It’s not so much that when the president does it it is not a crime as it is that the only remedy when the president does it is impeachment.
And if the president does it and gets away with it and thumb’s his nose at the plain language of the Constitution, then that normalizes it and, in a sense, legalizes it.
This was my concern about giving Bush a pass on torture.
Trump’s crimes so far are more pedestrian but still insidious.
This is what I meant in one of those threads about the constitutional structure being weak. All it takes is someone to push it to the limit. Nothing can stop Trump but impeachment, and I don’t see it on the table.
political will, spine, and ethics required to enforce the limit are in insufficient supply (see boo’s example: dubya getting away with torture among many other crimes, including the War Crime of invading Iraq).
Pedestrian today, theft tomorrow. How,wealthy can he get?
No other new president has been as ill-prepared and poorly educated in the ways of politics or even basic history as Trump. I’m assuming that was his appeal among those who voted for him.
But unless the country keeps a very close eye on him, Trump is going to upend the tables, destroy the rule books, and absolutely shrink the government so much that it won’t be drowned in a bathtub, but in a teacup.
No other new president has been as ill-prepared and poorly educated in the ways of politics or even basic history as Trump.
That is arguable. The difference is that past totally unqualified presidential election winners had help that knew a thing or two and they were in charge of what the winner said and did.
It’s not arguable. He’s the only President ever with no government or military experience.
Unless by “ill prepared and poorly educated” you include non compos mentis. Then it is arguable.
The claim was No other new president has been as ill-prepared and poorly educated in the ways of politics or even basic history as Trump.
When GWB went off-script he sounded as clueless and ill-prepared as Trump. What of value to being POTUS had he learned from his experience being Gov of TX for five years and being in the National Guard? How to get lots of time of would one that he used. A difference is that without his clique of handlers, he wouldn’t have been selected.
I’m not a presidential historian, but if we looked hard enough we could probably find a few ill-prepared clunkers among those forty-three. And a whole lot of current members of Congress are so locked into bubbles of fake history and beliefs that their time in public office isn’t making them experienced in ways that would prepare them for being POTUS.
Don’t misunderstand me. I think that education and experience are important when considering a candidate for public office. But the quality that education and experience combined with the quality of the person and his/her performance/accomplishments in office is far more important than the number of years in public office or the number of sinecures they’ve been appointed to.
Did W ever do anything contrary to Cheney? Who was boss?
However, being effectively CEO (with Congress as Board of Directors) of a multi-trillion dollar enterprise with millions of employees is not a job for amateurs. And let’s not even talk about “the button”. Which is why I say that Jill Stein is unqualified, attractive as her program is.
Well, Trump has the quality of person known as extreme narcissist/ sociopath/ psychopath — and has zero quality of performance/accomplishments in office, which can’t be balanced against years spent in public office, since he’s never held public office. So the generalization is true for people who fall into those categories — but has no relevance to Trump.
Even the comparison to Bush, Jr. Well, compared to Trump that moron Dubya is practically a constitutional scholar.
So we have nowhere to turn except Trump’s years in business. His escapades in that sphere suggest someone utterly unsuitable for the responsibilities of public office, someone who neither knows nor cares how the government works, as long as he can game the system. On top of that, not only does he come into office with innumerable conflicts of interest, he does not fathom that they ARE conflicts of interest. How could he? The only interest he has is himself, which doesn’t conflict with himself.
I understand that this is not the way we should be talking to people who voted for Trump. But it is the way we should be talking to people who voted against Trump, and to some extent to the people who voted for Trump — or didn’t vote at all , as a protest rather than because they actually like him.
We do need to gradually start to explain basic civics and governmental ethics and law to everybody.
And it will be easier to get them to listen if this is accompanied by actually helping them with their problems.
Michael Moore is frustrating. In some ways he’s just the guy for this. Sometimes his understanding and articulateness is breathtaking. But I also heard him suggest that the Democrats should run celebrities for president, in order to get the excitement from the hinterlands. To me this is a bridge too far.
In fact, it’s just a step-up of the kind of celebrity-pandering the Democrats thought they could rely on. And Moore is a little schizoid, in that he says all this, supported Bernie, deeply loves and admires Hillary, and deeply feels for the people, or at least a lot of the people, who voted for Trump.
Yes, I can see all of this, but Michael, they’re not all equal. You’ve got to sort it out, get some nuance. And so do we.
Correction:
“who voted for Trump — or didn’t vote at all , as a protest rather than because they actually like him.”
I need to repunctuate, otherwise it hides my point:
“who voted for Trump — or didn’t vote at all — as a protest,” etc.
In other words, people who voted for Trump as a protest, or didn’t vote at all as a protest (or becaue they couldn’t decide which one was worse) —
excellent points – explain basic civics and help ppl with problems. yes, a constructive approach. have no use for Michael Moore – I’m getting all kinds of emails that are just like a continuation of the endless campaign that I and everyone I talked with hated.
i.e., an audience receptive to having basic civics explained to them among the people who need that explanation.
Rejecting any such attempt out of hand (likely accompanied by telling you to go fuck yourself for even daring to imply they might need any such explanation) would be my guess at by far the most likely outcome of following that tactic.
I travel a lot, I talk with a lot of people. people want to talk about the issues. and they want to be heard. that’s where one starts. do you every work on door to door GOTV, for example? always interesting, ppl want to talk
perhaps you’re thinking PSAs from Michael Moore – worse than useless, I agree
What’s your main beef with Michael Moore, in a nutshell? I’m open minded.
Let’s also take note of a little statistic:
Voters with “some college”: Clinton – 49% and Trump – 48%. Voters that graduated from college: Clinton – 47% and Trump 51%. Does a college education now make us stupid?
That’s a statistic that needs to be explained.
Not really. They’re voting their perceived status and income (or expected income) class. The ratio D:R used to be much worse for Democrats. Odd that Democrats have led on higher education and Republicans have resisted.
Only since 2000 have the numbers for “some college,” “college grad only” and “postgrad” been collected. Some and college graduate were similar until the 2012 when they split. Postgrad is where Democrats have a large advantage — a reflection of more security in their jobs and income? More K-12 public school teachers in the postgrad category?
1960: (College)
JFK: 39%
Nixon: 61%
Well, you just explained it. But I still don’t get it. If I follow what you’re saying, a while back most college grad were Republicans. Yeah, that I get. But this isn’t a while back, it’s now.
Do you have to factor in ethnicity? I thought non-college-educated white males were the biggest single category of Trump voters. Does that mean a lot of NON-white college educated people voted for Trump? Seriously? Where would they be coming from? Or white college-educated women?
Pollsters only capture macro-demographics in actual voting behaviors (and then it’s good enough but still subject to sampling errors). Nothing as fine grained as ethnicity by education or even income.
The whole “uneducated white guys” for Trump may have been an apt description of the crowds at his rallies (particularly compared to the sedate and small crowds at Romney’s rallies), but actual voting behavior didn’t change by much.
What we have so far is:
White men –
2012:
Obama – 35%
Romney – 62%
2016:
Clinton – 31%
Trump – 63%
White women —
2008:
Obama – 46%
McCain – 53%
2012:
Obama – 44%
Romney – 56%
2016:
Clinton – 43%
Trump – 53%
Hillary dropped four points with white men in comparison to Obama four years ago, but only one of those points went to Trump.
She only lost one point with white women, but Trump lost three.
Her campaign may have calculated a loss among white men for her, but a large gain among white women. But subsets of macro-demos aren’t independent of their macro-group. They interact. So, they would have been looking for a shift among white women that was highly optimistic.
Citation please?
Culled from several different sources for my own edification and therefore, didn’t feel the need to record the sources.
But, it’s consistent with the Gallup collection (1960-2012), but that’s not the source I used for my original comment on this.
Thanks. This appears to come to a different conclusion, at least regarding the 2016 election.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
Thanks for posting this. It’s detailed, nuanced, and understandable.
Doesn’t factor in 1) cost of living and 2) stability and security of those not so well paying jobs. Both are integral to individuals choosing employment in a certain area and the pay scale offered by employers in various locations. For example, large national corporations maintain detailed cost of living charts to determine the salary for the same job in different locations. One that I’m aware of ranged from 85% of the base in the lowest cost of living area to 140% at the highest. That top level may have since been increased because it has become even more expensive to live in San Francisco.
I once read a book about the Navajo (Diné) language and thought structure. IIRC, in Navajo, the grammatical categories of agency are such that it is impossible to say “the horse kicked me.” You can only say “I let myself be kicked by the horse.”
I think there’s something to be learned from this, and it’s relevant to how we react to Trump. As FDR said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Trump has nothing to fear but lack of fear itself (towards him).
Also, now that we suddenly realize that we have not been listening to a lot of people in this country, and that many of these people are far from stupid, I think we also need to be careful not to go too far, because some of them actually are. Or if not stupid, then at least ignorant. They are not people whose idea of how this country works or should work, should be a model for anybody. In other words, give them their due, but don’t pander. We’ve only gotten to this point because too many people in government have not been doing their jobs, and have stirred up contempt. And because civic education, and other education, is so poor.
But the Constitution itself must be defended. Yes, I know, just about everything in it can be, and has been, criticized by the left at one point or another, but there are certain fundamentalsthat have to be defended, because without that we have sheer anarchy. Trump is leading that anarchy, for his own benefit.
I don’t know why the media should be afraid of Trump. All they have to do is grow a pair. That really wouldn’t be so difficult — journalists tend to be a plucky lot.
It seems nine tenths of our social and cultural troubles could be solved by all concerned accepting their agency (and their empowerment, such as it is) relating to the process.
I let myself be oppressed by <fill-in blank here> suggests an alternative.
It’s absolutely crucial now. Trump has as much power as we let him have. He’s pushing the envelope like crazy, we have to push back. Adopt his frame of reference (i.e. 100% himself) and we’re finished.
Booman said he’s demoralizing the press. Well sure, that’s what he’s trying to do. That’s how psychopaths operate, always, demoralize. But what I noticed first and foremost was that after Trump left, the journalists were so angry they were saying “Fuck him!” That’s healthy, it’s absolutely appropriate. Don’t anyone lose that edge. Don’t normalize the SOB.
Comments at Zero Hedge are revealing. They show the ZH types hate the media so much, they love what Trump is doing. Lot of people out there are going to have that reaction.
My reaction is, yes, the press sucks. But Trump’s idea of a cure is worse than the disease. His “reform” of the press is that they should be beholden to him and print only what he wants. Just like his “reform” of the economy will be what’s best for Trump. Expect everything he does to be like that.
Interesting you mention ZH; have been reading the comments there for many years and noticed the turn for the worse some time ago. That is a disturbing site on several grounds and if a barometer of our times then a sustained storm warning; nihilism and Putin admirers. I used to visit for financial scare-mongery but now find a commitment to political ratf*ckery of all kinds, Euro and domestic; apparently for hire.
Here’s a guy with the right approach (as usual).
“It’s not a question of us working with Trump. It’s a question of Trump working with us.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/11/22/we-can-beat-guy-sanders-urges-mass-mobilization-against-
trump
In the current political climate, and with the House fully in the grip of an insane caucus, the things that President Trump can do, and get away with, are probably only limited by his imagination. His Party is not going to lift a finger to do a damn thing to limit his actions, whether they are illegal or not. And since it appears he is likely to populate Federal law enforcement at all levels with acolytes who will simply allow him wide latitude, the level of corruption that we are going to see will simply be mind blowing. I’m not sure our system, when it was created, really took into account the possibility of a situation like we are now facing. The usual checks and balances will likely just be ignored by Republicans. And Democrats have little power to do anything, do they? If the majority colludes to normalize corruption and criminal behavior, and voters don’t respond at the ballot box, the U.S government will then be nothing more than the most powerful criminal enterprisen in history.
… the U.S government will then be nothing more than the most powerful criminal enterprise in history.
A very cynical person would say this is in fact nothing new. That it has almost always been that way.
Yes, I knew that observation would be made very quickly. And yes, corruption wasn’t invented by Donald Trump. But I think what we are likely to witness from a Trump administration will dwarf anything we have seen in a very long time. And it will not be confined to a department here and a department there. I think it’s default mode of operation, almost across the board, will be one of corruption.
Guys, don’t go into cynical mode now. It’s not the time for it. What we’ve seen in the past is going to look like utopia compared to what Trump will do unless checked.
I’m not sure this is true. I mean, yes, the extremes of the situation etc. but we’ve already seen corrective action by Republicans who are concerned about international markets, global stability, alliances, etc. (not to mention reelection). I mean there’s already been so much backing and filling.
Why did Trump decide that “he” wouldn’t pursue an indictment against Hillary? Something’s happening that we can’t see — he’s being constrained.
Yes, there has been some backing and filling. Is that due to conscious restraint or is it simply to give the veneer of some sort of moderation from all the over the top campaign rhetoric? Could it just be an effort to play the Overton Window gamesmanship again? Democrats, the media and voters in general have been hoodwinked before by Republicans. Their monolithic caucus goes batshit insane to the extreme, proposing one radical idea after another, and declaring that this is, by gawd, the line in the sand that they will not cross. Everyone freaks out for a while, as the Republicans publicly compete for who can come up with the most radical proposal. Then magically, after everyone has shit their pants, they “moderate”. Democrats and the media breathe a sigh of relief and once the “compromise” is worked out, everyone pats themselves on the back over agreeing to simply the far right terms instead of the original batshit crazy terms. And then we see Mitch McConnell grinning like a Cheshire cat while standing at the microphone praising this “bipartisan” agreement. And see how we can get things done when we work together. And the Village smiles and applauds.
It all smells very fishy to me.
though:
1) The latter, with maybe a sprinkled seasoning of recognition of the long-obvious fact that Trump simply will have no authority either to “lock her up” or even to appoint a special prosecutor enabling an investigation that could even potentially lead to that outcome. It was always obvious (except to his ignorant, hate-filled, duped loon supporters) that that was an unfulfillable “promise” he’d quickly be forced to break.
2) Why yes, yes it could, and yes it certainly is.
Trump talks to the media that way because he wants negative reactions from them, because his fans hate the media, so they will side with him.
If the Domocrats would get their act together, they would discover that the real Trump fans represent no more than about 20% of the voters. Unevenly distributed, it is true.
A lot of people are critical of those who are saying that Bernie Sanders could have won. But there is a very good reason to keep this alive. Because it’s not just about blame. If Bernie Sanders (and the Democratic reformers) could have won, then they can win now, at least starting with hearts and minds.
It’s already becoming clear that a certain percentage of pTrump voters would have preferred baernie, and a significant percentage of non-voters were Bernie people. We already know that these people will respond to a rightly directed Democratic Party. I believe that party will be up and running in very short order.
But “he’s being constrained” surrenders the conventional truth that it is not his decision (another ‘norm’ bites the dust) and then sugar-coats the resultant dilemma with the hopeful assumption that ‘someone’ else is guiding the hand of the autocrat who seized this considerable power with nothing more tangible than his will and rhetoric. Either way we’re just as screwed.
This is a classic fascist play, ignore some norm or convention of ‘decadent’ liberal democracy as you trample it and thereby reinforce the appearance institutional helplessness to resist you. Rinse and repeat.
We have to call out this behaviour because in the later stages when it is obvious to everyone it is too late.
No, I agree with all of that. Apologies for being unclear. I’m just saying, the idea that he’s totally unfettered obviously isn’t true.
No quarrel with this!
Here’s a story from last July that perhaps we have forgotten (I know I did), that takes on new meaning when we try to understand what’s going on with Trump now.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/7/21/1550579/-I-Can-t-Believe-This-NYT-Article-About-Trump-Is-Not
-A-Bigger-Story-Scandal
All Trump really wants to do is run his businesses from the White House. I believe that in doing so he will inevitably break laws. I think he will be impeached and removed from office. It’s just a matter of time, because he simply doesn’t get it. You think the Republicans don’t care? They do, or at least many of them, because they would much prefer Mike Pence. I think this scenario was already envisioned when he was chosen as VP. Read the above article between the lines.
That’s another problem, but a different one.
Just a hunch:
Set up to can Priebus and put someone else in the CoS job?
Then again, no secret Trump can be manipulated like this. Could just be SoP from now on.
More like Priebus setting up Trump not to talk to the Times. I get it, Priebus is baby-sitting Trump for the GOP. And Pence is the GOP’s bid for Trump’s daddy — who may have to replace Jr. pretty soon, because Jr. doesn’t have the attention span for the job.
” … because Jr. doesn’t have the attention span for the job. … “
Over at BJ, speculation he contradicts himself because he does not remember – early Alzheimers setting in – could be why he seems so stupid.
https:/www.balloon-juice.com/2016/11/23/early-morning-open-thread-want-some-more-nightmare-fuel
Bunch of tweets at the link talking about cognitive decline followed by this:
A word here, if you will:
kakistocracy
Mr. Lowell brought up an interesting question 140 years ago. It has remained pertinent right into the 20th + 21st centuries.
Nixon and his gang.
Reagan and his gang.
The neoliberal/neoconservative PermaGov gang that has essentially ruled from Bush I right on up to…but possibly not including…Trump. I mean…they all tried to stop him. To a man and woman. Kakistocrats all.
Trump’s new, even worse ship of fools and knaves, the lineal descendants of Roy Cohn, god help us all !!! Super kakistocrats.
Cohn was a man so devoid of common humanity that in my own estimation he is the very definition of alien life, no matter from where he might have originated on this planet.
It is widely said that Trump is our first Reality TV president.
Yup.
And the reality of that reality hurts!!!
It’s a kaktastrophe in the making.
Watch.
AG
And yet even Cohen (fatally ill with AIDS) said that Trump “pisses ice water.”
And this is the next president of the United States. God help us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/democrats-leadership-fight-pits-west-wing-against-left
-wing.html?_r=0
Alzheimer’s? From what I understand, Trump’s always been like this. It’s not dementia, it’s psychopathy.
He’s a grifter. Says what he needs to make the sale, depending on who the “mark” is. If he’s talking to somebody else, and/or under different circumstances, or for different aims, he’ll say something completely different, even contradictory or the complete opposite.
Memory doesn’t even enter into it. For Trump, it’s automatic and normal — not a bug but a feature.
Everyone needs to understand that this is a well-known personality type. I challenge anyone to read the following page and not see Trump in the descriptions (besides, it is quite interesting in itself):
http://www.ponerology.com/psychopaths_3.html
Thanks for the link, I will read it later.
I have no doubt Trump and Kushner are both psychopaths if Ivanka married “Daddy.”
But it is not inconceivable a psychopath experiencing cognitive decline.
Do recall that even with Alzheimers trained actor Reagan was still good at hitting his marks and delivering his lines.
Just looking at these NYT interview quotations, it is hard to believe this person is truly of sound mind …
http://www.pmcarpenter.com/2016/11/my-god-what-have-we-done-.html
I didn’t say he was of sound mind, only that the syndrome he exhibits is classic narcissism/psychopathy.
“For mental-health professionals, Donald Trump is at once easily diagnosed but slightly confounding. “Remarkably narcissistic,” said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Textbook narcissistic personality disorder,” echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. “He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists
interest. wondering about Kushner’s role
You and everybody else.
http://virtualjerusalem.com/entertainment.php?Itemid=24108
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/11/president-kushner
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/207559/jared-kushner-shanda
As it happens, that was my concern about giving Obama a pass on executing American citizens without trial. I confess: I could be rather strident about it.
But I was told to shut up because Obama was a Good Person (i.e. a Democrat) and we could trust him to use this ultimate power only when appropriate (i.e. on Muslims).
I tried reminding the shutters-up that the office might eventually pass to Not Such A Good Person (i.e. a Republican) and if that President chose to use this power inappropriately – say, to liquidate a perceived enemy in the media, à la Putin – it would be too late for them to start complaining about it then.
WRT the future of the Democratic Party, the looming fight over the DNC chairmanship will provide a litmus test for what the party has learned, if anything, from the recent debacle.
Keith Ellison has garnered an amazingly diverse and influential group of supporters: Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the list goes on and on.
His chief rival for the post is Tom Perez, backed by .. wait for it, the Clintons and … Pres. Obama.
Since the election, I’ve been puzzling over the role of the president in bringing about the Hillary Clinton nomination. I have been very reluctant to blame him, but I’m afraid his support for Perez is a clear sign that he is and has long been (presumably since 2009) in the Clinton tank.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/democrats-leadership-fight-pits-west-wing-against-left
-wing.html?_r=0
We can debate Perez’s good points, but we can’t ignore the fact that he is a proxy for the Old Guard that has failed us so egregiously.