Acting Like An Impulsive 3-Year-Old Means You Are Mentally Unfit To Be -- Or Remain -- President
Ross Douhat in The New York Times on what it takes to be President:
One does not need to be a Marvel superhero or Nietzschean Übermensch to rise to this responsibility. But one needs some basic attributes: a reasonable level of intellectual curiosity, a certain seriousness of purpose, a basic level of managerial competence, a decent attention span, a functional moral compass, a measure of restraint and self-control. And if a president is deficient in one or more of them, you can be sure it will be exposed.Trump is seemingly deficient in them all. Some he perhaps never had, others have presumably atrophied with age. He certainly has political talent -- charisma, a raw cunning, an instinct for the jugular, a form of the common touch, a certain creativity that normal politicians lack. He would not have been elected without these qualities. But they are not enough, they cannot fill the void where other, very normal human gifts should be.
There is, as my colleague David Brooks wrote Tuesday, a basic childishness to the man who now occupies the presidency. That is the simplest way of understanding what has come tumbling into light in the last few days: The presidency now has kinglike qualities, and we have a child upon the throne.
It is a child who blurts out classified information in order to impress distinguished visitors. It is a child who asks the head of the F.B.I. why the rules cannot be suspended for his friend and ally. It is a child who does not understand the obvious consequences of his more vindictive actions -- like firing the very same man whom you had asked to potentially obstruct justice on your say-so.
He argues that Trump can be removed via the 25th Amendment, as mentally unfit for the office. That sounds like hyperbole at first, but is it? Douhat links to this. And this. And then there's Brooks on the Child-In-Chief. But back to Douhat:
There will be more talk of impeachment now, more talk of a special prosecutor for the Russia business; well and good. But ultimately I do not believe that our president sufficiently understands the nature of the office that he holds, the nature of the legal constraints that are supposed to bind him, perhaps even the nature of normal human interactions, to be guilty of obstruction of justice in the Nixonian or even Clintonian sense of the phrase. I do not believe he is really capable of the behind-the-scenes conspiring that the darker Russia theories envision. And it is hard to betray an oath of office whose obligations you evince no sign of really understanding or respecting.
The Republicans need to lead this charge -- to have Trump removed -- for the good of the country:
I will be boring in my sincerity: I respectfully ask Mike Pence and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell to reconsider their support for a man who never should have had his party's nomination, never should have been elevated to this office, never should have been endorsed and propped up and defended by people who understood his unfitness all along.
Then again...a few comments:
DC Researcher, Washington DC
While the 25th amendment or impeachment seem like reasonable options for Mr. Trump, they are not acceptable solutions for congress. In these cities and towns across America, Trump's core base view him as infallible, and those who are not his core base use the wait-and-see policy.Public outcry will get a president in trouble. Lawmakers fear losing their seat, but will only do something if their seat is in jeopardy. It is hard to imagine Mr. Trump being removed from office in the near future. That is sad, but that is the state of our country.
Another:
blackmamba, IL
The 25th Amendment presumes and requires a determination of a mental, emotional or physical incapacity. Trump is a malevolent intentional corrupt criminal by nature and nurture. Trump is a crook. Trump is not crazy.
Another:
RJ57, NorCal
Trump is no child. He has tendencies of a ruthless dictator who thinks he is above it all and can do and say as he pleases. The continued Republican support of him is increasingly unpatriotic. History will be very unkind to him and his supporters but, before that, many of the elected Republicans who continue to ignore his daily excesses will be history.
He is going nowhere. Hes done nothing impeachable-and far less than many other Presidents and hopefuls. We get it. You hate him. But you wont be rid of him. No multiple-murder-ordering bought-and-paid-for corrupt adult for you. Maybe 3 million more voted for her, but those of us who didnt own pretty much all the guns and roughly 85% of the land, including that which feeds you coasts.
Momof4 at May 17, 2017 10:41 PM
Let's be like Obama and declare someone innocent or guilty before we get "official" evidence.
Besides if I wanted to read the NYT I would.
Additionally, "Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. Misprision of felony. Whoever, [Comey] having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony [obstruction of justice] cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil [the deputy attorney general, in Comey's case]or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
What's the rush anyway. You've stopped legal (per the ACLU) EOs just because they were written by Trump (again per the ACLU). What's your worry?
Bob in Texas at May 18, 2017 5:16 AM
I sure don't want Hillary. And didn't. For numerous reasons. I would have voted for Mitt Romney (against Hillary) in a heartbeat. I had since 1986 to see this man in the New York tabloids. Those of you who voted for him aren't seeing a few reasons to question his fitness cracking through the natural human confirmation bias? Really?
Amy Alkon at May 18, 2017 5:42 AM
Come on Amy! You've gone full retard now. The reality is that impeachment is a political process. If you have the votes you can just write in any crime you want. But as of today a Republican congress is not going to impeach a Republican president. So no. No impeachment for you. Deal with it.
Ben at May 18, 2017 5:44 AM
Obama had a great personality and crummy policies. The American people elected Trump, a man with a crummy personality and great policies. The MSM never mentions policy. But Trump's every flaw becomes a constitutional crisis. Every speech reveals another reason to impeach.
Every MSM article I read has this basic message: a bunch of bigoted idiots voted another bigoted idiot into office. And since those idiots were to dumb to know they voted for the wrong guy, we, the great NYT, will remind them every day what fools they really were.
If I took the NYT, I'd spit on it.
Nick at May 18, 2017 6:03 AM
Let me know when those stated reasons show up in the 25th amendment.
Besides, I don't remember you howling for Obama's impeachment when he unilaterally modified the implementation dates of ObamaCare. An actual, impeachable offense.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 18, 2017 6:23 AM
I haven't been this entertained since it was discovered that Bill Clinton was flying to Pederast Island on a billionaire's private jet.
Repeatedly.
I'd say 'pass the popcorn' but I went keto two months ago. Pass the salami and cheddar. Let's watch!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 18, 2017 6:30 AM
"The Republicans need to lead this charge -- to have Trump removed -- for the good of the country."
Amy, this is by far the stupidist thing I've ever seen you write. Do you seriously think, for a microsecond, that the Democrats and their media allies who are screaming for Trump's head on a pike have the "good of the country" in mind? Bullshit. They have made it absolutely clear what they want. What they want is to find a way to overthrow the results of the election, by hook or by crook, and appoint Hillary as President. Is there any doubt that, if Trump were somehow magically removed from office via some 25th Amendment shenanigans, that Mike Pence won't get the exact same treatment that Trump is getting? After all, GW Bush got this treatment. So did his father. So did Reagan. So did Ford. So did Eisenhower. (We'll skip over Nixon, who deserved it.)
I'm going to unpack one paragraph from Douthat, and let's check the status of each statement:
"It is a child who blurts out classified information in order to impress distinguished visitors."
Okay, first thing: The President has absolute, unquestioned statutory authority to declassify or disseminate information as he or she sees fit. Second, every President since WWII has at times shared classified info with Russia or China, as they have seen the need for diplomacy purposes. Obama did so, and it went without the press remarking on it. So did Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc. There were several other high-level officials in that meeting, some of whom have no reason to cover for Trump, and they all deny vehemently that anything untoward was said by Trump.
(And for the record: trying to convince Putin that we have a common enemy in ISIS is a good move, one that I'm surprised that Obama didn't pursue. Russia does have legitimate security concerns with Islamic extremism. And it would be an agreement that would be hard for Putin to break without looking bad in his own country.)
"It is a child who asks the head of the F.B.I. why the rules cannot be suspended for his friend and ally."
There is absolutely no proof that that actually happened. The NYT report on it was based on an anonymous call from someone claiming to be an associate of Comey, who claimed to be reading from a memo. The House Intelligence Committee has issued a subpoena to Comey for a copy of the memo, and Comey is refusing to comply. That is most likely because the memo doesn't exist. Expect a dummied-up "memo", in the style of Dan Rather's infamous forged memo concerning GW Bush's National Guard service, to appear in a few more days.
"It is a child who does not understand the obvious consequences of his more vindictive actions -- like firing the very same man whom you had asked to potentially obstruct justice on your say-so."
Democrats were all in favor of firing Comey up to the very moment that Trump did it. Then they jumped on the chance to score cheap political points. Many of the ones who are publicly ripping Trump for doing it are saying privately that they are glad he did it. They are also saying publicly that Comey's firing would have completely legitimate had Hillary done it. Their attitude is 100% hypocrisy. Their only desire here is power, and they don't care what they have to do to get it, even if it means tearing the country apart. How could you possibly be OK with that?
Cousin Dave at May 18, 2017 6:53 AM
Who benefits from war with Russia? More was leaked in trying to paint Trump as having told secrets to the Russians than Trump told the Russian foreign minister....who represents our ally in destroying ISIS...which has been the official US foreign policy position since January 20, 2017.
As president, he owns the nukes, and he owns the secrets.
All of this looks like pretty extreme grasping by somebody with some severe sour grapes that her candidate, Mrs. Clinton, was such a turd.
Bill Clinton fired an FBI director. The firing didn't happen until Mr. Comey (1) testified to Congress that there was no interference, and (2) testified to Congress that Mr. Trump was not under investigation, and (3) the Deputy AG was sworn in.
Barack Obama handed out classified information like candy - but it was his to give.
This is just because the state of Israel, that is the reported source of the information, doesn't like a president that doesn't bend the knee to Tel Aviv. They've already said this week they want Assad assassinated. They plus the Saudis buffaloed Obama into this Syrian entanglement. Trump's enough of his own man that he looks at it as a stupid thing to be Israel's useful idiot to settle their hatred of Syria.
El Verde Loco at May 18, 2017 7:02 AM
I'll add something else that has been hinted at. Leftists lately have been openly discussing means of removing Trump from office that are, at best, constitutionally dubious. And they seem to be under the impression that the U.S. military will back them. That is beyond delusional. The best possible result in the civil war that would result from the Left trying that kind of stunt would be that the military would decide to stand down and let the two sides fight it out. (Even then, a lot of soldiers would probably decide to enter the fight privately. Guess what side most of them would be on.) Now, consider: which side has most of the guns? And if that answer doesn't satisfy you: Which side grows the food? Which side operates and maintains the power grid, the refineries, the water treatment plants, and the over-the-road trucking? None of those activities is taking place in Manhattan or Bel Air. People need to consider the practical realities. That place where the Left is wanting to go is not a good place.
Cousin Dave at May 18, 2017 7:10 AM
I think it's hilarious that so many of you still think everything is hunky-dory in Trumpland.
Trump's staff and your representatives in Congress do not share your confidence, nor do oddsmakerers. A lot of GOPers in Congress would infinitely prefer Pence and are starting to consider if ousting Trump and installing Pence wouldn't be better for party as well as country.
The investigation isn't going away. Trump is going to keep being Trump, creating still more chaos that prevents Congress from pushing forward with much of anything. Our allies are giving us the side-eye and markets are trembling.
Do you really think appointment of a special counsel was a good sign for Trump? Did you notice how Republicans in Congress are joining Democrats in hailing it as a good thing, while Trump shrieks about it all alone on Twitter?
I think the odds of Pence 2018, or quite possibly 2017, increase by the hour.
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:15 AM
Sometimes there isn't a hero in the story. Trump's issues are well documented however the continued hysterics run the strong risk of turning him into a martyr.
N at May 18, 2017 7:20 AM
Does Douhat mean the same president who obeyed the lower court order that invalidated his executive order, changing the order and obeying the second court which invalidated that one? An order, by the way, which agrees with today's second thread that Islam is the most dangerous threat to civilization.
Or does he mean the president who implemented changes to laws without consulting or even notifying Congress? The president who bound the country to treaties he signed but did not submit to the Senate for ratification? The president who bragged about having a pen and a phone, "stroke of the pen, law of the land." The president who sold guns to Mexican drug gangs and then lost track of them?
Or does he mean the president who lied to a grand jury about sleeping with a teenaged intern? The president who accepted campaign donations from China and turned the Lincoln Bedroom into a Motel 6?
Which president was it that didn't understand "the nature of the legal constraints that are supposed to bind him?" Or is it only Republican presidents who are unfit if they act petulantly? Where was the outrage when a Democrat was subverting those legal constraints?
Even before the inauguration, the Democrats were talking about impeaching Trump. They are being reckless with this, and may drag the Republic down with them.
Presidents have been pushing the legal constraints that bind them since Washington. And Congress has been demanding that it be consulted on everything from going to war to decorating the Oval Office.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2017 7:21 AM
Pence forming his own PAC -- that doesn't give you pause, right there?
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:23 AM
Pence forming his own PAC -- that doesn't give you pause, right there?
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:23 AM
No it doesnt. Maybe because I dont particularly care which Republican is president, and personal likability doesn't concern me much.
Pence will be constrained by the constitution just as Trump is.
And I am sure that if Pence is president, or running for it, in the future, he will turn into * literally Hitler* 5 minutes after Trump leaves office.
If the democratic party manages to destroy the Constitution and election law in order to achieve political power, I think they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Isab at May 18, 2017 7:43 AM
Snoopy & Raddy are winning!
Hi Isab!
Snoopy & Raddy are winning!
Hi Isab!
Snoopy & Raddy are winning!
Hi Isab!
Crid at May 18, 2017 8:42 AM
"Deal with it," says Ben!
"Deal with it."
Crid at May 18, 2017 8:45 AM
I actually was not asking if Pence as president gives you (or anyone) pause. I was posing the question -- doesn't Pence forming his own PAC, among other things, give some doubt to the idea that Trump has nothing to worry about?
I think Trump has plenty to worry about, but time will, as always, tell.
Gail at May 18, 2017 8:56 AM
So. How many besides Crid and Amy are basing everything they think on MSNBC & CNN?
Because the assertions in the initial post simply agree with professed reactions by mass media.
Please tell me how the EO on enforcing existing law was unConstitutional.
Please tell me what you think you want for an end result or resolution to the problems you think you see.
Please tell me just what would be wrong with any sort of alliance with Russia.
After all, the "adult", when she wasn't taking money from governments that execute people for being gay, did so much more for the benefit of you, the concerned (and perpetually horrified) citizen.
Maybe I don't know about this living saint's life, since I have only... wait. I have her voting record.
Never mind.
Radwaste at May 18, 2017 8:57 AM
Who's "Snoopy"? Doesn't appear above.
Check the consensus.
Radwaste at May 18, 2017 9:00 AM
> I think it's hilarious that
> so many of you still think
> everything is hunky-dory
> in Trumpland.
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:15 AM is affirmed, but the laughter is the crying on the inside.
Nobody who voted for this fucker has any clue how to move their own interests forward, let alone those of the body politic, and can't see that all Trump wants out of life is to fill more hotel rooms and help his daughter sell clothing.
As Eli Lake put it, Trump's cunning exceeds the purview of DC insiders. They're watching the unremarkable dance of rooks & pawns... But meanwhile, he's playing five-dimensional Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Crid at May 18, 2017 9:04 AM
Mom of 4 says "We get it."
So, they get it!
Crid at May 18, 2017 9:06 AM
> Doesn't appear above.
And yet, no one said he did.
Crid at May 18, 2017 9:07 AM
Check the consensus! You get it! Spit on the New York Times! As President, Trump "owns the nukes!" We don't know where Snoopy is, but wherever he is, he's winning!
Crid at May 18, 2017 9:11 AM
Actually, Raddy, if you step outside of Breitbart, and follow the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, and numerous conservative pundits, you'll see they're none too rosy on Trump or his future. Of course, you can continue to write off each and every person who speaks against Trump as an ignorant paranoid secret libtard with a crazed extremist communist agenda...
Gail at May 18, 2017 9:17 AM
And "winning" is important, so deal with it.
There's just no way things could be going better for that orange weaselbun. You guys gotta be busting your buttons at the scope of his genius... Proud you are! Future generations will weep with gratitude at your incisive, nuanced appraisal of this masterful political operative. Thank God someone had the clarity to identify this trite reality TV player as suitable for leadership of the Executive branch of the United States government in the 21st Century, right? Donald Trump.
If only he didn't have so many enemies! And if only they weren't so meeeeeeen! Amirite?
BTW, here's that McArdle thing I mentioned last week, which is itself a cite.
Crid at May 18, 2017 9:24 AM
I actually was not asking if Pence as president gives you (or anyone) pause. I was posing the question -- doesn't Pence forming his own PAC, among other things, give some doubt to the idea that Trump has nothing to worry about?
I think Trump has plenty to worry about, but time will, as always, tell.
Gail at May 18, 2017 8:56 AM
My speciality is not election law. However there are many reasons why Pence might need his own PAC.
A lot of office holders have them.
Why Trump should be worried about this, as you seem to think he should be, I have no clue.
And here is Dershowitz on the subject of obstruction of justice.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/17/dershowitz-come-no-ones-going-indict-trump-obstruction/
Isab at May 18, 2017 9:56 AM
In my office, the consensus seems to be that the president will probably resign, eventually.
Ahw at May 18, 2017 10:45 AM
"you'll see they're none too rosy on Trump or his future."
Those same pundits were convinced that Trump had zero chance of winning in the first place. It would pay to not regard them as reliable sources at this point. I'm not necessarily saying that they're wrong, but they are making statements based on wishful thinking, not on rational analysis.
There is such a thing as alarm fatigue.
Cousin Dave at May 18, 2017 10:56 AM
There is such a thing as alarm fatigue.
Cousin Dave at May 18, 2017 10:56 AM
I think Trump shojld take a page out of the Obama play book. Fire someone every week. Then the last one becomes *old news*.
Alberto Gonzales seems to think Comey is a slipery political weasel in Chuck Schumer's front pocket.
From what I have read, if any indictment comes out of the special counsel it is likely to be Comey and The Clinton Foundation.
I think the dems need to be very careful what they wish for.
Isab at May 18, 2017 11:33 AM
Like I have said before, I currently give him a C. The media, Hollywood, RINOs, Democrats and leftoids engaging in this soft coup against him obviously gave him an F long before he was elected. Unlike some supporters, I am not against criticizing Trump, or should he take a truly bad turn, flunking him and joining the outcry for his removal. (If he really did compromise a classified source, he goes to a C- or a D.)
However, he has done some good things and some bad things in my view. He is only 4 months in. I am sorry you are going along with this soft coup, Amy. If the Dems are successful in removing Trump and regaining Congress, the revenge they will wreak on all of us -- including YOU, Amy, since you're for small government -- will make Trump's bad side, whatever there is of it, look like a piker in comparison.
Dems win, Hello Venezuela!
mpetrie98 at May 18, 2017 12:31 PM
And by the way, in case anyone is wondering, I think Pence would make a better President than Trump. I just don't want it going down this way. Let Pence resign and run against Trump in 2020, and I will support him, should Trump continue being mediocre.
mpetrie98 at May 18, 2017 12:33 PM
But Hillary! But Hillary! But Hillary!
But Obama! But Obama! But Obama!
I don't think there's been evidence of an impeachable offense. I do think there's enough here for an independent investigation, so things are proceeding as they should.
Trump has pulled enough dopey unforced moves on his own that it's hard to dismiss any criticism of him as some Rosemary's Baby-style cabal of Democrats, RINOs, the so-called MSM (Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are the top cable news network and top political radio show, but never mind), "coastal elites," and whatever the latest hobbyhorse is to fulfill his defenders' persecution complex.
Kevin at May 18, 2017 1:33 PM
The anti-trump Leftists were calling for Trump to be impeached before he even took the oath of office:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/17/trump-impeachment-talk-started-before-he-was-even-nominated/
Anti-Trump hysteria stinks on ice. It has nothing to do with the man or his policies. It has to do with 1.) Democrats acting like spoiled children after their candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost an election that was eminently winnable for her, and 2.) the gullibility of non-Democrats, e.g., Ross Douhat.
I say "gullibility" in regard to their unstated but apparent belief that the Left-wing Democrat crybaby smear-machine will stop once Mike Pence, or any other Republican, assumes the office of President. My prediction is that if and when they take a scalp (Trump), they'll be all that more emboldened to go after someone else.
Question for the crybaby Left: If Trump is "literally Hitler", why aren't you in jail?
L. Beau Macaroni at May 18, 2017 2:14 PM
President "Your Fetus Is More Important Than You" Pence will be very popular with the Democrats.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 18, 2017 2:37 PM
More Big Mac.
Crid at May 18, 2017 2:59 PM
In today's irrational-3-year-old news, the administration launches effort to re-negotiate NAFTA.
I like it.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 18, 2017 3:05 PM
"the president will probably resign, eventually."
I predict in four years he will step down. Or eight. But not twelve. Nope.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 18, 2017 3:08 PM
True, Pence will not be popular with Democrats or liberals. But I think at this point, Pence is looking pretty attractive to a lot of Republicans and independents who aren't in the diehard Trump Cheer Club.
In the election, the other choice was Hillary, who was waaaay more unpopular than a lot of Dems thought. Now, the other choice is Pence. That changes things up a bit -- many of those who have the power to oust Trump would prefer Pence, especially if they think his antics are distracting from the GOP agenda and hurting the party.
A lot of people were willing to give Trump a shot on the "well, if he actually does XYZ as he says he will, that sounds pretty good, even if he maybe is kind of an asshole." If Trump doesn't come through, if it looks like he's just a mess and Pence would be better, I don't see those people standing by Trump -- and I don't see their congressional representatives doing so either.
Of course, there were also those who just love Trump no matter what and don't care what he does, but I think they're a minority -- especially in Congress.
And it must be noted -- Hillary, as not popular as she is, got 3 million more votes than Trump. The margins by which he won in the close states, thus giving him the electoral college, were not yuuuge. This election was by no means a massive "people love Trump" election. And just as many people fucking hate Trump as hate Hillary. The partisan hysteria is on both sides.
It's ultimately the people who didn't adore Trump, but preferred him to Hillary, who are going to determine this thing. They didn't like Hillary better, but they might like Pence better. Then, too, they gave Trump a chance based on what they saw as his potential -- his performance may well be another matter.
In other words -- the fact that Trump won the election despite the pundits hating him doesn't mean squat about his position now. We're in a whole new ballgame, and it's still in play.
I'd agree that the far left lives in a bubble. But those of you on the right who think Trump is invulnerable -- yeah, I think you're in a bubble, too.
I'm not getting that from MSNBC and Huffpo. I'm getting that by watching what is actually happening, by what Republicans, conservatives, and independents in government are doing and saying -- and not doing and not saying.
And I'm watching how Trump on Twitter screeching about this being a witchhunt is essentially a lone voice, at least among those holding any power.
Democrats and liberals don't need to like Pence. That's irrelevant until at least 2018, and probably 2020. All that needs to happen is that enough *Republicans* prefer him, or at least think Trump has become more of a political liability and a block on the GOP agenda than he is an asset. And I think we're getting there.
We'll see.
Gail at May 18, 2017 3:10 PM
Gail wrote: "In other words -- the fact that Trump won the election... doesn't mean squat"
That's the nutball Democrats' position in a nutshell.
Please note that I said "nutball Democrats." Some Democrats, like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, are speaking much more responsibly:
"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told CNN's Chris Cuomo that she doesn't subscribe to the idea of President Trump being impeached."
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/16/nancy-pelosi-town-hall-donald-trump-impeachment-sot.cnn
L. Beau Macaroni at May 18, 2017 3:32 PM
"Hillary, as not popular as she is, got 3 million more votes than Trump. "
Two million of which came from four counties in New York City.
Article II saves America.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 18, 2017 3:43 PM
yep, all of us who think that Trump v. Hillary is not the same as Trump v. Pence, or who think months of chaos and unfulfilled promises are a different game from grandiose pre-election boasts are "nutball Democrats".
God, coloring your world is so simple when you paint everything with a mono-colored roller the size of Trump Tower.
Another distinct possibility, I think, is that Trump says "fuck you" and resigns. He's nowhere close to doing it now, of course. He's doubling down, like he always does. But it the time comes, and it might, where he thinks he can paint that as a bigger win, he's gone. A devoted public servant, caring about his constituents more than himself, I don't think.
Pence has pretty much disappeared this last 48 hours. Wonder why he hasn't been out there vigorously defending Trump and joining him in condemning Mueller's appointment as a witch hunt?
Gail at May 18, 2017 3:44 PM
"Actually, Raddy, if you step outside of Breitbart,..."
Ah, assumptions. I have made the sin of claiming Crid (and by extension, everyone else) cannot evaluate Mr. Trump by the reporting of news agencies, when it appeared that their opinion was formed that way. People do not want to hear this, just as they reacted with profanity to the news that they never had actually seen evidence in the OJ trial. The Zimmerman trial. Just about every trial.
Well, duh. News agencies not only have their own ideas about what is important, they are selling their product, which mandates, not merely recommends maximum hysteria.
Our hostess is horrified. Mission achieved.
Apparently, our most vocal people must find release for the things they encounter in media, and this is pursued to the exclusion of much logic - like noticing that two Executive Orders cited existing law, chapter and verse. There are others.
If you want to insist that you know about any President via the news media, OK. I only ask that you check it before you back it.
I have a picture of Bill Clinton, GHW Bush and George Wallace enjoying soft drinks together.
Now what do you believe?
Radwaste at May 18, 2017 3:58 PM
I believe you've pretty much fucking lost it.
Gail at May 18, 2017 4:01 PM
Gail wrote: "yep, all of us who think that Trump v. Hillary is not the same as Trump v. Pence, or who think months of chaos and unfulfilled promises are a different game from grandiose pre-election boasts are 'nutball Democrats'."
Yeah, pretty much, because there is no "Trump v. Pence." You don't get to hound a President out of office on basis of hysteria and innuendo. It doesn't matter whether Republicans have "buyer's remorse" or not. I'm all for them voting for someone else in 2020 if they don't like Trump's performance in office. The Constitution says that Trump was elected to a four-year term, and I suspect that he'll serve it out.
And no, I'm not a MAGA-hat wearing Trump fan. Hell, I didn't even vote for Trump. But I do not want the republic to throw away 200+ years of Constitutional government because a few activists didn't like the tone of a President's "tweets."
L. Beau Macaroni at May 18, 2017 4:04 PM
Seriously. That didn't make any sense at all as a rebuttal to what I've said. In fact, I can end that sentence at "all."
Gail at May 18, 2017 4:05 PM
"Seriously. That didn't make any sense at all as a rebuttal to what I've said. In fact, I can end that sentence at "all."
To be clear, the above comment was addressed to Radwaste.
L. Beau Macaroni is also not making much sense, but he is kind of responding to what I said, if not particularly intelligently.
Really, if you keep painting everyone who criticizes Trump as a deranged Democrat, soon there will only be a handful of people in America who are not deranged Democrats. You're sweeping in a pretty broad swath of long-time Republicans and conservatives.
Gail at May 18, 2017 4:10 PM
Gail, I didn't say that everyone who criticizes Trump is a deranged Democrat. I was one of those critics as regards lobbing missiles around in Syria! I said that if you frame the issue as "Trump v. Pence", then you are framing the issue as one of "should Trump be forcibly removed from office or not?"
I still regard impeachment talk as deranged as of this writing. I hope that you can see the difference.
Mind you, some of what I wrote above would not apply to you if you're talking about Pence mounting a primary challenge to Trump in 2020. But you never stated that outright.
L. Beau Macaroni at May 18, 2017 4:28 PM
'Gail wrote: "In other words -- the fact that Trump won the election... doesn't mean squat"
That's the nutball Democrats' position in a nutshell.'
I thought it was a threat to democracy to not accept the results of the election...Hillary's portion of the debates in which she says this is available for anyone to see on YouTube. Now she says she's joining 'the resistance' ( what an insult to the Resistance...a bunch of people at keyboards swigging Starbucks while they take potshots on Twitter), what a goddamned liar she is.
Re: 'But Obama!'
Yes, 'but Obama'...those of us who were not blindly swooning over pictures of him being so great with babies and dancing with Michelle actually noticed things like the terrorist-for-deserter swap that he made without notifying Congress...now, that's illegal. Didn't bother many then when the President far overeached his legal authority, more than once, but now every (legal) Executive Order triggers cries of 'Treason! Impeach!' The hypocrisy is truly astounding.
The other truly shocking thing is how the majority of those now sceaming for impeachment must have slept through civics class. Toss out Trump and Pence and put Hillary in office? Redo the election? How do they (the relentless Facebook and Twitter crowd) think any of this is actually possible? It's a national shame, how little Americans actually know about how their government works. I see talking heads on NHK who know more about the Constitution than most of the people I see on Facebook.
crella at May 18, 2017 4:30 PM
Really, if you keep painting everyone who criticizes Trump as a deranged Democrat, soon there will only be a handful of people in America who are not deranged Democrats. You're sweeping in a pretty broad swath of long-time Republicans and conservatives.
It's enitrely possible to dislike Trump and his policies on their own (de)merits, just as it was possible to dislike Obama and his policies on their own (de)merits.
To suggest any criticism of Trump is from a "Left-wing Democrat crybaby smear-machine" makes about as much sense as saying any criticism of Obama was because he was black. As I said, Trump has committed plenty of unforced errors without anyone else's help.
Kevin at May 18, 2017 4:32 PM
The Left-wing Democrat crybaby smear-machine" are among the ones calling for impeachment, as they have been for months. I never said that any criticism of Trump must have come from them.
But way go after that Strawman, Kevin!
L. Beau Macaroni at May 18, 2017 4:49 PM
The Left-wing Democrat crybaby smear-machine" are among the ones calling for impeachment, as they have been for months. I never said that any criticism of Trump must have come from them.
That's absolutely true, L. Beau, and I apologize for misstating your position.
Kevin at May 18, 2017 5:06 PM
> I say "gullibility" in regard to
> their unstated but apparent belief
> that the Left-wing Democrat crybaby
> smear-machine will stop once
> Mike Pence, or any other Republican,
> assumes the office of President.
Then I'd say:
In this blog post, Amy says "An impulsive three-year-old." McArdle, as linked above, is more generous:
Whatever youthful need Trump's meeting for you guys, it's got little to do with your political interests.
Months later, I'm still stunned that you've selected the sluttiest, tackiest media figure in pop-culture history as your ego-proxy, let alone that you've imagined that the most prominent service position in global history will be the perch from which he can improve the lives of others.
Whatever the year of your undercooked psychological development, this is grotesquely pathetic—— You've put a frog in the locker of the first girl in your class to grow tits, and you're cackling at your own cleverness.
Crid at May 18, 2017 5:09 PM
Kevin: Apology accepted, no worries. :)
L. Beau Macaroni at May 18, 2017 5:16 PM
Remember when the President was impeached and his wife went on to become Secretary of State and took millions in bribe money from the Russians?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 18, 2017 5:23 PM
Lyndon Johnson was obsessed with his penis. And he liked to waggle it at people when he wasn't barking orders at people while sitting on the toilet.
Admittedly, Johnson was a better politician than Trump is. And much of Johnson's dick-waving was a crude exercise in power. But much of it wasn't, it was a three-year-old's Freudian obsession with his own genitalia.
We survived the penis-obsessed and tantrum-prone three-year-old that was Lyndon Baines Johnson and we'll survive the pussy-grabbing and tantrum-prone three-year-old that is Donald John Trump.
The press wants you to believe they are only reporting on the things the US public needs to know to properly judge Trump's fitness for office. How about other presidents and their lack of fitness for the office that went unreported? Comparing those to Trump makes him seem less unfit and the presidency seem more like a looney bin.
The aforementioned penis-obsessed Johnson lied about the Tonkin Gulf incident as a justification for expanding the US role in Vietnam. No press stories were filed about his public displays of "Jumbo" that might have limited public support for a man who involved the US in an undeclared war that cost more than 50,000 servicemen's lives.
Kennedy held orgies in the White House pool and traveled with two secretaries whose only jobs were to service the president. Kennedy condoned the assassination of a US ally, telling the assassins the US would not act to stop the overthrow of the elected president. This overthrow led to the aforementioned undeclared war.
But, we're to believe that Trump is the only president we've ever had with severe personality defects that might lead one to conclude he is unfit for the office. He's just a drop in the bucket of the insanity that has been the US presidency, a bucket of insanity that went, and still goes, largely unreported by the press.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2017 6:40 PM
Did Lyndon Johnson ever decide on the spur of the moment to release sensitive intelligence info to Russia that we received from Israel -- who did not authorize us to release it even to our allies --
thereby endangering an intelligence agent? (Though, to be fair, Trump didn't know the information came from Israel or was particularly sensitive because he was too busy tweeting and watching cable news to bother with daily security briefings.)
Did Johnson fire a law enforcement official who was leading an investigation against him after trying and failing to get that officer to back off? Oh wait, no -- that was Nixon, not Johnson. Who, I seem to recall, DID get in a spot of trouble over his "personality defects."
This isn't about Trump being an asshole. He's always been an asshole, and I agree, he won't be impeached for that. But he just may be impeached for obstruction of justice and for being utterly irresponsible and untrustworthy with intelligence info.
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:09 PM
Trump is no LBJ... If Trump had a lifetime of government service by which to be judged, we might expect as big a life as Johnson lived. Instead all we see is the serial business failures. As Colby Cosh put it a few years ago:
We must now consider (or worry) that the Caros of tomorrow will be compelled to review Trump's life in considerable detail as well.But why the fuck would they? What would they learn? What could they possibly say about such a small man?
There's probably been a president as corrupt —and certainly there have been candidates as corrupt— as Hillary. But that's not how standards are set for worthiness, right?
Crid at May 18, 2017 7:27 PM
No, he just lied and got us into a 12 year "war" that cost 58,000 Americans their lives and divided the country for the next several decades.
Seriously, is that agent really endangered? And if the press is so worried about this agent, why do they keep releasing additional information that might help ISIS identity him? Seriously, I'm expecting them to release his name and photograph any day now, while castigating Trump for helping ISIS to identify him.
My point wasn't to say that others were worse, but that clearly, well-adjusted people do not seek the presidency. And we've survived tantrum-prone three-year-olds before. Why is Trump different? Why is he the harbinger of doom for the republic?
And, I believe that, as president, Trump is authorized to release sensitive information. Whether it is wise to do so can be debated, but I believe it's in his job description to make that call.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2017 7:31 PM
> Remember when the President was
> impeached and his wife went on
> to become Secretary of State
> and took millions in bribe money
> from the Russians?
Yes. Yes I do.
Crid at May 18, 2017 7:41 PM
Because he's only a couple of months into his presidency and he's already accumulated more disasters than his predecessors before he's accumulated any real accomplishments -- and there are still more shoes to drop?
Because his disasters demonstrate a complete disregard for our system of checks and balances, and the values on which our nation was founded?
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:43 PM
PS- Agreeing with Gail generally does not compel belief that any particular scandal will get this guy successfully impeached.
And let it be known that I, a telecom major, typed the word "successfully" without needing spellcheck.
Crid at May 18, 2017 7:44 PM
Because he's likely at any given time to drop state secrets on the spur of the moment just because he feels like it, to start a war with North Korea, or to tweet out some random insanity at 3 am?
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:45 PM
I agree, Crid, that he won't necessarily be impeached. But I think within this last couple of days, it's entered into the realm of possibility. I say that not because MSNBC said so, but because of the words and actions of GOP politicians, both what they've done and said, and what they haven't done and said, in response to this weeks crises.
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:49 PM
...this week's crises.
damn it, where's the edit button?
Also, I think Pence is eying 2020, and possibly preparing himself to just maybe take the reins earlier -- hence his laying reeeeeeallly low during the last couple of chaotic days instead of being out there vociferously defending his boss, and hence his starting his very own PAC. Certainly, others are talking about that possibility.
Gail at May 18, 2017 7:53 PM
No, no one is going to spend 40 years studying the life of Donald Trump. And 40 years studying the life of Lyndon Johnson is too much. LBJ was a compelling figure with much to teach about the exercise of power politics, despite his crudity. But after the first 10 years, one has to wonder what else Caro learned about him, or if his interest had by then devolved into obsession.
Trump, as we see him now, is simply not a compelling figure. At the finish of his presidency, we may view him differently. I doubt it, but it's possible.
Now, we actually know very little about Trump. With what we know him now, he's simply not compelling. Until his presidency, he's played little to no role in the development of the permanent underpinnings of our society or culture. He's built some buildings and slapped his name on anything that slowed down long enough for someone to apply a stencil. Otherwise, he's been a latter-day Kardashian, a pubic figure famous more for being famous than for accomplishments. His tastes are plebeian, his rhetoric simplistic, and his public intellect underwhelming.
He's clearly overmatched in the job. But, unlike other presidents, is not being given a chance to grow into it. JFK emerged from his first meeting with Nikita Krushchev saying "he kicked my ass." The Vienna Summit and Kennedy's 1961 Berlin adventure were abject failures that led to the construction of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps the press is right and Trump is fundamentally unable to grow into the job. But is that their decision to make? The people elected him.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2017 7:57 PM
God help us.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2017 8:00 PM
> it's entered into the
> realm of possibility.
Absolutely. And we can imagine any number of similar missteps, or some accretion thereof, which will eventually flower into something which ends his, um, service to the American people.
Crid at May 18, 2017 8:17 PM
Besides, Coney, who cares about the press?
Crid at May 18, 2017 8:20 PM
Really, the main thing I'm saying here is that it's ridiculous to pretend everything is perfectly fine in the Trump White House, and that he has nothing to worry about except some minor liberal hysteria that will blow over. I think he has plenty to worry about. Unfortunately, so do the rest of us, in a yuuuge bigly way.
Obviously, I also quibble with those who would argue that Trump is awesome.
Gail at May 18, 2017 8:20 PM
Oh, and I also take issue with those who think everyone who dislikes Trump is a liberal and/or hates America. Yeah, no, plenty of reasons for the rest of us to dislike him, too.
Gail at May 18, 2017 8:43 PM
Americans have little sense of history. Blame a politicized educational system.
Every crisis is the worst ever. Every mistake the one that will bring down the republic. Trump may well turn out to be the worst president ever, but his every mis-step is not a fatal wound, to him or to the country.
We've survived incompetent presidents, dilettante presidents, immoral presidents, crooked presidents, skinny-dipping presidents, everything but serial killer presidents (that we know of). And we'll survive Trump. And some people will even praise him long after his presidency is a footnote in history, perhaps even rightly.
Anti-Trump hysteria will only serve to strengthen his support among those who view the Washington press as corrupt or partisan and, by extension, the people they elect to Washington.
I'm simply not going to get worked up over the latest "revelation" of Trump's unfitness. If strong evidence turns up that proves Trump should be impeached, then he should be impeached. Until then, it's political rhetoric, and rhetoric that ill-serves the republic. Opposing parties should not simply demand presidents with which they disagree be impeached on any and all charges they can come up with.
Impeachment is a serious political tool, a measure of the public mood, and should be a last resort. There are still tools that can be used against Donald Trump. A 2018 mid-term sweep by Democrats would deny him a compliant Congress. Lower courts have put checks on his executive orders before and can do so again. Public opinion can be swayed against him, although the current hysteria-level rhetoric ill-serves that objective.
The public at large has to support impeachment and removal. Lack of public support was why Bill Clinton was not removed from office and a Barrack Obama impeachment was never more than a fantasy in the minds of some, despite his propensity toward an imperial presidency.
The House Republicans were careless in impeaching Bill Clinton, despite being able to prove perjury on his part. With perjury proven, Clinton's NY law license was suspended and his SCOTUS privileges were taken away permanently. These were consequences for his proven actions that were outside partisan politics. Without similar non-partisan agreement of wrongdoing, public support for the impeachment of yet another president is going to be shallow and contentious.
And with another such carelessly-handled impeachment, the impeachment process itself is subject to becoming little more than a partisan political ploy, exercised by the opposition party to secure the presidency for itself when the election fails to do so; or to hobble an opposition president.
Significant portions of the country still support Trump, and will react negatively to his impeachment without credible evidence of wrong-doing and lack of fitness for office. The country's growing urban-rural divide will be exacerbated by a careless Trump impeachment. Washington will be viewed as even more elitist and out-of-touch than it already is by those living in easily ignored "flyover country."
In pursing this carelessly, Democrats risk turning the country into a banana republic where presidents can be removed on the flimsiest of charges. They risk dividing the country in a way it hasn't been divided since 1861. The saner voices in the Democratic Party need to take over and quiet the hysterical voices (e.g., Maxine Waters); let impeachment be a deliberately and seriously considered (and reluctantly undertaken) necessity.
Of course, Trump himself could quiet some of the anti-Trump voices with a display of competence; and fewer bewildering 3am tweets. I realize that he considers them his direct communication to the American people, but even FDR had someone review his fireside chats. Editing, Don, editing.
Respect for the Constitutional limitations on presidential power has always been in short supply in the Oval Office.
And Trump did honor the checks and balances when the lower courts consecutively invalidated his executive orders. Imagine, a district court judge overruling a president.
Conan the Grammarian at May 18, 2017 9:37 PM
Ah yes -- wasn't that when he ranted about how "so-called judges" shouldn't be interfering with his executive orders?
That's almost as much fun as when he tries to stop FBI investigations or curtail freedom of the press.
Gail at May 19, 2017 5:52 AM
> Trump did honor the checks
> and balances when the lower
> courts consecutively invalidated
> his executive orders.
Naw... By then he'd simply lost interest. He's like one of those people with brain damage from a severe infection who have no long-term memory, anterograde amnesia. If it happened after his seventh birthday but before this very morning, he doesn't care. Wives, kids, wars, real-estate, whatever.
The yingy-yangy part is that having no policy enthusiasms whatsoever protects us from the worst damage his own office might render... Though of course his hires deserve close review.
Trump's the opposite of autistic: He can't handle anything that isn't about a momentary composition of intimacy and trust.
I'm Team Gail on this thread, pretty loyally so, but even thinking about Coney's perspective while falling asleep and waking up has been instructive.
And whaddya know, Drudge and the Drudgerian twitter source greet this dawn with reports that the "Dems cool on impeach." Kinda funny how they all move in unison... Anyway I'm glad for the 7:44pm disclaimer.
Crid at May 19, 2017 6:03 AM
Twitter sources, because feet up again.
Okay, hardware store.
Crid at May 19, 2017 6:05 AM
"Because he's likely at any given time to drop state secrets on the spur of the moment just because he feels like it, to start a war with North Korea, or to tweet out some random insanity at 3 am?'
Or kick puppies. In the head. With an iron boot!!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 19, 2017 6:22 AM
"Because he's only a couple of months into his presidency and he's already accumulated more disasters than his predecessors "
I want to know what disasters have occurred. I look out my window and I don't see any. The city is not burning. There are no riots. Nothing has been blown up, and I don't see masked teenagers with AR-15s running around in the streets shooting at random. The lights are on, the grocery stores are full, and the gas stations are all open. Buildings are being built. People look to be going about their normal business. The economy has actually seen a bit of an uptick, and some people who have been unemployed for a while are now finding jobs. Admittedly, there is a long way to go and faster progress would be better, but the trend seems to be in the right direction.
There is that matter of the Chinese government knowing a lot of the intimate details of my life, because they obtained my SF-86 form by hacking into Trumps' Office of Personnel Management... oh, wait...
Cousin Dave at May 19, 2017 6:50 AM
Cousin Dave Says:
"I look out my window and I don't see any. The city is not burning. There are no riots. Nothing has been blown up, and I don't see masked teenagers with AR-15s running around in the streets shooting at random."
Is this the standard we are using to evaluate the president?
That unless you see fires and explosions outside of your personal window then everything is running perfectly smoothly?
We have spent generations building a society where we could raise our standards out of the gutter and from your perspective unless Trump appears at your front door with a torch ready to burn your house down in front of your eyes then everything is perfectly fine.
I think what Gail meant was that he has accumulated an unbelievably high number of political disasters in an extremely short period of time. Insulting allies... getting embroiled in pissing contests with smaller nuclear powers... constantly having to fire and replace key figures within the executive branch under highly unusual circumstances, etc...
If the bar for calling his presidency a disaster thus far is that you personally need to see a riot outside of your window then you have extremely low expectations for the highest office in the land.
Artemis at May 19, 2017 7:20 AM
"I think what Gail meant was that he has accumulated an unbelievably high number of political disasters in an extremely short period of time. Insulting allies... getting embroiled in pissing contests with smaller nuclear powers... constantly having to fire and replace key figures within the executive branch under highly unusual circumstances, etc..."
Now that Artemis has weighed in on the side of Gail and Crid, we can be doubly sure that all three are barking up the wrong tree.
Giving credence to the puffed up unconfirmed leaks coming out of the White House largely generated by hold over Omaha sycophants and the democratic operatives in the press (while totally ignoring the rolling disaster that characterized the Obama administration) I think we can safely assume two things.
There is no objectivity going on here. This is a political witch hunt based on a personal dislike of Donald Trump and not about any of his policies or agenda.
Not one peep out of Amy or others in favor of actual enforcement of our immigration laws which they would be in favor of, if it was done by any other administration.
So I guess it isnt about *policy*. It is about trying to overturn the results of an election that they lost. I think there are numerous horrible unintended consequences to this strategy.
Comey's *memos* are going to come back and bite him, and Hillary, and Loretta Lynch on the ass.
I see a pretty clear cut case of both obstruction of justice and a cover up by the FBI and DOJ of the Hillary classified documents scandal, and pay for play. I hope the Special counsel gets to the bottom of it.
Isab at May 19, 2017 8:43 AM
"Do you seriously think, for a microsecond, that the Democrats and their media allies who are screaming for Trump's head on a pike have the "good of the country" in mind? Bullshit. They have made it absolutely clear what they want. What they want is to find a way to overthrow the results of the election, by hook or by crook, and appoint Hillary as President. "
Riiiiight. Where has any Democrat ever suggested that an impeachment of your holy savior would result in anything other than a Pence presidency?
Billy Whizz at May 19, 2017 8:46 AM
This is part of the youth thing mentioned above.
It's remarkable how Trump supporters know exactly which fight they want to have and exactly which people they want to have it with:
- Hillary!
- Media!
- People who *support* Hillary!
- People who read some piece of media other than what I'm obsessing about this very fucking instant! Grrrr!
And when no authentic target for these resentments is available, Trump supporters will happily fire towards anyone within sight to answer their impulses. ('Ross Douthat is apparently gullible!!' 'Democrats and their media allies!!') Matt Welch used to call this "laser-beaming."I used to see similar troubles at an entertainment TV network I worked for... The producers were young and enthusiastic, but they'd never had any other full-time employment. Their previous experience of life intensity had been family, with moderate dilution through public schools. So then they start encountering workplace tension, and they can only communicate through the roles of exchange they'd known theretofore. The bosses were Mom & Dad, and their peers were brothers and sisters.
In these instances, the bosses and the stronger & clearer-headed peers (and even a few of their subordinates) would then roast them alive.
But Trump fans are all bitter and undersocialized anyway. They're in Mom's basement, or their own basement, sitting in their underwear, smirking that "Trump's a winner!"
I mean, let's face it, if these people knew how to play well with others, they wouldn't have been looking to reality teevee shows to find candidates for national elective office.
The bifurcation of the voting public that we've seen described with such vivid articulation in the past year or two (or fifteen, if you include Steyn) is very real; I believe in it wholeheartedly, just as I believe gravitation describes the forces moving the planets around the sun.
But the American voter is stupid in an important new way, and this too deserves explication.
Be in touch.
Crid at May 19, 2017 9:52 AM
"Ah yes -- wasn't that when he ranted about how "so-called judges" shouldn't be interfering with his executive orders?"
This is symbolic of the anti-Trump comments.
Pious (making a hypocritical display of virtue) and having no logic or point and thus impervious to further discussion.
No acknowledging that Trump could have ignored the orders claim he has authority. But he did not. No acknowledging that he, like Kennedy and other Presidents, can do whatever they want w/secrets. No acknowledging that AFAIK we have not seen "evidence". MSM evidently has but us, not so much.
No points though for anything that's been improved. That would be a bad thing to say or do so no mention of it. Just as the ACLU saying the the EOs would be okay if done by someone OTHER.
So far Crid, Artemis, and Gail are being skunked but that's okay 'cause they are on the RIGHT side.
Amy is more typical. Hates _________ done by Obama but not willing to give credit for any proposed changes cause (you know) it's being done by HE WHO SHALL NOT BE NAMED.
Bob in Texas at May 19, 2017 10:40 AM
Now THIS is a good WTH is Trump doing topic. It's got a all of the traits that a good Julia Roberts movie requires.
Sympathetic clients, the do-gooder non-profit lawyer (hi Julia), the EVIL bullying GOVERNMENT taking away god-given legal rights.
But let's talk about "impeachment".
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/doj-threatens-immigration-rights-lawyers-demands-they-drop-their-clients/
Bob in Texas at May 19, 2017 10:56 AM
"That unless you see fires and explosions outside of your personal window then everything is running perfectly smoothly?"
Yes, because that's the definition of the word "disaster". If the claim is that Trump is the worst disaster that has ever happened to the United States, then damn it, I want to see disasters. I want to see the cities that have been blown up and burning. Building and bridges toppled. Roads and airports cratered. Utilities sabotaged. Crops burning and farmland salted. Rule of law broken down. Schools and libraries trashed. Mass starvation. Widespread disease and despair.
Someone in Washington getting their feelings hurt is not a disaster. Even an incompetent President is not a disaster. We've survived incompetent Presidents before. Admittedly, it's not much fun, but we just went through eight years of one. We can do it again if need be. I lived through the tornado outbreak of 2011. I experienced the consequences of a real disaster, first-hand. Nothing that has happened with Trump meets the definition of a disaster. Not even close.
Cousin Dave at May 19, 2017 11:06 AM
"Riiiiight. Where has any Democrat ever suggested that an impeachment of your holy savior would result in anything other than a Pence presidency?"
Here ya go. Note the number and content of the comments. And I laugh at you referring to Trump as "my holy savior". You haven't been here long, have you?
Cousin Dave at May 19, 2017 11:39 AM
Um, no. Trump could not simply ignore the courts, though I'm sure he wanted to do so. That's the whole separation of powers thing he and many of you seem not to get.
Once again, Trump diehards are forced to deflection -- e.g., "but Hillary!" -- and the reassertion that those who criticize Trump are all rapid, delusional Hillary supporters who think doing so will put Hillary in office.
I particularly love the suggestion that Mueller will/should look into the alleged corruption of a defunct politician who will never again hold office instead of into foreign interference in our election, possible collusion on the part of those who currently hold power and their alleged obstruction of justice. Maybe they should just look Whitewater. Sure, it would be a complete rehash and a total waste of taxpayer money that could make zero difference with regard to anything that matters now, but as long as it deflects from Trump and goes after the other side, it's all good.
By the way, the prospect of impeachment will tank my portfolio, and I don't love Pence, so this actually is not so much on my fantasy wish list. At this point, my dream is pathetically limited: a president who at least doesn't create daily turmoil, who understands and respects our system of government and his role in it, who acts like a fucking grown up, and cares more about running the country than about his fucking ego.
Gail at May 19, 2017 11:44 AM
Sort of related, I got a laugh out of this, because of the author's delusions about the importance and righteousness of his own opinions. However, he does sort of propose a path by which Hillary becomes President which (although incredibly unlikely) would pass Constitutional muster. To prevent you from having to read a lot of drive, I'll summarize:
1. Hillary runs for a safe New York Congressional district in 2018 and wins it. In that election, the Democrats gain a majority in the House and a 2/3 majority in the Senate. (Presumably they accomplish the latter by shaming and/or bribing a lot of Republican senators to resign, since the Democrats need to gain 19 seats to have a 2/3 majority, and there are only 8 Republican seats up for election.)
2. The new Democrat majority elects Hillary as Speaker of the House.
3. The House impeaches Trump. The Senate puts him on trial and convicts. Trump is removed from office. Mike Pence becomes President.
4. While the Senate slow-walks Pence's nominee for Vice-President, the House investigates and then impeaches him.
5. The Senate convicts Pence and removes him from office.
6. Because there is no sitting Vice-President, the line of succession passes to the Speaker of the House. Voila! Hillary is President. Birds sing, lovers hold hands, and Rubens Barrichello comes out of retirement and wins the Formula 1 championship.
Of course, if the Democrats had the support to accomplish all this, it would be a lot simpler for Hillary to just run for President again in 2020. But that wouldn't be nearly as satisfying as an exercise in power politics, would it?
Cousin Dave at May 19, 2017 11:56 AM
"At this point, my dream is pathetically limited: a president who at least doesn't create daily turmoil, who understands and respects our system of government and his role in it, who acts like a fucking grown up, and cares more about running the country than about his fucking ego."
Er, no. I can guarantee you, with 100% confidence, that if Trump is removed from office and Pence becomes President, he will get the exact same media and Democrat treatment. Rumors and innuendo will spread (there's already some smack being spread about him and Mike Flynn), Hollywood will denounce him, the Democrats will demand and get special prosecutors, and then we'll see a bunch of concern-trolling news reports about the "chaos" in the White House and how much harm it is doing to the nation and how the Republicans need to "put country ahead of party". How do I know this? Because the media treatment that Trump is getting is exactly the same media treatment that Bush (both of them), Reagan, Ford and Eisenhower got.
Cousin Dave at May 19, 2017 12:01 PM
Tell me you're not using one random, deluded idiot on quora as evidence that all of us who oppose Trump think Hillary might replace him if he were impeached.
Anyone who thinks that is quite obviously deluded. No argument. But I've yet to meet anyone who actually thinks that, nor to see anyone in the media argue it as even a remote possibility. The hand-wringing I see on is more like "god, even if he's impeached, Pence might be more awful in a different way. And then there's Ryan. Fuck, which is worst?"
If we're now web surfing for random fucktards who believe obviously ridiculous things, it would be easy enough for me to find quite a few tin-foil-hatted Trump supporters. But, I dunno, seems like a complete waste of time to me.
Gail at May 19, 2017 12:09 PM
Really, cousin Dave? You can guarantee the coverage will be exactly the same? You foresee Pence tweeting shit about former beauty queens and Rosie O'Donnell at 3 am, and making spur of the moment decisions to drop intelligence info to Russians? Yeah, I don't.
Will the left adore him? Will I? Fuck no. Will he be criticised? Fuck yes. As was fucking Obama and Clinton, by the way. But it won't be anything like now. Morever, I guarantee the pundits and politicians on the right will back Pence up to the hilt. They sure as hell are not doing that for Trump.
Gail at May 19, 2017 12:16 PM
I'll be criticizing Pence, I anticipate, because, as an atheist, I feel very strongly about separation of church and state, and I suspect, looking at his history in Indiana, that as a libertarian I'm likely to have problems with many policies he's likely to push, especially on social issues.
But nonetheless, I'd prefer to see him in charge because he's a goddamn grown-up and not a fucking three-year-old, and I think at a minimum we'll see much less drama and much more in the way of working with Congress to actually get shit done.
Also, it wouldn't be such a total embarrassment to watch Pence dealing with foreign governments. Oh, and Pence wouldn't be flying to Mar-a-lago every weekend to golf and discuss sensitive info in front of busboys, wouldn't tweet obvious lies and undermine his own aides, wouldn't need regular campaign rallies to boost his sad little ego, and might actually know how to shake a hand without yanking someone off his fucking feet, just to show how dominant he is.
Gail at May 19, 2017 12:28 PM
I don't know. Artie's last two posts (on different threads) have been articulate without being verbose, sensible, and void of insults and condescension - exactly what I've been encouraging him to do with his posts. This is the Artie that should have been posting from the beginning.
As far as the standard for judging presidential performance being something higher than "unless you see fires and explosions outside of your personal window then everything is running perfectly smoothly," I'm in agreement with Artie. That we'd probably fall on different sides of the political aisle doesn't change that.
Trump has a way to go before we can declare him an unqualified success. I'll defend some aspects of his performance and question others. I have no personal stake in declaring him successful or unsuccessful. I'd like to see him succeed, because I think the county does better with competent (and Constitution-abiding) presidents, of any political stripe.
Conan the Grammarian at May 19, 2017 12:43 PM
"Here ya go. Note the number and content of the comments. And I laugh at you referring to Trump as "my holy savior". You haven't been here long, have you?"
A Trump impeachment scenario that ends with Clinton in the Oval Office is not even remotely plausible in this particular universe
Billy Whizz at May 19, 2017 12:50 PM
Heh. What's even more fun about Cousin Dave's quora link? One person asks whether there is any way it could possibly happen that the Democrats overthrow Trump and install Hillary. It's not even clear the asker would favor such a thing -- the asker could have just the opposite feeling, and fear it happening. And someone responds saying, "no, not in any reasonable version of reality." "It's just not going to happen."
So. One person is kind of ignorant of how things work. The other explains why something will never happen.
And this is evidence there's a deluded liberal plot afoot to install Hillary in Trump's place? Come on.
Yeah. I'm getting back to work. I enjoy silliness, but this is too silly even for me.
Gail at May 19, 2017 12:54 PM
"Oh, and Pence wouldn't be flying to Mar-a-lago every weekend to golf and discuss sensitive info in front of busboys"
Would he be flying to Pederast Island with his billionaire pal like the Clintons?
Because he sounds dreamy, like Jesus with a Ferrari.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 19, 2017 1:03 PM
You guys are proud of this fucker?
Crid at May 19, 2017 1:21 PM
Neither Clinton nor Obama's (nor the Bushes's nor Reagan's) travel expenses came close to Trump's in a comparable span of time. (Let alone the cost of protecting his wife and kid in a separate residence in midtown Manhattan.)
Neither Clinton nor Obama (nor the Bs nor the Rs) went to a resort every weekend and found so much time to golf (ironic, give Mr. Trump's criticisms of Obama's much less frequent outing).
And when it comes to billionaire friends...Jesus holy fucking Christ on a stick, Trump is a billionaire who stuffed his cabinet with billionaires and hangs out pretty much exclusively with billionaires.
Fine to criticize Democrats for their transgressions and extravagances -- but NOT when you're letting Trump off the hook for doing the same thing, only infinitely more egregiously.
Crid, have these people fucking lost their goddamn minds when it comes to Trump? WTF.
Gail at May 19, 2017 1:28 PM
Iowahawk: Hungriest Hippos Ev-var!
Crid at May 19, 2017 1:58 PM
"You guys are proud of this fucker?"
Sure. We're, like, TOTAL BFFs. He sends me gold-plated rosewood-handled servant-beaters and in return I provide him with humorous anecdotes from the lives of the working class.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 19, 2017 2:33 PM
Crid, your twitter link made me giggle like a little girl, which I appreciate, since I haven't been giggling nearly enough lately.
In return, a serious one discussing the latest bombshell from Trump's meeting with the Russians.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/a-true-bombshell-russia-trump-comey/
Gail at May 19, 2017 3:45 PM
After eight years of waiting for Obama to do something, another 83 gangbangers rounded up today.
This time it's not MS-13, it's the Bloods.
Crips won't be sleeping well tonight ...
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 19, 2017 6:34 PM
Sharing this before reading Gail's link, because there's apparently no limit to how many ways this administration might amuse us. It might be sarcastic, but how can we tell anymore?
We had a glimpse of this kind of idiocy twenty years ago, when a socially undercooked young woman was secretly recorded during a conversation with a "friend": I've been a liar my whole life! On that basis a senator —unaccustomed to teenage sentiments in national politics— would later try to discredit Lewinsky's statements about her relationship with the President of the United States. (I forget which Senator, though Utah comes to mind.)
We really, really need to keep children out of the White House.
Also, 101!
Crid at May 19, 2017 6:36 PM
Sometimes Robert Caro's books have a few photos.
Crid at May 19, 2017 6:54 PM
Nick Gillespie on Wednesday:
All This Impeachment Talk Is Pure Trump Derangement Syndrome
https://reason.com/blog/2017/05/17/all-this-impeachment-talk-is-pure-trump
Quote:
Needless to say, none of this absolves Donald Trump of any wrongdoing. But impeachment talk this soon and this thick is coming not from a place of seriousness but pure partisanship and ideology masquerading as disinterested belief in the public good.
L. Beau Macaroni at May 19, 2017 7:21 PM
Mr. Gillespie is quite mistaken.
Crid at May 20, 2017 10:10 AM
To be fair, Mr. Gillespie wrote the piece a few days ago, which is an eternity in Trump time.
He wrote it before the recent news (which has not been disputed by the White House or Trump) that Trump bragged to the Russians about firing that nut job Comey, thus taking the pressure off himself on the Russia investigation. See the Commentary Magazine article I linked to above -- that alone, but especially combined with various of Trump's tweets and the Comey memo, is powerful evidence of obstruction of justice. And that is grounds for impeachment.
That Russia meeting, I think, dramatically increased Trump's impeachment odds, even with a Republican Congress. A sure thing? Well, of course not. But it's not crazy talk any more by any means, nor is it pure partisanship. Our president regards the FBI head as his enemy and a Russian dictator as his ally. He trusts the Russians, but not U.S. intelligence. What the holy fuck. It's truly hard for me to believe this doesn't bother every conservative -- every citizen -- in the country.
Gail at May 20, 2017 11:09 AM
Even assuming he has reason to dislike or distrust someone in our law enforcement or government -- including someone he recently fired from such a position -- this is absolutely not the way you talk about it with our allies, much less fucking Russia.
And that's taking entirely aside the obstruction of justice issue.
That's the way a middle school bully brags about giving the geeky hall monitor a swirlie, not the way the alleged leader of the free world talks about someone who's been head of the FBI for years, and to a Russian dictator, no less.
Gail at May 20, 2017 11:17 AM
"Even assuming he has reason to dislike or distrust someone in our law enforcement or government -- including someone he recently fired from such a position -- this is absolutely not the way you talk about it with our allies, much less fucking Russia.
And that's taking entirely aside the obstruction of justice issue."
The diffrence between you and some of the rest of us? You believe these third hand hearsay journalist reports, and take them at face value.
The rest of us are waiting for some actual evidence. The kind that holds up in court.
When I see that, if I see that, I may change my mind.
You never will. You were/ are so in the tank for Hillary, you are grasping at straws.
The woman Camille Paglia correctly calls a hollow person.
Isab at May 20, 2017 11:36 AM
Yup, because everyone who criticizes Trump is "in the tank for Hillary."
Me. Crid, Amy, George Will, John McCain, the Bushes, The National Review, The Wall Street Journal...
The White House did not deny the report of Trump's words, despite it being splashed on the front page of every paper and being discussed as grounds for impeachment by Republican Senators as well as Democrats and MSM? Don't you think, were it not true, that they'd bother to do at least issue a denial? Wouldn't Trump be tweeting to deny it, like he always does? Wouldn't McMaster be issuing a statement, even if it's just a carefully worded non-denial like last time? But no, it's been radio silence. Why? Because there are notes from the meeting, and they know damn well those notes will blow up in their face.
The difference between me and you is that I am not so in the tank for anyone or any party that I'll shut my ears and eyes to fucking chicanery. I'm in it for my country, and that's it.
What's fun is that during the election, a ton of Hillary fans were saying "you're in the tank for Trump!" when I continually criticized her on her emails and other issues, and scoffed at the idea that Donald Trump raped a 13-year-old virgin. No question, there are blind partisans on both sides willing to believe anything that supports their guy and disbelieve anything that demonizes the other side, and I have no time for them.
Whatever. I actually don't give a flying fuck whether you think I'm in the tank for Hillary or for fucking satan, for that matter. I do give a shit, however, whether my country is led by a lying bombastic untrustworthy loose cannon. And alas, at the moment, it is.
Your need to dump all those who criticize Trump in the same little bucket and say LALALALALA FAKE NEWS! is a demonstration of the weakness of your position, not mine.
Gail at May 20, 2017 12:14 PM
Yup, because everyone who criticizes Trump is "in the tank for Hillary."
Me. Crid, Amy, George Will, John McCain, the Bushes, The National Review, The Wall Street Journal...
The White House did not deny the report of Trump's words, despite it being splashed on the front page of every paper and being discussed as grounds for impeachment by Republican Senators as well as Democrats and MSM? Don't you think, were it not true, that they'd bother to do at least issue a denial? Wouldn't Trump be tweeting to deny it, like he always does? Wouldn't McMaster be issuing a statement, even if it's just a carefully worded non-denial like last time? But no, it's been radio silence. Why? Because there are notes from the meeting, and they know damn well those notes will blow up in their face.
The difference between me and you is that I am not so in the tank for anyone or any party that I'll shut my ears and eyes to fucking chicanery. I'm in it for my country, and that's it.
What's fun is that during the election, a ton of Hillary fans were saying "you're in the tank for Trump!" when I continually criticized her on her emails and other issues, and scoffed at the idea that Donald Trump raped a 13-year-old virgin. No question, there are blind partisans on both sides willing to believe anything that supports their guy and disbelieve anything that demonizes the other side, and I have no time for them.
Whatever. I actually don't give a flying fuck whether you think I'm in the tank for Hillary or for fucking satan, for that matter. I do give a shit, however, whether my country is led by a lying bombastic untrustworthy loose cannon. And alas, at the moment, it is.
Your need to dump all those who criticize Trump in the same little bucket and say LALALALALA FAKE NEWS! is a demonstration of the weakness of your position, not mine.
Gail at May 20, 2017 12:14 PM
I rest my case.
If you care to return to reason land and lay out the legal elements for obstruction of justice, and how you think the firing of an FBI director might meet them, we can have a discussion.
Trump can *say* anything he likes to anyone, including the Russians.
It isnt an impeachable offense.
What John McCain or any other Republican or Democrat thinks about it also isnt relvant to the legal issues. They arent witnesses and they sure as hell are not impartial observers.
They are people who got their asses handed to them in the last election.
Dershowitz thinks the whole thing is a crock, which I guess is why you aren't appealing to his *authority* with your specious arguments.
Weve got a special counsel now, and I hope he investigates *everything*. Including Hillary's uranium deal.
Isab at May 20, 2017 12:33 PM
I can understand the position of those, like Conan, who voted for Trump on the grounds that whatever his character and behavior, he might prove better for the policies they wish to see enacted. I can appreciate -- indeed, agree with -- those who do not think impeachment is something we should eagerly embrace. I can understand those who think there is a good bit of anti-Trump bias, and regard initial, unproven, anonymous news reports with a degree of skepticism.
But I truly have no patience with those who reflexively react to every damn fucking obviously boneheaded shitty thing he does and every bit of criticism of him with screeches of "But Hillary!" "But the MSM!" "FAKE NEWS!" and "You're obviously a biased deluded libtard trying to put Hillary on the throne!"
Really, no fucking patience at all. You are no better in that respect than the deluded libtards you despise who defend Hillary from every conceivable allegation despite any evidence to the contrary.
Gail at May 20, 2017 12:42 PM
*but I truly have no patience with those who reflexively react to every damn fucking obviously boneheaded shitty thing he does and every bit of criticism of him with screeches of "But Hillary!*
I stand with anyone who points out hypocrisy. I'm totally okay with it. Pointing out hypocrisy is good, not bad.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 20, 2017 2:09 PM
Gog, I actually agree with that point. And to the extent someone is pointing out to a Hillary defender who is criticizing Trump, "But Hillary did the same thing!", I think it a legitimate point.
What I don't think is legitimate is defending every criticism of Trump, from whatever quarter on whatever ground, with "Yeah, but Hillary's emails!"
If you criticized Hillary for it, you should not condone Trump doing it.
Also, Hillary lost. Who gives a fuck what she did or does now? It is fucking irrelevant. But we should give a fuck what our actual president does.
Finally, it is just plain silly to set up the strawman that anyone who criticizes Trump is "in the tank" for Hillary and condoning her for doing the same thing. Isab killed that strawman but good, though, I have to give her that.
Gail at May 20, 2017 2:50 PM
All this shark jumping is really going to hurt Trump haters.
Dave B at May 20, 2017 3:04 PM
"All this shark jumping is really going to hurt Trump haters."
Yeah...not so much.
As I've said, I hope you all are right. If Trump turns out to be a great president whose policies are super-awesome, my stock portfolio will boom, my clients and I will prosper, and things will be pretty terrific for me. I'll be crying over my error all the way to the bank. Heck, if all you believe about Trump is true, he might be better for me than he is for you.
And if I'm right, my stock portfolio will tank, business will suck, at least for a while, and our country will be in turmoil.
What I really fear most: that I'm right, but that Trump and his supporters will succeed in putting off a reckoning for him until he drags the rest of the country down with him to a point where we find it hard to come back.
My guess is that if that's true, many of his supporters will have a lot more to cry about than I will.
Gail at May 20, 2017 3:32 PM
He-he. Take off of Crid's don't bring me your tears.
No one said draining the swamp would be easy. It won't be. The left is violent, always has been. So that may be the outcome I prefer, my stock portfolio and real estate holdings not withstanding. I haven't killed anyone since Vietnam.
As I say to Crid, we will bring you peace.
Dave B at May 20, 2017 3:41 PM
Yeah. Yeah, he's really draining that swamp. All those billionaires and Goldman Sachs people and all his relatives and business cronies...they're going to clean things up but good. Very, very drained. No one ever saw such a drainy swamp, believe me.
He has no interest in "draining the swamp" and never did. Sad.
Gail at May 20, 2017 4:13 PM
"What I don't think is legitimate is defending every criticism of Trump, from whatever quarter on whatever ground, with "Yeah, but Hillary's emails!"
I agree. Critics need to find something that Trump has done that is uniquely impeachable or illegal, and criticize/impeach/charge him for that/those action(s).
Like Hillary's emails, for instance.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 20, 2017 4:44 PM
From here in flyover country you coastal pissants of resistance could help but no. Whiny little bastards who know everything. You only know the coasts.
Gail, you do not know the swamp. " All those billionaires and Goldman Sachs people and all his relatives and business cronies" are not the swamp. They can clean up the Government swamp. Billionaires do not take my freedom, the government does. Just be happy and hump your sharks. Let us clean it up, it'll be one way or the other.
Dave B at May 20, 2017 5:07 PM
This is sad. It really is.
I leave you to the superior knowledge of the swamp and Trump that you've somehow acquired. I wish you joy of it.
Gail at May 20, 2017 5:27 PM
Can't we all just agree that Democrat-supporting billionaires and international corporatists good, but Republican-supporting billionaires and international corporatists bad?
The distinction is so ... distinct.
Now back to Wall Street, where Obama will be paid a small fortune to speak to the despicable Wall Streeters, and where Hillary was paid a small fortune to speak to despicable Wall Streeters, but where despicable Wall Streeters who speak to Trump are just damned despicable.
Over to you, Debbie Hyphenate-Schultz
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 20, 2017 5:30 PM
I thought we were done in here.
> To be fair, Mr. Gillespie wrote
> the piece a few days ago, which
> is an eternity in Trump time.
Also, it's weird to be called "partisan" just for wanting that infantile game-show nutbar out of the White House.
Re: the rest, Team Gail ☑
Crid at May 21, 2017 6:14 AM
But Hillareeeeeeeeeeeee....
As if Trump's predations were less odious instead of merely less competent.
Crid at May 21, 2017 6:17 AM
We couldn't be prouder of the Orange Combover!
Crid at May 21, 2017 8:41 AM
Let's see, Trump bends over so the Saudi king can put the King Abdulaziz medal on him and we're going to call it a bow so we can equate it with Obama's bow and heap scorn upon Trump supporters?
There's such a thing as criticizing Trump for the things for which he legitimately deserves criticism and such a thing as having a hysterical reaction every time Trump does anything.
Conan the Grammarian at May 21, 2017 10:01 AM
"We couldn't be prouder of the Orange Combover!"
So now we know Crid is a little guy. Doesn't understand that big guys sometimes have to bend to get awards. Or those standing on a podium.
Actually Crid has moved into the pissant category. Can't handle President Trump getting two scoops of ice cream. Can't handle anything President Trump does. Like whatshisname with Mrs. Palin.
Dave B at May 21, 2017 10:55 AM
> Doesn't understand that big
> guys sometimes have to bend
> to get awards.
Oh, my little muffin... That's it exactly!
Big guys always have to bend to get "awards"!
Crid at May 21, 2017 11:13 AM
"[T]he King Abdulaziz medal."
OOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo! Totally enviable, right?
Youse guys must be bustin' yer buttons.
Crid at May 21, 2017 11:16 AM
"[T]he Kingdom's top civilian honor"!, crows the Reuters article from Dave.
I'm wondering if sometimes, when youse guys sit there quivering with glee at this administration's many obvious achievements and the wealth and comfort it's brought to so many deserving lives, do you ever pee your pants a little bit? Just a few drops?
Because, Golly!
Crid at May 21, 2017 11:45 AM
I think most rational folk see it for the empty PR photo op that it is.
Trump will have his meaningless item framed and displayed, like Obama's Peace Prize, or Clinton's marriage certificate.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 21, 2017 12:51 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/05/ca-dem-chair-together-now-fck-donald-trump-crowd-holds-two-middle-fingers-video/
Stay classy Dems.
Isab at May 21, 2017 1:02 PM
I'd bet the subjects in the Kingdom are discouraged from thinking rationally about honorifics from their sovereign.
Crid at May 21, 2017 2:25 PM
I am enjoying Crid's dismay that someone who triggers him to the core will be around for years to come. President Trump is the man.
Dave B at May 21, 2017 2:32 PM
Riiiiight... Sports team hero-identification, not political interests.
Crid at May 21, 2017 2:42 PM
So, Crid, what do you think is the most amusing thing in this thread? I'd argue for Dave B's "drain the swamp" argument: Elite coastal folks don't know shit about the swamp and how to clean it up, dontcha know. No sirree, only a New York billionaire with a history of sleazy coastal business dealings and his coastal-dwelling billionaire friends and family can understand it and clean it up.
Come on, credit where credit is due -- that's hilarious.
Gail at May 21, 2017 3:35 PM
You coasters always laugh at us flyovers. What's new.
What I find funny is Crid said President Trump couldn't win. Funny that. Crid the one who is always right. You can join in Gail. You have no idea who we are and what we know. We picked President Trump and he won. Laugh all you want. You want the swamp Gail, google gsa guy in bathtub.
I can live with credit where credit is due - I voted Trump.
Dave B at May 21, 2017 3:44 PM
"Riiiiight... Sports team hero-identification, not political interests."
Pointy headed Profs and Crid are always right. Not.
Opinions, Crid, are just that.
Dave B at May 21, 2017 3:47 PM
" There's such a thing as criticizing Trump for the things for which he legitimately deserves criticism and such a thing as having a hysterical reaction every time Trump does anything."
Calling this a bow is just so desperate. Obama wasn't having a medal put around his neck so what was his excuse? It was a error in protocol. American leaders do not bow to foreign leaders.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CfaH5BQHEjY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c0mZfpOfQYc
Apples and oranges. The Olympics, figure skating competitions, anyone having a medal,put around their neck leans forward.
crella at May 21, 2017 4:00 PM
I hail from flyover country and still have family and close friends there.
I laugh at people who mindlessly parrot self-contradictory drivel, wherever I might find them.
Gail at May 21, 2017 4:23 PM
"I hail from flyover country and still have family and close friends there."
I'll bet you know a black person, or two, also.
"I laugh at people who mindlessly parrot self-contradictory drivel, wherever I might find them."
I have no idea what that means - guess it wasn't for me. But whatever, good on ya.
Dave B at May 21, 2017 4:34 PM
I was pretty sure you wouldn't know what it meant.
Gail at May 21, 2017 4:45 PM
Dave, you denied that it was about sports-team identification three minutes after building a comment around these words:
> We picked President Trump
> and he won.
> Opinions, Crid, are
> just that.
And yet some are so very much more enriching than others.
(For the record, I don't remember saying Trump wouldn't win. I might well have, but am highly confident you don't have a citation to dispute the point. [An interview with WFB cleared this up for me many years ago. He was rarely humble, but it was a notable example: There's little point in projecting who will or will not win before an election.])
Crid at May 21, 2017 5:53 PM
Nothing matters, nothing matters.
Crid at May 21, 2017 6:24 PM
A man of principle, I tell ya!
Crid at May 21, 2017 6:27 PM
Gail: "If you criticized Hillary for it, you should not condone Trump doing it."
Right. When Trump blows thousands of secrets, I will be calling for his impeachment. You are saying that unwisely revealing _one_ secret is the equivalent of endangering _every_ secret that passed through the Secretary of State's email.
When someone who condoned Hillary's email shenanigans complains about Trump, I know that national secrets are not their real concern.
markm at May 22, 2017 6:04 AM
BUT HILLAREEEE!
Taking aside that Trump boneheadedly and deliberately made a spur-of-the-moment call to leak sensitive Israeli info directly to an enemy, he is also regularly endangering it, by, oh, discussing it in front of Mar-a-lago busboys, there's also the fact that it's ludicrously easy to hack into Trump's "Winter White House":
http://theweek.com/speedreads/699633/apparently-easy-hack-maralago
And again -- if you were so very worried that Hillary might compromise info if she were president, why are you not in the least concerned when Trump, as president, actually does it?
I spent the election criticizing Hillary's handling of her emails. I agree it was careless. But for fuck's holy sake, Trump is not better -- he's worse. Moreover, he doesn't learn from his mistakes, and his supporters are too busy masturbating over defeating Hillary to hold him accountable.
Gail at May 22, 2017 7:17 AM
Cousin Dave Says:
"Yes, because that's the definition of the word "disaster". If the claim is that Trump is the worst disaster that has ever happened to the United States, then damn it, I want to see disasters."
No Dave, it isn't THE definition of the word disaster, it is A definition of the word disaster. Also, the definition you are choosing to use clearly isn't the same one that Gail was using when you went into your argument about how everything is fine because you don't see riots on your front lawn.
The claim that Gail made also wasn't that Trump was the worst disaster that has ever happened to the United States. Her claim was as follows:
"Because he's only a couple of months into his presidency and he's already accumulated more disasters than his predecessors before he's accumulated any real accomplishments"
Notice how she said that he has accumulated disasters... what did you think she meant by that? Surely you didn't think he was collecting hurricanes and flash floods, right?
The only thing Gail could have meant there was political disasters, or career disasters, or personal disasters... it had to be something that Trump could "accumulate" on a personal level.
All you did was distort the very plain meaning of what Gail was saying and twist it into an unrecognizable form only to hide behind the dictionary and claim that you know what words mean. Clearly you don't know what that word means though because the definition Gail was using was this one:
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/disaster
Please look at definition #2 and see the example about a dinner party being a complete disaster... when people use the word in that kind of a context they don't mean the house burned down while cooking the roast.
Stop playing games and twisting peoples words to win cheap points in an argument.
Artemis at May 22, 2017 7:39 AM
Trump's hardcore base is like a sedentary slob of a forty-something former high school quarterback who can't fucking stop bragging about his glory days thirty years ago, even as his current life pathetically flounders. "Yeah, we beat those libbies but good! Take that, libtards! Lock her up!"
Meanwhile, Trump stomps around like Godzilla through Tokyo, and you don't fucking notice because BUT HILLAREEEEEE!
If you League of Al Bundys attempted to hold Trump to the standards you screech Hillary should have adhered to, I'd have some respect. But as it is, you've left that to such remaining conservatives and libertarians who actually give a fuck about integrity and principles. And alas, too many are busy scuttling behind each other for fear of you hero-worshiping sycophants. The Democrats will have a fucking field day with that in 2020, and I can't fucking blame them.
Gail at May 22, 2017 7:47 AM
Like all leftists, Artemis assumes that he has the privilege to redefine the language as he sees fit. I reject his argument out of hand. My point stands.
Cousin Dave at May 22, 2017 7:59 AM
Artemis is perfectly correct. Of course I meant political disasters and not fucking tornados.
And all Cousin Dave can do is pull "like all leftists" out of the Trump Talking Points handbook.
BUT HILLLAAARREEEEEE!
NYAH NYAH YOU'RE A LIBTARD!
HE HE! LOSER IGNORANT COASTAL ELITES!
LOCK HER UP! SILENCE THE PRESS! FIRE DISSENTERS AND CRITICS! BECAUSE FREEEEEDOM!
Gail at May 22, 2017 8:12 AM
Do we know for a fact that Trump discusses sensitive information in front of Mar-a-Lago busboys? The concerns found with a quick Google search were speculative, not definite, editors expressing concern, not giving facts.
This seems like another "let's hate on Trump" accusation. "Let's find something Trump did and equate it to what Hillary or Obama did and shout 'hypocrites!'"
The one reference made by a staff member on Facebook was a fairly general reference to a "...flurry of activity at dinner when the news came that North Korea had launched a missile in the direction of Japan." Someone noting that a "flurry of activity" took place does not equate to national secrets being discussed openly.
As for hacking the wi-fi, most resort-type places have a guest wi-fi and an administrative wi-fi. Does being able to piggy back on the unsecured Mar-a-Lago guest wi-fi mean one can hack Trump's laptop or the laptops of his aides? And why has this question never come up with other presidents staying at resort hotels or borrowed houses?
I'll join the chorus berating Trump for his time on the golf course after criticizing Obama so harshly for his. That's hypocritical. And the travel expenses come pretty close.
Condescend much?
Slamming Trump supporters as "a sedentary slob of a forty-something former high school quarterback who can't fucking stop bragging about his glory days thirty years ago, even as his current life pathetically flounders" is the same kind of "bag of deplorables" condescension that cost Hillary the 2016 election and will cost the Democrats the 2020 election if continued.
Cracked had a good run down on why Hillary lost. The Democrats would be wise to heed the message and stop talking down to people.
The county-by-county voting map in the article is illuminating.
Conan the Grammarian at May 22, 2017 8:19 AM
When people speak like ignorant-slogan spewing morons, they do not deserve respect.
I feel the same about those who brayed HOPE AND CHANGE! eight years ago, or who defend Hillary Clinton for things that are simply not defensible.
Not all Trump supporters are Al Bundy masturbating in a chair. But way too many of them are. I'd have more respect if they'd go of fucking Hillary and the fucking electoral victory and crowing over hiw upset libtards are -- and instead focused on keeping Trump in check and our country on track.
I have some faith you'll do that, Conan. But Dave B? Yeah. Way, way too many Dave B's out there. They'll explode in the right's face just as batshit SJW's have exploded in the left's.
Gail at May 22, 2017 8:35 AM
Morever, I am at a loss for why I should show respect to people who respond to legitimate criticism of Trump coming from Hillary-criticizing libertarians with "Nyah, nyah you're just an ignorant Hillary-loving libtard crying in your beer!"
Gail at May 22, 2017 8:49 AM
This was the first sentence of your first comment on this post.
"I think it's hilarious that so many of you still think everything is hunky-dory in Trumpland."
-Gail
Who said everything is hunky-dory?
You are not even trying to understand the perspective of people IMO are intelligent, well-informed, and fair based on their comments here over the years.
Katrina at May 22, 2017 9:29 AM
Just for future reference, Amy - it's "Douthat."
Pronounced DOW-thut, if anyone needs to know.
lenona at May 22, 2017 9:30 AM
Just for future reference, Amy - it's "Douthat."
Pronounced DOW-thut, if anyone needs to know.
lenona at May 22, 2017 9:35 AM
Ted Van Dyk suggest ways for the Democrats to deal rationally with Trump as president.
Conan the Grammarian at May 22, 2017 9:51 AM
Katrina -- Conan acknowledges that not everything is perfect in Trumpland, and gives, as I have said (in another thread, if not this one, reasons I can respect (if not agree with) for his voting for Trump.
But if you'll take a spin through some other comments, you'll see an awful lot of people denying that Trump has done anything to raise concern or might ultimately blow up in his face. And their response to any criticism is "you're just a libtard crying over Hillary!" My comment -- pretty much all of my comments -- are addressed to that (frighteningly large) faction.
Frankly, I'm disgusted (as a fiscally-conservative, civil-liberty-loving libertarian) because Trump and that faction of his supporters are demonstrating that the liberals' criticisms of the right were justified.
IMO, they're every bit as bad as the Hillary apologists, and every bit as dangerous to their party and more critically, their country.
Gail at May 22, 2017 9:53 AM
"But if you'll take a spin through some other comments, you'll see an awful lot of people denying that Trump has done anything to raise concern or might ultimately blow up in his face. "
I've read them.
Most of what everyone has said is not mutually exclusive of something blowing up in his face.
I'll ask again, who said everything was hunky-dory?
I suspect if/when he does something that does blow up; most of us will have such outrage fatigue we won't care.
Katrina at May 22, 2017 11:27 AM
I may not have time to stop back in the next few days. (Gasp! I work!) I leave you (or more precisely, Conan and those like him) with this thought:
If what the GOP runs in 2020 is the current incarnation of Trump, the trajectory continues as it currently is proceeding, and the Democrats run someone who is halfway decent (and who is not Hillary Clinton), the GOP is going to lose, bigly.
The election was not a pro-Trump landslide. It was a squeaker with a lot of people who chose Trump not because they liked him, but because they hated Hillary and/or wanted change.
This shit that Trump's base luuurrrves? Yeah, most of us don't like it. At all. It worries the hell out of us.
Give us someone presidential who gets things done most people like, and you'll win. Continue running a fucking circus sideshow, and the Dems will take over in 2020.
I submit that rational, practical conservatives and Republicans should be tamping down on the Lord of the Flies "yeah we really stuck it to Piggy, tee hee" bullshit and Trump's tendency to tromp around like a second-rate blustering dictator, in their own fucking self-interest.
Gail at May 22, 2017 11:40 AM
"(Gasp! I work!)"
Why would anyone think otherwise?
"If what the GOP runs in 2020 is the current incarnation of Trump, the trajectory continues as it currently is proceeding, and the Democrats run someone who is halfway decent (and who is not Hillary Clinton), the GOP is going to lose, bigly."
Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure there are a lot of variables that effect that.
"The election was not a pro-Trump landslide. It was a squeaker with a lot of people who chose Trump not because they liked him, but because they hated Hillary and/or wanted change."
I know. So?
"This shit that Trump's base luuurrrves? Yeah, most of us don't like it. At all. It worries the hell out of us."
What shit? And if you think so poorly about the base why are you worried about what they lurrve?
"Give us someone presidential who gets things done most people like, and you'll win."
I would if I could.
" Continue running a fucking circus sideshow, and the Dems will take over in 2020."
Meh, maybe, maybe not.
"I submit that rational, practical conservatives and Republicans should be tamping down on the Lord of the Flies "yeah we really stuck it to Piggy, tee hee" bullshit and Trump's tendency to tromp around like a second-rate blustering dictator, in their own fucking self-interest."
When you express such disdain about the people you disagree with you you will persuade far fewer readers that if you rationally made your point.
Since I asked you a question twice without an answer, I gather you don't want to persuade and are just gathering virtue points from those that already agree with you.
Katrina at May 22, 2017 12:38 PM
Who do the Democrats currently have that fills that bill?
What if, despite all his bluster, crudity, and tantrum-like behavior, Trump improves the economy, settles world affairs, and provides security? A stretch? Perhaps, but maybe not as much as you'd think. What then? Will people care then if Trump is an ass?
Trump is Trump. Most of his supporters, reluctant and enthusiastic, knew that from the beginning. They're not judging him on the same terms as his detractors. Comments or actions by Trump that set off his detractors merit barely a acknowledgement by his supporters, because the comment or action doesn't matter in the overall judgement of job performance.
"I fired Comey" barely registers with his supporters, but send his detractors into paroxysms of rage, despite their adamant demands that he do just that a few weeks earlier.
The supporters see the Russia "collusion" as a smokescreen for a determined effort to undermine Trump. And, as Katrina (and Van Dyk) points out, many people the detractors want to attract to their argument are going to have chaos fatigue by the end of this and will end up supporting Trump because of the near-constant attack mode and unhinged fanaticism on display by his detractors.
Hillary's campaign was almost solely an attack on Trump's personality and supporters. It failed because eventually, people want to know what each candidate will do for them, not just how bad the other guy is.
If the Dems run in 2020 on "Trump's an ass," they'll lose again. The Dems need to start working with the lawfully-elected administration to influence policy so they can point to their successes and let the voters know what they'll do for them. They're so caught up in attacking Trump right now that they're leaving themselves nothing but "Trump's an ass" as an appeal to voters in 2020.
Trump was a response by forgotten voters to Washington in toto. Not just Democrats. The average Trump supporter hates Paul Ryan and the Republican Party as much as he hates Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. When Trump ran, he could point to very little that the Republicans had done to influence policy while Obama was president. So, he could only run as the guy who was going to clean up Washington, Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats, as proponents of big government solutions, don't have those bona fides, nor a candidate with them. They have to run on having accomplished something for those forgotten voters during Trump's first term. To do so, they must accomplish something. And an impeachment or obstruction of Trump won't cut it, because Trump was sent to Washington to do something those forgotten voters wanted done.
Trump has done some things the forgotten voters like (Gorsuch, overturning Obama's regulatory executive orders and presidential memoranda, proposing tax reform, proposing school choice reform, etc.). They'll accept his narcissism and personality defects in order to keep those things, rather than risk another Obama and see the proposed reforms fail.
If Trump detractors want to influence those forgotten voters, they must start looking at Trump the way his supporters do. It's not enough to point out when he says or does something insane. The supporters don't care. Point out whether he's doing what he was sent there to do or whether his policy will do what he promises it will do, bring back jobs to people in places where the factory closing down meant an end to being able to put food on the table without government help.
Speak to the people Democrats ignored and insulted in 2016. So far, no one is doing that.
Conan the Grammarian at May 22, 2017 1:19 PM
No one, that is, except Trump.
Conan the Grammarian at May 22, 2017 1:20 PM
Gail, you ignorant slut.
Take a look at Katrina and Conan's words. See how they respond to you.
Please go back and read what I wrote. It really wasn't a lot. It starts at Dave B at May 20, 2017 3:04 PM. I don't use a lot of words like Artemis. I would think that someone like yourself could do an analysis of what I wrote. Nary a word about Hillary, or however you wish to spell her name. You are afraid of me? Really? You are delusional.
Dave B at May 22, 2017 5:17 PM
Cousin Dave Says:
"Like all leftists, Artemis assumes that he has the privilege to redefine the language as he sees fit. I reject his argument out of hand. My point stands."
What on earth are you talking about Dave.
The Dictionary is not a vast left wing conspiracy.
I linked you to the dictionary that demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that there are 2 acceptable modern usages of the word disaster.
You keep focusing on usage 1 despite the fact that it is patently obvious that Gail was using usage 2.
This shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand... I literally linked you to the webpage.
The only one here redefining language is you... I suppose by your own standards that makes you a leftist.
You are rejecting the dictionary and substituting your own highly restrictive language usage that apparently only permits one acceptable usage case per word. Unfortunately for you the English language isn't quite that clean... it is a messy and complicated tongue.
That is the reason when people describe their children as "bright" they mean they are intelligent and not that they are luminous. Similarly when someone describes a situation as hairy they don't mean it is literally covered in fur.
Artemis at May 22, 2017 7:33 PM
Speak to the people Democrats ignored and insulted in 2016. So far, no one is doing that.
Conan the Grammarian at May 22, 2017 1:19 PM
My prediction is that the Democratic party wont be able to reverse course and run a sane campaign.
Like a failing restaurant , they are going to keep removing things from the menu, and double down on advertising and operating costs until they have nothing left to serve up.
And now Hillary, desperate to hang on influence is going to suck the air and money out of every room, which will keep the democrats from rebuilding and finding some new faces.
Go Hillary! You are Trump's biggest asset. You are making two large groups of voters angry at you and the entire democratic party at the same time.
First, the voters that actually like Trump. Then the huge pool of people who want to see Trump's campaign promises enacted, even though they personally don't care for the guy.
Isab at May 22, 2017 7:42 PM
Conan Says:
"Speak to the people Democrats ignored and insulted in 2016. So far, no one is doing that."
I'm not going to defend the democratic candidate/establishment ignoring certain voter groups because I am not fond of that trend either.
What I am going to say is that Trump is essentially a life long confidence man who constantly convinces people that doing things his way is in their best interest only to leave them high and dry when their usefulness to him is at an end.
He was not honest with that segment of the population and by the time they realize they have been had it will be too late for them.
I feel bad that they were suckered by this slimy guy... I just hope they figure things out quicker than some of his "university" students did.
Artemis at May 22, 2017 9:23 PM
I don't know. Maybe it's enough that he didn't ignore them. Bill Clinton got a lot of political mileage and goodwill out of "I feel your pain" despite not doing anything to alleviate that pain.
I remember debating South African sanctions with a friend from South Africa. I was opposed to sanctions, arguing that they would only harm the ones at the bottom of the economic ladder. He was in favor saying that, although they would fall heaviest on those at the bottom, at least "we would know someone somewhere was on our side." Maybe that's enough.
Maybe the people at the bottom just want to know someone somewhere hears them. And the only candidate in the last election that gave them that indication was Trump. And, if the Democrats are not careful, he might be the only one in the next election, too.
Conan the Grammarian at May 23, 2017 7:08 AM
Conan,
I see an important distinction between the South African example you give and the current situation in that in the first case it can be argued that the people putting in the sanctions actually had those folks in mind... I don't see it that way with Trump.
He has a long history of using people for his own benefit and then backing out of "deals" he makes when the deal no longer benefits him.
A person can and should be judged on the value of their word and he breaks his constantly the moment any inconvenience for him arises.
He is a "fair weather" president in that he will help those folks so long as it costs him nothing... the moment it costs him anything at all he will promptly throw them under the bus.
Take his tax plan for example... the most important feature to him is the elimination of the estate tax, no other component of his tax plan matters as much because that one has the most direct influence on his own financial affairs. My contention is that this feature will take precedence over any benefits for the working class and he will raise taxes on they group before even considering giving up on eliminating the estate tax.
That part of his agenda has nothing to do with that segment of the population as none of them have anything even close to amounting to an estate. The folks who are concerned about the loss of their manufacturing jobs aren't typically sitting on a 10 million dollar nest egg.
He is selling them a line and telling them what they want to hear... but he isn't genuine.
Artemis at May 23, 2017 7:41 AM
Your point about Trump's authenticity is well-taken, Artemis.
My argument, however, wasn't about Trump's authenticity. It was about the feeling by working class voters that someone was listening to them, even a narcissistic con man.
To further his working class bona fides, Trump is proposing to renegotiate NAFTA, a treaty the working class feels has almost single-handedly impoverished it and stolen the high-paying jobs available for people who didn't go to college. As long as Trump's making gestures like that, the working class won't care if he eliminates the estate tax.
"Oooh, this policy benefits the rich" is a charge that resonates strongly with left-leaning urban and suburban voters: intellectuals, academics, and SJWs. However, it does not resonate as much, or at all, with rural or suburban working class voters.
Trump is solidifying political support among the working class. Democrats are not.
The Democrats don't get this, and they don't seem to want to. They spent the 2016 campaign insulting the working class instead of addressing its concerns. And they've spent the post-election debrief blaming the Russians and having a temper tantrum about Trump - instead of introspection and self-examination or reaching out to those voters.
Until the Democrats can show the working class that restoring the estate tax or taxing the rich will provide the working class with high-paying jobs and economic security, those issues won't resonate with those voters. Yet the Democrats continue to hammer away at issues like that.
They need to address the concerns of the working class, and not just the concerns of the intelligentsia.
If the Democrats don't heed Bill Clinton's warning to woo working class voters, they'll fail in the 2020 election, too.
In Shattered, the authors recount that Hillary's campaign staff rebuffed Bill's warning to address rural and working class voters even if Hillary wouldn't win the district; just showing up could yield benefits. But he was told, "the data don't support that."
Now, what could Bill Clinton tell these party wonks about politics? Well, he won two national elections and left office with some of the highest approval ratings in modern political history. And that's despite leaving a legacy of corruption, impeachment, and scandal.
Bernie Sanders may be the only Democratic candidate capable of reaching out to the working class with any authenticity, or the only one willing to. But he is offering socialism, which smacks of incipient communism to the working class. Besides, Bernie will be too old by 2020.
Conan the Grammarian at May 23, 2017 8:40 AM
No no no, a thousand times no.
Crid at May 25, 2017 6:07 PM
What? The Democrats should stay inside the echo chamber and carry on with characterizing the working class as a "basket of deplorables" who "cling to God and guns?" They should continue to characterize the mostly rural and blue collar military personnel as lazy and uneducated (Kerry: "...if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.")?
Trump may not be an ideal president, or even a decent one, but he is speaking to a group of people who feel forgotten by Washington. And until the Democrats start addressing that group, it's going to vote for the candidate who acknowledges its existence, its humanity, and its struggles - even a narcissistic con man.
Conan the Grammarian at May 26, 2017 11:44 AM
Leave a comment