monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump seemed to demonstrate little interest in the tenets of movement conservatism. He vowed that he wouldn’t cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and said little about shrinking the size of government. He positioned himself as a champion of the American working man against powerful bankers and corporations. He rarely discussed social issues, except to repeat assurances that he was pro-life and pro-gun.

Yet several of the president-elect’s most recent Cabinet picks are in no way, shape, or form outsider populists. And they aren’t from the squishy Northeastern moderate wing of the GOP either — they’re all staunch conservatives. Indeed, they have such sterling conservative credentials that they would have been just as plausible Cabinet choices for a President Ted Cruz or Mike Pence — which in turn may suggest that Trump has little intention of governing as an outsider populist.

So many Trumpists have written in since the election, and I am grateful for their interest and also impressed by the sheer variety of their profanity. I never learned to swear that well because by the time my mother died, at 97, it was too late for me to learn. I gather from the letters that these people’s lives were devastated by the advent of gay marriage, political correctness, the threat of gun control and the arrogance of liberals, and now a champion rises from Fifth Avenue and 56th Street, and God forbid that any dog should bark when he speaks or any pigeon drop white matter on his limousine.

What the letter-writers don’t grasp is that cursing is highly effective in person — someone kicks his car in rage, forgetting he’s wearing flip-flops, and flames pour from his mouth, and it’s impressive. But you see it in print, and it’s just ugly. It makes you pity the writer’s wife.

I only hope he doesn't screw up or economy.

Over Thanksgiving, I read up on some history: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Berlusconi, Putin—“Strong Men 101.” I’d been meaning to do this for a while, and my resolve was strengthened after coming across an article on the risks of democratic erosion by Jeff Colgan, a political scientist at Brown University, who warned, “In light of Donald Trump’s illiberal tendencies, we have to take seriously the (unlikely) possibility that democracy and rule of law could weaken in the United States.” To help guard against this possibility, Colgan offered ten “warning signs of democratic breakdown.” They included attacks and restrictions on the press, vilification of foreigners and minorities, the intimidation of legislators, and the use of crises to justify emergency security measures.

Colgan isn’t the only one worried. If my Twitter and Facebook feeds are anything to go by, many Americans and non-Americans are convinced that Trump’s victory heralds the imposition of Putinesque authoritarianism, and maybe even full-blown fascism. Such concerns are understandable. During the Presidential campaign, Trump casually incited violence; promised to “lock up” his Democratic opponent; refused to release his tax returns; gave a dystopian Convention speech in which he promised to restore “order”; proposed banning Muslims from entering the country and reinstituting the use of torture on terrorism suspects; and vilified his opponents and critics. And what of today? Trump is surrounding himself with sycophants, ranting on Twitter about how he really won the popular vote (he did not), and boasting that the federal conflict-of-interest laws don’t apply to him.

Bad as it is, this doesn’t mean that Trump is Hitler, Mussolini, or even Putin. He’s Trump, but that, in itself, presents a real danger. Everything about him suggests that when he enters the White House he will continue gleefully transgressing democratic norms, berating his opponents, throwing out blatant falsehoods, and seeking to exploit his position for personal gain. That’s what he does. If anything, the isolation and pressures of the Oval Office might further warp his ego and exaggerate his dictatorial tendencies. Surrounded by yes-men, he could well be tempted to try to expand his powers, especially when things go wrong, as they inevitably do at some point in any Presidency.

The big unknown isn’t what Trump will do: his pattern of behavior is clear. It is whether the American political system will be able to deal with the unprecedented challenge his election presents, and rein him in. Especially with a single party controlling the executive and the legislative branches, there is no immediately reassuring answer to this question.

Lol. This guy is a joke of a human. A literal joke.

I suppose the first amendment isn't a basic god given right conservatives are worried about. No more freedom of the press. No more free speech. No more protesting.

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as original co-sponsor... It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both....

Although the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment, the bill was intended, according to the New York Times, to take the issue back to the Supreme Court which was more conservative in 2005 than it was in 1989 in order to overturn that earlier decision

Everything about him suggests that when he enters the White House he will continue gleefully transgressing democratic norms, berating his opponents, throwing out blatant falsehoods, and seeking to exploit his position for personal gain.

maporsche wrote:

Lol. This guy is a joke of a human. A literal joke.

I suppose the first amendment isn't a basic god given right conservatives are worried about. No more freedom of the press. No more free speech. No more protesting.

Quote:

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as original co-sponsor... It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both....

Although the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment, the bill was intended, according to the New York Times, to take the issue back to the Supreme Court which was more conservative in 2005 than it was in 1989 in order to overturn that earlier decision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

Trump publishes an off-the-cuff tweet.

Clinton prepares a formal legislative bill.

Can I get some sanctimonious OUTRAGE here, eh!?

But Donald Trump doesn’t appear to see a difference between truth and lies. He lies as a matter of habit about matters large and small. His lies are often obvious: easily disproved by available information. For a strong example, look to Twitter. “In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” tweeted the president-elect on Monday. This charge is groundless. False. Frankfurt-ian bullshit.

Trump publishes an off-the-cuff tweet.

Clinton prepares a formal legislative bill.

Can I get some sanctimonious OUTRAGE here, eh!?

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name investor and former Goldman Sachs executive Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary, opting for an industry insider with no government experience to helm the agency that serves as the backbone of the nation’s financial system, according to people familiar with the matter.

I disagree with Clinton. OUTRAGE!!!!

Happy?

maporsche wrote:

I disagree with Clinton. OUTRAGE!!!!

Happy?

Yeah! That's what I'm lookin for. If Trump does it, he is a "joke as a human." If Clinton does it you (tsk, tsk) "disapprove."

I think the level of outrage I have for both people is appropriate given their current positions and ability to impact the future of the country, don't you?

maporsche wrote:

I think the level of outrage I have for both people is appropriate given their current positions and ability to impact the future of the country, don't you?

Not really. You sure be callin for Trump's assassination, I figure.