know the she is supposed to stay out of politics but.....

[Allan F]

The Danish Queen Margrethe? She's apolitical, but extends invitations to state visits on request. And an american president - no matter what or who - is a state visit.

[grmcdorman]

The Danish Queen Margrethe? She's apolitical, but extends invitations to state visits on request. And an american president - no matter what or who - is a state visit.

I think he's referring to Queen Elizabeth with respect to proroguing the UK Parliament.. Again, though, she's nominally apolitical, and the request to prorogue is (usually) just a formality.

[Peter B]

Yeah, that's the thing--everything cited as something good he's done is missing a lot of context that shows that, no, it actually isn't.  For example, "making agreements with both parties" implies that he's been successful at it.  He hasn't.  Literally every agreement has been reached in spite of him, not because of him, because he insists that funding for his stupid, pointless wall be part of budget agreements.  And the Democrats won't agree to that, because it's stupid and pointless and the money would pretty much be better spent being set on fire to heat federal buildings.  And if he were really confronting Russia, mightn't he consider saying something about how they definitely interfered in the election?

Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?

If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.

In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.

Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment), what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr). The way I see it, there's a portion of the population (around 3-5% I think) who'd happily vote for any Trump family member, and I suspect the Republican Party leadership would accept Trump candidates for a while to come if that means they can lock in Republican control of the White House for two or three decades.

[LunarOrbit]

Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?

If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.

I struggled to find one good decision that he has made. He seems to support NASA, I guess.

But I'm not going to ignore:

- the children in cages,
- the sexism, racism, and bigotry,
- the terrible environmental policies,
- the inaction when it comes to stopping gun violence,
- the corruption,
- the stacking of the courts with unqualified judges that will support him,
- the fascist tendencies,
- the cruelty and indifference towards the suffering of others,
- the narcissism,
- the arrogance,
- the lying,
- the phony religiousness,
- the propaganda and spreading of conspiracy theories,
- the attacks on the free press and justice system,
- the attacks on anyone (even other Republicans) who criticizes him,
- the incompetence,
- the bullying of US allies and trading partners,
- the coziness he has with some of the worst people in the world (Putin, Mohammad Bin Salman, Jeffrey Epstein)

I can't ignore all of that just because he might support one thing that I want, like returning humans to the Moon or going to Mars in my lifetime. I would rather the US had a President who is indifferent towards NASA but who at least believes climate change is real.

It's not like he has good intentions and I just don't like him because he is a Republican. He is a horrible person who is going to hurt a lot of people until he is out of office.

In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.

Many of his policies will have a negative effect on the US (and the world) for years after he is gone, so I'm not going to pretend he has good qualities just to appease his supporters.

Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment),

Considering his poor approval ratings I think there is plenty of reason to doubt his re-election. People just need to get off their butt and vote.

what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr).

If that happens then Republicans might as well just call it a day because I don't believe Americans would support that. But if more Trumps get elected the US might as well call it a day. Game over.

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

He hasn't started a war (yet).

[gillianren]

No, I literally cannot think of a single Trump decision that I agree with.  If he's made any, I can't think of any, because it's too overwhelmed with the evil and incompetent things he's done.

[jfb]

Yeah, that's the thing--everything cited as something good he's done is missing a lot of context that shows that, no, it actually isn't.  For example, "making agreements with both parties" implies that he's been successful at it.  He hasn't.  Literally every agreement has been reached in spite of him, not because of him, because he insists that funding for his stupid, pointless wall be part of budget agreements.  And the Democrats won't agree to that, because it's stupid and pointless and the money would pretty much be better spent being set on fire to heat federal buildings.  And if he were really confronting Russia, mightn't he consider saying something about how they definitely interfered in the election?

Perhaps another way of putting what I said earlier would be this: Could you say with a straight face that you disagree with literally every decision Trump has made since he became President?

If not, then there must be some decisions you agree with.

Whether there are any or not, it doesn’t really matter.  The man is a menace to national security (tweeting classified imagery that tells our adversaries exactly what our surveillance capabilities are), an embarrassment on the international stage (legitimizing Kim, carrying Russia’s water at the G7, effing Greenland), a danger to US citizens (normalizing white supremacy and nationalism, giving aid and comfort to mass murderers), an economic disaster (“trade wars are good and easy to win”), and a straight up criminal (fraud, tax evasion, sexual assault, etc.). 

We both dig taco bowls.  So bloody what?  It doesn’t begin to make up for the other crap.

In that case, praise him for it in ways that Trump supporters hear you: it makes it a little harder for them to unthinkingly criticise you each time you say something.

Trump supporters are a cult (or part of the con).  Evangelicals see him as a sign of an impending Rapture, so naturally they want to keep him around.  Literally nothing you say to them will make a damned bit of difference, and trying to reach them at this point is worse than a waste of time.  Better to motivate Democrats and independents to get off their asses this time around and vote. 

Trump’s floor is 35%, but at best his ceiling is just over 50%.  He only wins if people don’t show up. 

Oh, and while I think about it, assuming Trump wins the next election (which I see no particular reason to doubt at the moment), what all Americans need to worry about is this: that he'll lean on the Republicans to nominate one of his kids to be candidate in 2024 (presumably Don Jr). The way I see it, there's a portion of the population (around 3-5% I think) who'd happily vote for any Trump family member, and I suspect the Republican Party leadership would accept Trump candidates for a while to come if that means they can lock in Republican control of the White House for two or three decades.

I really want a Constitutional amendment that forbids immediate family members of past Presidents to run for office themselves.  No sibs, no spouses, no sprog. 

Beyond that, the Republican party is gone.  Dead.  Kaput.  They have abandoned every principle they ever claimed to have.  Their entire worldview can be summed up as follows:

There is an out-group that the law binds but does not protect, and an in-group that the law protects but does not bind.

Everything beyond that is theater.

[molesworth]

Something I read today has me a bit puzzled :

Four automakers bucked Trump policy on emissions. Now they are under antitrust investigation

The Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into four major automakers who have rejected the Trump administration's relaxed air pollution and mileage regulations.

The four automakers — Ford (F), Honda (HMC), Volkswagen and BMW — agreed in July to meet the tougher standards set by the California Air Resources Board rather than the Trump administration's rules, which would roll back standards put in place under former President Barack Obama.

Although the California rules would require automakers to build more costly cars, they gave the companies an advantage: The automakers would have to meet only one national standard, rather than one weaker standard for most of the country and one tougher standard for California and 13 other states that follow its rules. Those 14 states account for about 40% of the US population.

Surely the new regulations specify the minimum required level of pollution and mileage, and any vehicle exceeding those is acceptable.  OK, it may mean the cars cost more to buy (but perhaps not to run), but then consumers always have the choice to go with a different, cheaper brand.  It may even be that by not having to make two different engine types for the two different state-based requirements, the cost wouldn't actually be higher.

Perhaps because my understanding of US anti-trust laws is lacking, but I'm surprised they're being prosecuted for this.

(I'm also baffled by Trump's claims that more pollution and less efficiency makes cars safer, but that's another discussion...)

[gillianren]

There's a long difference between "investigated" and "prosecuted."  Nixon liked having people "investigated" when he was mad at them, too.

[molesworth]

There's a long difference between "investigated" and "prosecuted."  Nixon liked having people "investigated" when he was mad at them, too.

Ah, indeed.  I should have read more carefully.  It seems that our leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are thrashing about and creating a lot of distractions from their failings at the moment.

[raven]

Up north of  the Yanks, I really hope  Andrew Scheer doesn't win. He'd been recorded as saying he doesn't think gay marriages are valid, and he seems intent on slashing societal infrastructure, much like Canada's Trump, Premier Doug Ford.

[LunarOrbit]

Up north of  the Yanks, I really hope  Andrew Scheer doesn't win. He'd been recorded as saying he doesn't think gay marriages are valid, and he seems intent on slashing societal infrastructure, much like Canada's Trump, Premier Doug Ford.

Same here. I feel like I live in some kind of Twilight Zone episode where people think bad is good and good is bad.

The Conservatives have been using the same tactics that Republicans used against President Obama for 8 years... I'm surprised they haven't said Justin Trudeau was born in Kenya. I guess the closest we got to that was when they claimed he was actually fathered by Fidel Castro.

Sent from my SM-G975W using Tapatalk

[Glom]

Let me just say on that how good the new House of Commons chamber looks. Shame it'll be junked in 10 years. It really sets the standard for Parliamentary relocations. I doubt we will achieve anything like that.

Also, looking from the bank of the Ottawa to the West, Parliament looks like Hogwarts.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Trump is now on record as defending a diplomat's wife who fled the UK after killing a British Citizen when she drove on the wrong side of the road. He's also abandoned former allies, the Kurds, who fought against ISIS.

Copied from Steve Hedley:

I would like to congratulate President Trump in reaching a new previously undreamed of plateau of ridiculousness and inanity. His justification for abandoning the Kurds “because they didn’t fight with us in Normandy” (world war 2), not only sums up his own imbecility perfectly but also exposes beyond repair the rapacious capitalist imperialism that he represents. Unlike Obama who attempted to put glitter on the turd that is capitalism, Trump is its unvarnished embodiment discarding previous allies as dispensable unashamedly in public and orchestrating their massacre. Obama gave liberals an excuse to see something progressive in the USA, Trump has destroyed any such illusions.