Sally Yates, the acting US attorney general, announced that she would not defend Trump’s criminal executive order banning travelers from some Muslim countries.
You will not be at all surprised to learn that she has been speedily fired and replaced.
You might, however, be very surprised at how petty and unprofessional the announcement from the White House was.
That sounds like it came straight from the raging, petulant sphincter of Mr Trump himself, doesn’t it? I’d sure like to see a recording of the tantrum he threw when Sally Yates demonstrated that she was a person of principle and integrity.
I hope she lands a better job soon.
It’s not hard to land a better job than working for a narcissistic sociopath like Trump.
I’m beyond aghast. First, he’s violated the first amendment via religious test and the establishment clause *and* he’s forced a crisis when the five federal courts file contempt charges on CBIS for defiance of the court orders to allow attorneys to speak to the unconstitutionally detained detainees.
That squarely sets up either a branch conflict where the executive branch ignores the judicial branch and hence, a constitutional crisis or the DOJ’s marshals enforce the judicial branch orders against the DHS by arresting the CBIS officers for contempt of court.
That SOB needs to be impeached before we no longer have a country or Constitution.
I’VE BEEN FUCKING TELLING PEOPLE! No one goddamn listened when I said if he gets elected he’s going to go full-on Stalinist in a matter of days! Why does no one fucking LISTEN to me when I say these things?
This is how nations die. We are witnessing a coup d’etat in real time here.
And this statement, this…thing. This sounds like an angry dictator. I cannot believe I am seeing this.
@Marissa, this is a matter best addressed by the House, then the Senate. Both houses are currently quite disturbed with him, this should help grease the wheels.
For next up, they might be contending with “militias” converging upon D.C..
If all of that fails, it’s nothing that a B-52 and a SOFLAM can’t take care of.
I know what a B-52 is, and I presume SOFLAM is a big fucking bomb. Wouldn’t the air-force taking out DC be a coup d’etat?
Stopping a coup with a coup seems, erm, counterproductive.
When Nixon started firing people who wouldn’t carry out his illegal orders, it was the beginning of the end. We can only hope.
I hate to say it, but the fate of the country may rest on how many Republican Congresspeople have principles. Just writing that makes me shudder.
We have elected Caligula. And while Rome did survive Caligula, a lot of people suffered and died before it was over.
I said when he was elected that he would launch a full-on war on our democratic institutions and it was a toss up whether we would have any democratic institutions left by the end of his term, but I had no idea he would do it so fast. Now I’m starting to wonder if there will be another election.
No, a SOFLAM is a target designator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOFLAM
I never suggested loading the B52 with anything other than fuel. At times, it’s not what you will do that counts, but what the other SOB thinks that you’ll do. The white house has laser designator detection devices.
As I’m not about to drive to Bragg to steal a restricted SOFLAM device and I sure can’t fly a B52, I’m obviously blowing off steam.
I’m far more concerned that he’s behaving in near Stalinist ways this early on, openly inviting contempt of court charges against CBIS personnel and either two executive branch agencies in direct conflict or a refusal of the executive branch to obey the federal courts, triggering a Constitutional crisis. We’ve not had one that severe since Jackson.
I’ve taken some migraine pills to hold me off before bed. I’m gonna need to invest in weed to get through the week.
This is just further evidence of his dictatorship taking root.
Thirdmill @7, I know of no Constitutional mechanism where we could have another election. There is no Constitutional mechanism to protect against foreign interference with our elections.
The closest I can think of is impeachment, leaving us with the VP or dual impeachment and we’re stuck with the speaker (since the line of succession is otherwise vacant, due to not being confirmed by the Senate).
It comes as no surprise, of course, that he fired her. I’m confident she knew he would, and her stance may have been as much a protest as anything.
That he should take the opportunity to hit at Democrats for holding up Sessions is ironic as hell given that Republicans have spent a lot of time holding up Obama appointments, but then Republicans in general have no sense of irony…as well as losing their moral compass (some of them never had one, of course).
There’s is some encouraging rumbling among Republicans that they see he’s off-the-rails, but I’m not holding my breath. Even the Koch bros are worried about his authoritarianism. And if that doesn’t leave you on the floor with side-splicing guffaws I don’t know what will. The irony of those arrogant authoritarian brats accusing someone else of it is almost too much to bare.
I suspect that “fired by Donald Trump” would quite valuable on a lawyers resume. I”m sure she’ll be able to land a very nice job pretty much as soon as she wants to. It would be interesting if she winds up working for the ACLU. They can afford some more people now….and they’ll probably need them.
It’s over, people. This was a coup d’etat and it has been 50+ years in the making. This is the endgame of the Southern Strategy, that festering, eldritch alliance of the religious loony fringe and the kind of people whose sheets have holes in them and spell, or at least pronounce, “black folks” with two Gs in it.
And, really, the Democrats have been spineless collaborators since McGovern lost. As that was almost a decade and a half before I was born, well, my generation never stood a chance :/ Ford pardoned Nixon, and American democracy was knocked on its ass. Reagan was elected, and that sliced it open from chin to groin. And now it’s bled out.
MSNBC is reporting that the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been fired.
Been replace by the person in charge of deportations. Typical of the Trumpian fuckwittery.
It’s interesting reading the twitter thingy about Sally Yates.
There’s the ‘she’s a patriot for doing her job and defending the constitution’ (probably leftist hippies ;),
and ‘she’s a traitor for disobeying the lawful presidential order, and she’s just grandstanding, she could have stood down if she didn’t like it’ (probably authoritarian willing on the dictatorship).
I’m no export on US legal matters, but as with Snowden, don’t government employees swear to uphold the constitution, not do what the POTUS or executive wants?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4171328/Trump-denies-immigration-restriction-Muslim-ban.html
Trump is another Robert Mugabe wannabe.
It’s use of “very weak” that’s a real Trump tell. Good writers have ‘very’ knocked out of them early on. Only his 3rd grade vocabulary requires it.
I think it’s likely the ACLU is hiring. And I’m sure that “Fired by President Trump” would be a great reference!
Nerd @ 14, even money the fired ICE director announced to the POTUS that he’d comply with the five federal court orders that ordered the detainees to have access to attorneys.
That, if true, would perfect a constitutional crisis between a non-compliant executive branch in open contempt of court with the judicial branch.
Which would entirely undermine the entire checks and balances outlined in the Constitution. That would effectively undermine Congress as well.
Remind me – if Trump is speedily impeached and Mike Pence takes over, what are his chances of staying on for any length of time? In most countries I would suspect that a deputy leader brought in to serve under a disgraced leader who was forced to resign soon after accession wouldn’t be long in office himself – but your political world isn’t really that of a normal country, is it?
Marissa van Eck,
“when I said if he gets elected he’s going to go full-on Stalinist in a matter of days!”
While I agree with your assessment @13 that the goings-on have the appearances of a coup, I’m not sure where “Stalinist” comes in. Bannon is a self-declared fascist and white supremacist who wants to destroy US institutions. These are Nazis, with Trump as their willing masthead.
The new president will finish out the term of the person they replaced, per the constitution. So, until 2021, if Pence wasn’t elected in the 2020 election.
@cartomancer, see the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon. Gerald Ford was the VP and completed Nixon’s term, from 1974 – 1977.
Nixon had resigned after being informed that there were enough votes in the House to impeach and he lacked sufficient support in the Senate to be acquitted.
After resignation, he still faced potential felony charges, but Ford pardoned him.
I see. And the fact Pence is heavily implicated in the excesses of the same corrupt regime that Trump was impeached for (or, will have been impeached for) doesn’t change things?
Would an impeachment of Pence not follow in quick succession if he persisted with the same illegal behaviour as Trump is pursuing?
[Cross-posted from the “Political Madness” thread.]
Interesting, assuming this is true.
Meanwhile, Sarah Kendzior is on a Twitter tear.
Three months ago, I would have called her a kook. Now… not so much.
Steve Bannon, on the other hand….
Sarah K is saying nothing more than what I’ve been saying. You’d have called me a kook too. Well good morning, sunshine; it’s all going to Hell.
cartomancer @ #24 — Historically, the closest thing we have to this scenario went the other way. First they got rid of Nixon’s VP, Spiro Agnew, and replaced him with one of theirs, Gerald Ford. Then they got rid of Nixon. I don’t recall any discussion that these maneuvers were carefully orchestrated by the Republican and Democrat leadership at the time. In fact, it may be close to conspiracy theory to bring it up. That happened after they completed a term, so Congress had lots of evidence to support driving them out.
I don’t think many presidents have had such a immediate reaction. Some white people were frightened by Obama, of course, and some of their irrational fears hung on for 8 years. There were calls for his impeachment or removal almost immediately. Apparently it’s common for a new president to issue executive orders that shock and frighten some people, so I would assume he did too, although I don’t remember anything specific.
Then there’s Lincoln, who’s election precipitated a Civil War. (Perhaps TweeterDumb is the Anti-Lincoln rather than the Anti-Christ.)
Honestly, I thought people were being alarmist right after the election – one single person couldn’t do as much damage as they were suggesting, right?
.. I wish I had been right.
I’m not even sceptical about potential nuking any more. US government had apparently lost all control over their pet dictator (and in such a short time!), so nothing is impossible.
*waves to rorschach*
Marissa van Eck:
No, it isn’t.
robro:
The Hugenberg lesson.
So. Fucking. PETTY.
*waves to SC*
Stay safe hey.
Beatrice:
Some of us long before.
You, too.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where the 9-11 attackers came from, are not in the list of banned countries.
Hey Carto – have to note he got more votes than Mother Theresa May, who didn’t quite manage 200. Now he’s our very special friend.
because he does business there F.O. Do keep up ;)
SC — Thanks. Interesting what I read, and I’ll mark it to read more later. Your comment about Jane Mayer’s Dark Money on the “question of capitalism and class” resonated with a book I just started: The Half That Has Never Been Told — Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E. Baptist. I was interested to read him call out the common myth in the North and the South that slavery wasn’t economically sound, and therefore, not about economics, and so, everyone is absolved of exploiting people to get rich. Nothing could further from the truth as slavery was integral to the rapid accumulation of vast wealth in the South, the North, England, and other places. Capitalism and class go together like a horse and carriage, but capitalists would rather not talk about it.
Where’s Smedley Butler when you need him?
Some reason for hope
A Welcome Setback for Donald Trump – The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/a-welcome-setback-for-donald-trump
I also heard on MSNBC Monday night that ten republicans in the senate have spoke out against the immigration ban.
that’s the stuff I want more insanity and bigger conflicts none of this getting back to calmly going about business of governing and working out problems.
it is just what the market likes uproar and conflict’
if there’s one thing the 1% like better than a tanking Wall Street because of governmental instability it is high inflation and stretched consumers all guaranteed to win the support of the rich and powerful.
can we start the trade war with Mexico and China now please? What is he waiting for any way?
uncle frogy
If he has instructed people to disobey judicial stays then that’s the crunch – mutiny by one branch of government against another.
A test of everyone’s commitment to the system as it’s designed, that is the issue on which the Republic will stand or fall.
Also gone the acting Chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Today will issues exec. order on Internet security which, from leaks, will require visitors to the USA to reveal contact lists and browsing history
Also lost in the shuffle was the death of women and children in the raid on a “terrorist base” in Yemen fulfilling Trump’s promise to go for the families of terrorists like a common mafia boss. and making US servicemen into murderers. Additionally at least one serviceman died in pursuit of this war crime and 4 others injured.
The only question is how do Ryan and McConnell remain standing without a spine?
Ban very good. No Muslim attack since then. Very smart move.
I am sure there are still some people looking at this and saying “anyone but Hillary”………..
No 10, when I said I was beginning to wonder if there would be another election, what I meant is that I’m starting to worry that Trump might simply stage an actual fascist takeover, cancel all further elections, and rule as dictator for life, just like Hitler did. Who also was democratically elected, by the way.
@Marissa van Eck #3: I can’t believe that I’ll ever utter such words, but I have to, sort of, defend Stalin here.
His original idea for the satellite states under his thumb was not immediate takeover, he wanted to lull people into accepting it, which is why it took 2 to 3 years before they actually took over. Furthermore, since they agreed in Yalta that the tribunal for war criminals will be top down, they’ve carefully crafted the system, where the actual leader is but a mere party secretary, not the head of state, like Hitler was.
Hitler has abolished the multiparty system on Day 1. If and when this administration could be held accountable (and it likely won’t be), POTUS and the VP would be front and center.
As a matter of fact, I’ve seen a worse takeover without a need for military occupation, which included a fully new constitution (unlikely in America), a de facto gag order on the Supreme Court on handling cases related to the budget, a range of media loyal and devoted to the administration (again, unlikely in America). There is a plethora of things that can’t be ruled via executive orders, and the House gets reelected every 2 years. Take for example how regimes rely on specifically selected citizens in a paramilitary force, which requires a giant restriction on the Second Amendment. In theory, courts could reiterate the need for a well regulated militia, and defining well regulated as government approved, that definitely wouldn’t fly with the NRA.
America isn’t a former socialist or a third world country, there’s only so much people will tolerate, until they feel the burden of its effects. Once the cost effect will come out, and they will, the same anger that elected them will also wash them away, because bigots cheer for such decisions, but they don’t want to pay the piper.
Cartomancer #24 wrote:
Not sure, but I doubt that Pence, a politician, would persist in the same illegal behavior. He doesn’t have Trump’s belligerent style, he hasn’t made all the same ludicrous promises, and he knows that he ought to go through proper channels. That’s probably what’s bothering the Republicans most. Trump has no idea how government works, and has the subtlety and diplomatic skills of a third grade bully.
Pence’ major pet project is getting rid of abortion. That’s not going to set off any alarms among the other Republicans. Nor will they be particularly worried about Pence’s finger near The Button.
Trump, on the other hand, is obviously a loose cannon — a nuclear cannon, at this point. That’s probably another reason his own party might want to turn on him. The Republicans may have a crappy moral compass, but they don’t have a death wish.
At this point, it is up to the GOP members of Congress to decide whether they support the Constitution of the United States or a man who swore an oath to protect and defend it but who, in fact, is shitting all over it. There is no possible quibbling or equivocation here; the only response is you support the Constitution or the man.
What say you, GOP?
@44 CHARLES
Viagra.
wzrd1@23, “…see the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon”.
Tricky dicky was not impeached. He resigned beforehand. He was about to be impeached, and very very probably would have been convicted at the subsequent trial; if so, he would have then been removed from office.
As a reminder, impeachment, in the case of the President, means you are brought to trial before Congress(Senate, if I recall correctly). It is only if convicted that you are removed from office.
This is why Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, despite being impeached, remained as president — they were not convicted in the subsequent trials.
Re: impeached. There seems to be two uses of the word. The first has to do with articles of impeachment being voted on in the House. Some folks term this as being impeached, which is why Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are labeled as being impeached.
The second is the actual trial in the Senate for impeachment, that is actual removal of office. No president to date has been impeached by the Senate, although Andrew Johnson was not impeached by only one vote.
Nerd,
Impeachment is the political equivalent of indictment. You can be indicted but not convicted; by the same token (and as blf points out) the President can be impeached but not convicted. Impeachment is not removal from office; it is just formally bringing charges for a trial.
It’s not petty and unprofessional, it’s worrying and dictatorial. Framing every independent thought, any opposition as “betrayal” isn’t far away “treason”, as Caine noted.
It’s the first step towards the prisons and the camps.
Did you know what my great-grandma was imprisoned for in the 1940s? Sending food to Spain during the Civil War while being a refugee in France.
Yes, that simple act of humanitarian aid, completely legal where and when she did it, led to a Nazi prison.
To make Trump’s (temporary?) immigration ban quasi legal, he would have to prove that there was an imminent threat from those seven countries. The number of people from those seven countries who have committed terrorist acts inside the borders of the USA is zero. Zero.
So Trump does not have a leg to stand on there. As far as we know, there is no imminent threat that Yemen will attack the homeland.
Trump’s press secretary, Sean Spicer, has been working hard to spin the “preemptive” angle, namely that it is good to stop threats from dangerous places before they occur. That doesn’t really hold water either, considering that terrorist attacks inside the USA are not documented for those seven countries, and that terrorist attacks are documented from other countries.
Trump’s team is pushing hard for the “dangerous” label to be applied to those seven countries based on a determination made during the Obama administration. The problem with that assessment is that the earlier travel restrictions or travel warnings were based on travel to those countries, and not on those countries exporting terrorists.
The seven countries to which Trump applied an immigration ban do have shaky-to-ineffective governments, and that makes them dangerous places for anyone to visit.
The carve out within Trump’s executive order for non-Muslim (translation: Christian) immigrants from those seven countries is definitely unconstitutional. Trump does not have a leg to stand on there.
It will likely take weeks for all the related issues to work their way through the courts. In the meantime, Steve Bannon and Trump are anxious to get Jeff Sessions in place so they can start pushing back harder against lawsuits filed by the ACLU and others. In the meantime, they have a new lackey in Boente.
It will be interesting to see if other Justice Department personnel follow the lead of Sally Yates.
1. Oh gee, that $10 phone from Walmart doesn’t have much in the way of contact lists or browsing history.
2. This is just smoke and mirrors. Security theater.
Everyone, especially terrorists, wouldn’t have contact lists and browsing histories, or at least real ones.
Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
Sean Spicer being extra stupid while attempting to back up his “proactive rather than reactive” defense of Trump’s immigration ban:
Spicer was referring to the shooting at the Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center.
Hey, Spicer, Muslims were the victims. Let that fact through your rightwing filter, please. And the shooter? He was white Christian man who lived in Quebec.
secondtofirstworld
re: Stalin
What slow (“two to three years” in your words) takeover? The deportations started right quick after the Soviet occupation… If you’re talking about the rigged elections, well, that’s a whole another story. Not sure what you mean by ‘lull people into accepting it’, can you clarify?
raven
Gee, people usually travel with the phones they use all the time. And oh gee, you opened FREETHOUGHTblogs in your browser? Must be a comunianarchisocialist.
It’s a way to scare people and make it legal to harass them.
Lynna, OM #56
For the sake of accuracy, wasn’t the OSU attack done by a Somali refugee, or am I remembering that wrong?
Yes it was, according to Ye Pffft! of All Knowledge.
A more correct statement is: “Since the 11-Sept attacks, no-one within the USA has been killed by a terrorist from the seven countries”.
Or as CNN puts it:
Lynna @59 – I also posted about that in the “How Was Your Weekend” thread, where I also mentioned this:
Which was quoted from here.
Bold emphasis mine. I’m surprised Harris wasn’t mentioned. Fuck the original Four Horsemen of Atheism. They were responsible for me being introduced to the community, but I no longer recognize any of them as leaders in thought, maybe Dennett still, but I haven’t heard from him in ages, so who knows.
oops, 61 was directed to Lynna at 58, not 59.
It was done by a Somali-born refugee, but he actually immigrated here from Pakistan, where he’d lived for years. So Trump’s travel ban would not have applied to him anyway, AFAIK.
@rq #59: Sure I can clarify.
There were 2 waves of deportations, and I get to that, but first I have to add, that the whole Soviet plan came off its hinges way back in February of 1945, when a defector in Canada brought proof as to just how deep the Russians burrowed themselves among the Western allies. The original plan looked like this: while non-communist countries were somewhat aware about the horrors within the USSR, thanks to positive propaganda, much of it was treated as Nazi misinformation. They hoped and would have forced it, if necessary, that all what they want is more social justice by giving a position to those long abandoned.
So when they took over in ’45, they leveraged their coalition partners into things that they too wanted, like land ownership, social security, better access to schools, and a quick rebuilding of the countries. The multiparty system was supposed to be up for years to come, only under a different system. However, the intelligence leak and the nuclear bombs sped things up. The first wave of deportation and incarceration was not uncommon, all sides participated in the denazification until they stopped it in 1947. While I don’t condone collective punishment, many truly were collaborators.
The second wave occurred during the takeover and after, targeting those who opposed the dismantling of democracy, and even those who opposed being controlled by Moscow (but still being a communist). Nevertheless, neither the method that Stalin used (especially post-WWII) nor the chain of responsibility can be likened to the Trump administration. As long as the USSR could not have its own atomic weapon, Stalin was convinced, that the satellite states have to have de jure leaders who can take the fall, if the Western allies do invade. For example, in my birth country the head of state was a social democrat, and the prime minister belonged to the farmers party, creating the impression that no communist has an influential position.
As for this administration, I do recall how a few years back attorneys were fired under the attorney general, and the administration bailed him out, so I don’t see it likely, that an impeachment would go through. Catching the overall feel of the inauguration, a lot was copied from Russia, and I don’t see it as unthinkable, that Trump and Pence will switch seats so they can remain in power for 4 terms. After that he can grab what he envied the Clintons and Bushes for, a political dynasty, where his children will be future presidents.
pffft, I recon Trumputin is lucky to make it the end of next month much less 4 years. I get the sense the GOP is just waiting for an excuse to oust him, which only they have the power to do ATM. He’s already done several illegal things, so I’m not sure what they are waiting for, maybe treason charges?
secondtofirstworld
Do you have a year for that first wave of deportations?
Because not all countries were taken over in 1945. Some had a first wave way back in 1940, which returned not in 1945 but in 1944. And it’s funny how that first wave of deportations wasn’t a quiet lull into getting used to an occupation, but a removal of the intelligentsia and political authorities (with landowners deported in 1947). My country of origin did not have a social democratic head-of-state at all, and no multiparty system at all. And this statement:
… is just nasty on your part, since many (most?) of those who were deported were given neither trial nor warning before being shuttled out of the country in cattle cars.
Dunno, the purges were pretty heavy-handed, and Trump’s methods don’t seem all that unsimilar at all.
blf @ 62,
It’s such a beautiful, great ban that it even works retroactively!
It just occurred to me that more-correct statement could be construed as implying one or more of the 11-Sept attackers were from one or more of the seven countries. No, most were from Saudia Arabia, at least one was from Egypt; I have no idea if any were in the USA as refugees or not (the previously-cited CNN link suggests none were refugees).
@rq #68:
The history of the Baltic states, who fell first under Soviet occupation is a turbulent one, to put it mildly. Very similarly to today’s events, the external threat of a destructive force (the Nazis and the communists) had been preceded by a wave of internal strife, leading to conflicts and later wars in what is generally seen as the interwar period. Since neither Nazi Germany nor the Soviet Union accepted the right for these countries to exist, the removal of the elite that could have mounted a resistance is different from deportations shortly after the war, and from the deportations related to removal of anticommunist and local communist remnants.
As for the other part. Half of my family on my father’s side was deported, not because they were ethnic Germans, but because in addition to joining Volksbund, they’ve also discarded their citizenship for a citizenship in the Reich. Even if some did not do that, from the 1930s onward, virtually no country was spared from gravitating toward Berlin or Rome. It’s no secret, that several countries joined Operation Barbarossa because the Germans promised to retract or expand the Vienna Awards based on how deep they can get into Soviet territory. Anybody who opposed siding with the fascists either committed suicide, was incarcerated, or joined a resistance, but most Axis countries had no viable resistance movements. I don’t claim everyone was a collaborator, just that denazification happened for a reason, however botched it was. Unlike the actions taken in Poland and the Baltic states, the announcement to bring the Axis to trial was made public in 1943, to which in response Goebbels performed the infamous, and well choreographed Stadium Speech.
Yet, what the Nazis and the communists have done happened after they took over key sectors first, starting with internal security, and the dissolution of checks and balances. Trump can’t do the latter. Neither can he suspend the right to bear arms. Every dictatorship needs only but a limited number of a loyal paramilitary, which is unthinkable in America. He could establish an authoritarian democracy, not unlike that of Nixon, but even that would require fundamental changes to the constitution, starting with changing the interval of years when representatives, senators and governors are elected.
Putin’s methods work in Russia and other weak democracies exactly because people don’t have strong ties to democracy. The very name of the Tea Party stands for the attitude of Americans not wanting to spend too much of public funding, and Trump’s plans for this term are about the scale of 200 billion. His plans would only work if in advance he’d have already had seized control over key factors, and again, not likely that Americans will give up capitalism for any strong leader, not even for him. It’s well in the cards, that Fox might turn on him, and Breitbart is by far not popular or accessible enough to replace it.
tkreacher @61 and blf @62, thanks for the correction.
raven wrote:
If you’re going to go the burner phone route, you should have a contact list and browsing history. Lots of things that are potentially embarrassing, but far from illegal. Since this is from the Trump administration, might I suggest loading it up with anything related to “water sports” (both sense of the phrase) and gold-plated shower heads?
@blf #70 Of course none of them were refugees. To be a refugee who wishes to enter the US, the process is as easy, excuse the pun, like a camel passing through an eye of a needle.
http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/ Ever since the newsfeed on Facebook appeared, so way before Kremlin trolls and Trump as president became a thing, I always come here if I want to check validity. As it turns out, the Commodore 64 in chief has only made a situation worse, but the template has already existed. Not for a travel ban of course, rather a review of visa waiver from areas of concern.
I’ve also read his pick for SCOTUS, what joy, another judge who doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
@CHARLES
I’m curious, if families were the targets of a war crime, how did an SF operator die, four others get injured and a helicopter damaged badly enough to be destroyed on site? Old age?
Alas, we’ll never get transparency out of this administration and likely, he’d have any leakers summarily executed.
This is reminiscent of good ol’ Joe McCarthy – everyone he doesn’t like is a traitor. At least Joe didn’t have ’em all executed as Stalin and Mao did, but I wouldn’t doubt the Toupee’s tendency to make an executive order to correct that.
#75
For the record, that was planned during the Obama. Administration. The opportunity to strike to get information on the ground arose and trump authorized it. Probably not part of Trump’s plan to kill families of terrorists.
@hotspurphd #75:
I’ve attached the fact check for it, and it did not contain a travel ban, that was his doing. By the way, in my old country, a NATO fence was erected to keep out refugees, and a few weeks later 2 cops were bombed by a far right lunatic, who was in touch with a far right leader, who during his arrest killed a cop, so the executive order itself, in its current form is useless.
The original idea was to review people coming from those places if evidence is found, that in addition to having radical ties, they visited places of interest where attacks against America are planned. It’s very unfortunate that many bought into the idea, that it’s heavenly easy to get into the US, and then carry out anything. Wherever a visa hasn’t been waived, a simple lay tourist is grilled for relevant information, that was in place before 9/11, like have you ever belonged or do you belong to an illegal organization (fascist, communist, terrorist). It’s not like they just take someone’s word for it, it’s the job of officials in the local embassy to ensure a data exchange where such affiliations come to light.
secondtofirstworld@71,
Given that almost half of those entitled to vote in the USA didn’t do so*, and almost half of the rest voted for Trump, who had made his anti-democratic stance abundantly clear, I don’t see where your confidence in the American public’s ties to democracy comes from.
So what? The “Tea Party” was mostly astroturf, and so far as it was genuinely bottom-up, the motivation was simple racism.
You really are deeply, deeply confused. Capitalism does not need democracy, as numerous examples, from the former’s very inception in oligarchic states, through the fascist states of the inter-war period, to the many current capitalist dictatorships, from Russia to Thailand to Egypt to Saudi Arabia and arguably China and Vietnam, make abundantly clear. There is not the slightest reason to think either Trump or those around him have any intention of abandoning capitalism.
Tell us about it when it happens. So far, most of Trump’s voters are quite happy with his actions, and it is from them that Fox draws its audience.
Even if Fox does turn against him – which is about as likely as the Republican establishment standing up to him – Trump has already taken steps to set up his own tame media outlets.
*OK, for a small although possibly crucial proportion, this was because of deliberate obstruction of their right to do so.
@KG #79:
There’s a difference between apathy and a resistance toward a total systemic overhaul. In weaker democracies, voters support the suppression of groups they don’t like, as they view all consequence stemming from such steps as being caused by external interference (a nation of victimhood), but don’t go any further, than the criticism of the super majority and the filibuster. Republicans and Democrats curse these institutions whenever they’re not in power, and no side would be stupid enough to give a tool into the other’s hand that can be used against them. Politicians always talk about doing away with the blight that is on the Washington system, yet they live off of it, and it’s very unlikely, that they’d replace the weak federation with a strong one. To do so, states would have to abandon the 4th, 8th, 10th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, and it won’t happen. They’d have to relinquish fiscal and judicial power.
The Tea Party was and is a Trojan horse, that the GOP should not have let in, but I also wouldn’t say it’s current incarnation is purely about racism. The pledge to raise no taxes is still in effect, and many representatives election and reelection rides on their support. The difference between a radical and a populist will be seen soon enough. Suppose the president can get his idea through to implement tariffs on Mexican goods, which will make products more expensive, the WTO doesn’t make a move (but it will, the membership depends upon punishing those who implement tariffs for other reasons than economical), it will only be a beauty patch on the next proposal to raise the gas tax to support the failing infrastructure. Since a fascist, a communist or a state capitalist can’t implement any firm vision without controlling the economy, any such steps will go against core GOP belief. Not only that, but the same angry people who elected him, so that they can keep their jobs, will rally against such taxation. We can take our pick, either because it’s too much, or because he promised a smaller government that doesn’t interfere with the lives of people.
I’m by far not confused, I know, that capitalism can and does exist without democracy, except… up to the academic level, Americans synonymize capitalism with democracy. It is most evident, when it’s being compared to former socialist states, and many of arguments talk about the lack of free enterprise as being the blight of socialism, when that wasn’t the case, it was a system based on social oppression. In weaker democracies, oligarchs can pop up and fall as they’re dependent from the state. It’s inconceivable that Americans, especially Republicans would just abandon the idea of multiple choice for a few trusted lackeys of the White House. Yes, oligarchs exist in America, and yes, they have large pull, but they’re not dependent on who the president is. The president could step down tomorrow, and Halliburton will still be around.
As I’m not a clairvoyant, I can’t say exactly when it happens, only that it will happen, it’s in the human nature. I can only say why it will happen. Every movement, regardless of the goals it wishes to achieve has a few characters who join to earn fame. Fox News itself has media personalities who joined because they felt they were looked over at promotions, weren’t appreciated enough or didn’t get their own show. It’s literally impossible, that any administration, including this one can satisfy everyone’s desire, and once they’re slighted, they’ll turn on them.
I’m aware that Trump has plans to build up his own media empire, but he overestimates his own worth. People around him have correctly identified that it will be anger and confidence that will bring him votes and domain over the loud and fringe within the GOP camp, but he’s the face of it, not the brains. His voters want to see America great again, not a new Miss America eating a steak with the Shamwow guy. What he doesn’t realize is that he can’t be the Donald anymore, and he will be held accountable if his voters don’t like something. Unlike his European leader pals, he doesn’t have a migration crisis at hand, he won’t be able to blame everything on Muslims forever, he can’t take over the economy, and he can’t break the delicate balance of the states and the federal government. He can’t do half of the things Putin can, because he can’t vote out society.
There’s a natural order to societal evolution, and weaker democracies are behind on that ladder. They believe in the need for a strong leader because as a community they don’t want to take personal responsibility for anything. So if Trump in some Bizarro world can achieve everything he wants (and I doubt that, he chose “You can’t get everything you want” for a reason) it would be only possible by going against core American beliefs, like cherishing personal responsibility, the sanctity of the individual, carving out your own place, be your own person, the importance of small business, etc. It would make something great again, but it sure won’t be America.
P.S.: I don’t think Republicans would have much of a problem resisting him, it’d only take him starting a trade war, which will deeply affect their backers who need those markets. Regardless of what one thinks about the TPP, the core thought behind it was to stop the BRICS countries from using dollar diplomacy and scoop up all markets from America and Europe. A potential trade war only benefits the BRICS, so it’s as un-American as it can get.
secondtofirstworld@80
Which is, of course, exactly what Trump’s voters support. If you haven’t yet noticed that, I have to assume you’ve been living as a hermit in Outer Nowebistan for the past year.
This sentence doesn’t actually make sense. Did you leave something out?
It was the tool of the super-rich, “libertarian” right, which used racism as the bait to hook resentful lower-income whites. The “no new taxes” pledge works because of racist resentment of “my tax dollars” going to the “undeserving” (read, “black”) welfare recipients.
Core Republican* belief is: “I’ve got mine, screw you Jack”. The “belief in small government” will last just as long as it’s useful in pursuit of this real core belief. The right is perfectly able to shift between neoliberal “free market” dogma and authoritarian nativism as is convenient to maintaining economic inequality and elite power. Such a shift is now underway, and those Republicans who don’t realise it quickly enough will find themselves stranded, still bleating out the old nostrums while Trump sets up his internment camps and gives the finger to the WTO.
It’s unlikely there will be such taxation. Trump and the Republican Congress will cut taxes, deregulate the financial system and inflate the deficit to produce a short-term boom, to ensure they keep control of both houses in 2018. That’s why the Dow Jones has risen 10% since the election – the markets know what’s coming. Of course this bubble will in time produce a new crash, but it may well last through 2020. Even if it doesn’t, by then voter suppression measures will have taken full effect. And even if there is such taxation, the need for it will be blamed on foreigners and the shiftless welfare recipients (read “blacks”). You can’t surely have failed to notice that Trump’s voters are eager to blame such scapegoats.
Well the way you expressed your point was certainly confused. Is it democracy or capitalism you think Americans won’t be prepared to give up? Because if they synonymise the two, they may well think that as long as they have capitalism, they still have democracy. For that matter, I don’t expect Trump (or his successors) to simply abolish elections – just to make sure they have so many levers of power in their hands that they can be confident of the results. Putin has shown him the way to maintain a facade of democratic forms while abolishing the reality – I think Trump’s admiration for the latter is genuine.
If it was inconceiveable, Trump would not be President. Once again, it’s not as if he made any secret of his contempt for democratic norms during the campaign. No-one with any deep commitment to democracy could have voted for him, or – in the case of the Republican establishment – failed to denounce his candidacy and call for a vote against him. Your faith in the American public, and the Republican establishment, has already been shown to be unjustified.
The first sentence is extremely dubious to say the least. The second is unintentionally hilarious, because you are exactly describing Trump’s voters.
Those “core American beliefs” have always been mostly a sham. Even in the 19th century the “rugged self-reliant pioneers” relied on the US army to steal land from the Indians and from Mexico. Since at least the late 19th century, the American economy has been dominated by big business. And the states where such beliefs – and the Republicans – are strongest, are those which rely most on federal subsidy. What’s special about the current time is that two processes are making it increasingly difficult to maintain the sham: the concentration of wealth since the 1970s – which Trump’s victory will only accelerate – and the rise of China. One way or another, the “American Dream” looks to be coming to an end.
Then why didn’t they do it before he was elected? He boasted that he was going to abandon the TPP, tear up NAFTA if he couldn’t renegotiate it, expel millions of undocumented immigrants who supply much of the workforce the corporations and the rich need.
*There’s nothing “Grand” about these scumbags,
…but I also wouldn’t say it’s [the Tea Party’s] current incarnation is purely about racism. The pledge to raise no taxes is still in effect…
I agree that overt racism isn’t as common in the Tea Party (or among conservatives/Republicans in general) as some people seem to think (though I’m probably biased since my immediate family are included in that number), but I think it’s important to recognize how unconscious, unacknowledged racial bias colors (pun intended) their perception of the issues. For example, a major reason the pledge not to raise taxes is such a popular and important part of their platform is because of their perception that taxation is just a way of taking their hard-earned money and giving it to lazy (and mostly non-white) good-for-nothings who don’t want to work. To be fair, a big part of this could be chalked up to the fundamental attribution error: I’m poor because the system is stacked against me/I never had a chance to go to college/runaway medical bills, but those people are poor because they lack character/didn’t apply themselves/do drugs. But the fact that people of color make up a disproportionate number of the poor helps to support and reinforce the innate tendency to see them as somehow fundamentally inferior, while allowing Tea Partyers and their ilk to convince themselves that they’ll never need that safety net themselves.
I would worry about Sally Yates losing more than just her job. If anyone is the type to have an enemies list and act on it, it is a thinned skinned, paranoid narcissist like Trump.
As Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- noted @ 55, and Caine observed in her own blog post that Giliell linked to, the language of the notional ‘betrayal’ of Trump’s administration is not a million miles away from the language of treason. Trump doesn’t yet seem to be at the stage of trying to openly prosecute (or, more likely, he would dispense with the illusion of due process and simply use his executive power to outright persecute) anyone who defies him, but that looks like it might change in the near future, and we already know that he has a well developed capacity to hold a grudge paired with utter contempt for the rule of law.
Sally Yates might well need people of integrity who are prepared to stand up alongside her when Trump decides to settle accounts for her principled position.
@KG #81:
I didn’t mean voter suppression, but overall suppression. For example, my culture, that has partly shaped me, has a non-white population of at best 10%, and it’s a common conception, that the non-white minority cannot be integrated. To compare, the Civil Rights Act and acts derived from it or linked to it specifically bar discrimination based on skin color, gender or even faith, my birthplace has no such provisions. When I went to school, minority kids were sent to schools for the mentally challenged, a practice that changed somewhat, but they’re still treated as second class citizens, or barely citizens. To cite a neighbor example, the reason why Germans couldn’t deport some Romani back to Romania was because in addition to living in a shantytown, the country never bothered to teach them the language. So even though EU citizens can’t be refugees, de facto they still are. Most subtly or covertly racist Americans are content with minorities having felony charges, since then they can’t vote, and find it harder to find a job. When they don’t have it, American minorities can still run into such fakeries like a position has been filled in-house, or that they changed their mind, but if it turns out there wasn’t anybody hired, they can sue, and usually win. For the moment the legal framework is still there to uphold both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. It’s the latter that is lacking in post socialist and third world countries. They can sue, but even if they win, they won’t get reinstated, and the majority supports that. The loudest of Trump voters hold horrible views, but the majority of voters gave him a chance to make them prosper, not to commit actions that can bite them in the ass.
I meant by that sentence the following: post socialist and third world societies with a weak democracy have a nation of victimhood where all bad things were done unto them by an external force. This is just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact, they’re so corrupt, that they’d steal someone’s eye during their sleep, if it were worth selling. The most notable example is Russia and China. Both countries launched a version of socialism, but in actuality they just continued the imperialistic ways of their predecessors, and all interference run against them (The Big Game and China being a semi colony) is being seen as a personal attack on their national character. When a meritocracy is established, a healthy nationalism is already in place, and checks and balances almost work by themselves as noone wishes to give too much power to any ruler. I placed that in contrast with the institutions of the super majority and filibuster, and how the given minority curses its existence. The GOP is not stupid to introduce legislation giving nigh unlimited power to the president as that would mean a Democrat could use it against them. It worked in Russia, because Medvedev can’t depose Putin, but it simply can’t work in America. Nixon despised the Jews, the Irish and black people, he had the FBI and the CIA at his disposal, and he still fell in a climate where most Republicans still supported the Vietnam War, but Watergate was just too much.
I’m not contesting that some right wingers do think that way about taxes, but that doesn’t discard the fact, that algebra is not their strong suit. If you have a majority ethnicity of 60% in the overall population, it’s evident, and actually statistically corroborated, that the majority of the poor people will also come from the majority. There is for example a dark secret the religious right doesn’t like air in the open: a significant part of poor white people are single mothers, some of whom belong to religious groups, which practiced polygamy in the past. To avoid criminal charges, the good man only weds one woman, with the others checking in for benefits provided for single mothers, it’s prevalent in Texas. Not to mention, their religious ideal is the homemaker woman who doesn’t have a job in the first place, so one shouldn’t throw stones in a glasshouse, never having worked as an able person is the very definition of a dependent. I don’t say lazy, since being a homemaker should be a choice, but such people also can’t badmouth others based on income level.
I still have to go back to the fact, that a large chunk of Trump voters make less than 90k a year. While the GOP might set up a change you describe, it won’t sail with voters who don’t want to pay more. The midterm elections are next year, and if the financial burden kicks in, heads will roll. In post socialist and third world countries the leader just simply pumps in cash from the budget to take the brunt of negative effects. Take for example the Bucharest pricing agreement of 1957. COMECON countries were aware, that a plan based economy cannot ever outrun a capitalist one, so they made a pledge to implement a 5-year memorandum, and it had so-so worked for 20 years. As I’m sure you’re aware the OPEC crisis happened, so by the time the first ripple was felt in ’78, the countries had little to no money to pay instead of the citizens in addition to pay for goods and services from the outside in real time. Goods disappeared from shelves and long lines were reintroduced, I too stood in them. Trump can fly the middle finger, but it has little effect in a trade war. If and when American goods are boycotted, and Chinese goods become more expensive, it’ll lead to riots across the board. He still can give a f*ck about it, as did Louis XVI and the Romanoffs, and we knew what happened.
Putin’s Russia is different, they’re 250 years behind. To dismantle democracy, Trump would have to dump the 3 founding documents. Vlad is only popular in the countryside and it’s because they see him as the Czar. The Bolsheviks killed the actual royal family, but all subsequent leaders has been seen as the father of the nation. There’s a difference between an evil genius exploiting legal loopholes, or pretending to be a constitutional originalist (like Thomas) and straight up disavowing the papers itself. When I was born, I was born into an authoritarian dictatorship. Several 2nd Amendment lovers point out it happened because we couldn’t defend ourselves, but that’s misguided. We couldn’t defend ourselves because in addition to a police state (which I think Nixon had), a military occupation and a loyal paramilitary group, they had an extensive network of snitches. In order for Trump to have all this, he’d have started with the seizure of transportation, economy and communication, and the curtailing of civil liberties after declaring an emergency. Putin did have that when shortly before getting elected, alleged Chechen terrorists bombed Moscow blockhouses, and the perps never returned. Hitler staged the Reichstag fire. Over the decades, both the Congress and the Senate did a lot to weaken POTUS’s power, which de facto rules out imminent takeover.
I see a difference between blaming exterior factors and the willingness to pay for it. For example, they will blame Mexico for the wall and China for price hikes, but they still will have to pay it. In theory, they could order retailers not to dump the hike on customers, but in reality, fat chance, at best they raise the prices of all products to lessen the burden. As for a person believing in democracy being able to vote for him… many voted Obama before, as a reward for him getting them out from the crisis. It had little to do with race, gender or policy proposals, they want to live the promised American dream. Unless I remember it wrong, they make up third of all the people who voted for Trump. They won’t care why they get farther away from the dream, they put him there to work, and if they pay more, they won’t be loyal voters. This is the basic problem with populism, if you’re smart, you don’t pander to them because they’re fickle. Trump rode on the promise of making everything great again, and if he has to implement measures paid by the little guy before 2020, hindsight will be the least of his problems.
I’m aware of the actual history, I’m merely stating how they view it, and there was also Bust that Trust and the dissection of Ma Bell. The good old times when too big to fail did not exist. In my home country, the job sector has continuous troubles, but the most ironic was, when they transformed community service into a standard form of work to make it appear as if there are enough jobs for everyone. It’s obvious Trump can’t do that, since the GOP was eager to abandon pork money under the banner that the government can’t create jobs. Yet, for intents and purposes, his big plan to beat China is just that: pay as little as possible, regulate as little as possible, and make jobs as dangerous as possible. Nominally more people would work, but it’s not making America great again. Nor will it beat China, for the record. The post socialist and third world countries have one good enemy: the former regime. Supporters don’t turn away as they don’t want the other guys to come back. America doesn’t have that, the Democrats can be vilified, but they’re not colonizers or outright communists. Just remember, Bush had mainly won over Gore by promising better, but he wouldn’t have won again if 9/11 did not happen, he was an economical mess.
Why has the GOP did not resist him? Because Melania is Vlad’s secret cousin and they have a warehouse of sex tapes on GOP members from bars around K Street. Jokes aside, they did not resist him, because he took over the voter bases of the Evangelicals and the angry people. To an extent they want him to fail so that the Tea Party can implode, and they get rid of all in one fell swoop without being implicated, since almost all decisions are being done by the Donald, not them. For them it’s even better if he doesn’t want to relinquish his power, since then the Congress can remove, and Ryan will be interim POTUS, but only after he fails. This is the other thing, he doesn’t have the funding. Deportations and bans are A-OK, as is building the pipeline, but the reimbursement for the wall? Hell no.
@Sarah A #82:
Well, in my birth country’s case the mortgage crisis was easy, the evil banks are at fault, people needed to be bailed out. They could do that, as the country has a long history of a strong safety net.
This is why I find it a bit surprising how any American could believe they won’t ever need one, the last I remember you did not have such a plan in place, and foreclosures were galore, including Mnuchin’s widow mortgage.
I get what you’re saying, but that thinking is foolish. Many IRA and 401k accounts are in portfolios that are being betted on in the stock market, a former acquaintance of mine, who is a dual citizen, returned from Canada after 2/3rds of his pension was lost in the crisis. Health insurance is provided by an employer, who without a fault of their own can call chapter 11 anytime. I could go on, the point is, there’s little “rich to be enough rich” to go around in America, which might explain the high number of opiate addiction that supersedes that of drug addiction.
As a fiscal conservative, my mantra is that there’s no such thing as a crisis proof lifestyle (unless one is the filthy rich). To avoid such scenarios, having a life partner is good, and both people work, whether they have children or not. The way I see, the cultural aspect of how people view themselves (especially my fellow white people) has little in common with economic reality. For example, computers were banned from being exported into the Eastern Bloc, so I learned how to use one after finishing high school. In other words, the true measure of one’s merit can be found by applying the same low standard for everyone. I’d be highly interested that after a 25-year experiment on the Upper East Side would be carried out with the tools provided for the poorest school in America, and the kids would still be as top notch. I’m aware that it will never happen, but at least it would be owning up to the hypocrisy. It goes even beyond that. After the fall of communism, a lot of opportunities popped up for many to learn English for free with a slight caveat: you must find Jesus.
In other words, like a good multi level marketing company, Evangelicals and Mormons came to Africa, Europe and Southeast Asia with the clear intent to help the less fortunate, provided they become more fortunate by following their teachings before the Catholics and other Protestants can come. So they had the money and the willingness as good Christians, just not back at home.
By the way, I meant the general pledge to raise no taxes, which also includes things the Republicans like, such as the military. It has been in effect since the ’70s, so it would surprise if it could just as easily be overturned.