Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[Stavros]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-da...-and-pizzagate

I thought this was a good article about pizzagate...the conspiracy theory spread by right wing nutjobs that the President elect panders to. It was promoted by the National Security Adviser's son (Flynn himself had promoted similar conspiracy theories) who was part of the transition team but has since been fired. Terrifying. Also terrifying that it's already considered old news in our news cycle.

He may have been fired but he still has a transition team email address and has not backed down on the conspiracy, tweeting-
"Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it'll remain a story. The left seems to forget #PodestaEmails and the many 'coincidences' tied to it," the younger Flynn tweeted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7458836.html

[broncofan]

I'm morbidly curious to see how bad this gets. Our ability to predict the future is not good as we found out in the election. It really brings home a point I've been pedantically making for years (others have probably done it eloquently)...that those on the left who claim there is no difference between the parties simply because their preferred policy choices are not represented are shameful ignoramuses. Or they don't give a shit about the stuff they claim to give a shit about.

How do I make this point simply. The new head of the EPA is someone who believes climate change is a hoax. Our head of the Department of Labour is someone who is a critic of minimum wage increases. The AFL says he's a man who has spent his entire career fighting against the interests of working people...he will be charged with administering the fair labor standards act, which enforces minimum wage and overtime violations. Oh joy. Our national security adviser is an open bigot against Muslims and a conspiracy quack. Our President elect himself has spent his time since being elected abusing the head of a labor union on twitter, who is now receiving death threats, and lashing out at media stations and comedy shows. He is considering as secretary of state Dana Rohrabacher, a shill for Putin who today told a Moldovan-American woman on television that she had no right to criticize Putin for human rights violations because her background disqualifies her as biased. Where have we heard that argument before?

Please tell me now bleeding heart lefties who couldn't tell the difference between Trump and Hillary how much you care for the environment, how much you care about working people and the rights of minorities. Tell it to the person making 7.25 an hour. Say it at the local mosque! No but seriously. Any hardcore lefties want to weigh in on why Hillary would have been just as bad.

[blackchubby38]

I'm morbidly curious to see how bad this gets. Our ability to predict the future is not good as we found out in the election. It really brings home a point I've been pedantically making for years (others have probably done it eloquently)...that those on the left who claim there is no difference between the parties simply because their preferred policy choices are not represented are shameful ignoramuses. Or they don't give a shit about the stuff they claim to give a shit about.

How do I make this point simply. The new head of the EPA is someone who believes climate change is a hoax. Our head of the Department of Labour is someone who is a critic of minimum wage increases. The AFL says he's a man who has spent his entire career fighting against the interests of working people...he will be charged with administering the fair labor standards act, which enforces minimum wage and overtime violations. Oh joy. Our national security adviser is an open bigot against Muslims and a conspiracy quack. Our President elect himself has spent his time since being elected abusing the head of a labor union on twitter, who is now receiving death threats, and lashing out at media stations and comedy shows. He is considering as secretary of state Dana Rohrabacher, a shill for Putin who today told a Moldovan-American woman on television that she had no right to criticize Putin for human rights violations because her background disqualifies her as biased. Where have we heard that argument before?

Please tell me now bleeding heart lefties who couldn't tell the difference between Trump and Hillary how much you care for the environment, how much you care about working people and the rights of minorities. Tell it to the person making 7.25 an hour. Say it at the local mosque! No but seriously. Any hardcore lefties want to weigh in on why Hillary would have been just as bad.

Exhibit A: Colin Kaepernick.

Supposedly he couldn't be bother to vote because neither party was specifically addressing the concerns of the community. To that I have to say to Kaepernick and other black people who were supposedly still pissed off about the Crime Bill that Bill Clinton passed in the 1990s', its not just about black and brown people. There were other issues at stake. Until the liberals on both coasts and in D.C. realize that, they will continue to be party that wanders aimlessly in the woods. Asking themselves, "what went wrong"?

[Stavros]

Please tell me now bleeding heart lefties who couldn't tell the difference between Trump and Hillary how much you care for the environment, how much you care about working people and the rights of minorities. Tell it to the person making 7.25 an hour. Say it at the local mosque! No but seriously. Any hardcore lefties want to weigh in on why Hillary would have been just as bad.

Look again at the campaign and you will find that the two candidates who most publicly railed against globalization and its trade deals were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who most publicly attacked Wall St, the 'Bankers' and the unelected lobbyists were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who sought to represent the forgotten workers of America struggling on low pay in depressed areas of the country were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. So the idea that there was some polarised view of 'left and right' no longer holds on a wide range of issues and is one reason why Trump in the USA and the 'Brexit' camp in the UK along with anti-immigrants Wilders in the Netherlands and Le Pen in France are being re-branded as 'Populists'.

And yet, while Hillary Clinton was seen as old-style system politics, she whipped Trump in the popular vote which wasn't even close if you compare GW Bush and Albert Gore. Just as the Leave campaign failed to win the EU Referendum in the UK by a margin of even 5% and last night UKIP failed, yet again, to get a candidate elected to the House of Commons in a bye-election in an area of the UK supposedly packed with Leave supporters you find that this 'protest politics' is winning elections and votes, but only just. Old system politics continues to offer something to a lot of people.

I think in the UK that voters have become disenchanted with elected politicians over the last ten years due to the lies that were told about Iraq followed by the actuality of regime change there, and then the scandal over MP's expenses which was even more damaging to the reputation of politicians. The fact that many of these politicians are the same people held responsible for ten years of low everything -low interest rates, low pay, low expectations- hurts them, but does not necessarily allow a 'fresh' opposition to offer substantially real alternatives because as we have discussed before, capitalism is not producing the solutions in terms of new jobs with good wages in high volume creating economic growth.
All we are left with, in a manner of speaking, are frauds and fascists who have stolen ideas and policies from left, right and centre, marketing it with an aggressive posture while being unable to prove they can do anything different, other than deepen already existing divisions in society.
I fear we are moving into a decade of indecision and disappointment, and that this will test the resilience of democracy if people feel it is no longer working to their advantage even if there is no superior alternative, unless that is deemed to be the kind of dictatorship that offers the illusion of leadership and decisive action.

[blackchubby38]

Look again at the campaign and you will find that the two candidates who most publicly railed against globalization and its trade deals were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who most publicly attacked Wall St, the 'Bankers' and the unelected lobbyists were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who sought to represent the forgotten workers of America struggling on low pay in depressed areas of the country were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. So the idea that there was some polarised view of 'left and right' no longer holds on a wide range of issues and is one reason why Trump in the USA and the 'Brexit' camp in the UK along with anti-immigrants Wilders in the Netherlands and Le Pen in France are being re-branded as 'Populists'.

And yet, while Hillary Clinton was seen as old-style system politics, she whipped Trump in the popular vote which wasn't even close if you compare GW Bush and Albert Gore. Just as the Leave campaign failed to win the EU Referendum in the UK by a margin of even 5% and last night UKIP failed, yet again, to get a candidate elected to the House of Commons in a bye-election in an area of the UK supposedly packed with Leave supporters you find that this 'protest politics' is winning elections and votes, but only just. Old system politics continues to offer something to a lot of people.

I think in the UK that voters have become disenchanted with elected politicians over the last ten years due to the lies that were told about Iraq followed by the actuality of regime change there, and then the scandal over MP's expenses which was even more damaging to the reputation of politicians. The fact that many of these politicians are the same people held responsible for ten years of low everything -low interest rates, low pay, low expectations- hurts them, but does not necessarily allow a 'fresh' opposition to offer substantially real alternatives because as we have discussed before, capitalism is not producing the solutions in terms of new jobs with good wages in high volume creating economic growth.
All we are left with, in a manner of speaking, are frauds and fascists who have stolen ideas and policies from left, right and centre, marketing it with an aggressive posture while being unable to prove they can do anything different, other than deepen already existing divisions in society.
I fear we are moving into a decade of indecision and disappointment, and that this will test the resilience of democracy if people feel it is no longer working to their advantage even if there is no superior alternative, unless that is deemed to be the kind of dictatorship that offers the illusion of leadership and decisive action.

During the post election forum that involved the campaign team of both candidates, the one thing that all involved could agree on was the impact that Bernie Sanders had. While I don't agree with a lot of Bernie Sanders has to say, I'm starting to wonder if things would have turned out different if he was the Democratic nominee and not Hillary. Or at the very least there wasn't the appearance of the DNC going out of its way to hand Hillary the nomination.

Another thing that came out of that forum was that its going to be a longtime before the Clinton campaign is going to get over losing this election.

[filghy2]

All we are left with, in a manner of speaking, are frauds and fascists who have stolen ideas and policies from left, right and centre, marketing it with an aggressive posture while being unable to prove they can do anything different, other than deepen already existing divisions in society.
I fear we are moving into a decade of indecision and disappointment, and that this will test the resilience of democracy if people feel it is no longer working to their advantage even if there is no superior alternative, unless that is deemed to be the kind of dictatorship that offers the illusion of leadership and decisive action.

Actually, we've already had a decade of indecision and disappointment, which is what created the perfect conditions for aggressively self-confident hucksters like Trump. On the positive side, there may be a natural corrective as the populists are unlikely to be able satisfy the expectations they have created. However, we should not underestimate the ability of Trump and the like to create distractions and manipulate things to their advantage, particularly if the other side fails to settle on a coherent alternative.

I think people tend to underestimate the extent to which democracy and the rule of law are vulnerable. Ultimately, these don't depend on pieces of paper but on the willingness of most people in the system to abide by and support the rules (both letter and spirit). When one party controls all of the arms of government it depends on a critical mass within that party being prepared to stand up for these principles. Nixon was forced to resign in the 70s because key members of his own party refused to support him. It's hard to be optimistic that that would happen today.

[sukumvit boy]

There may not be a day one of this presidency if Russia's 'interference' in the elections compromises the results.

[blackchubby38]

There may not be a day one of this presidency if Russia's 'interference' in the elections compromises the results.

Never going to happen. I don't put anything past the Russians. But interfering in an United States presidential election is dangerous territory, even for them to enter into. Also, the last thing President Obama wants to do is make it look like anything is going to impede the peaceful transition of power. So even if this study into election hacking does reveal anything, I don't expect much to come of it.

[flabbybody]

I agree with blackchubby. No one will be able to pin the hacking directly on Putin so a vague tie-in with Russia will amount to nothing. Now the networks are confirming that the new Secretary of State will be Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. Tillerson and Putin are pals from the early 90's when the young oil exec was negotiating drilling deals after the Soviet breakup.
Trump is clearly paving the path for a new Russian-American alliance and McCain and his lot in congress look tired and old trying to block it.

[Stavros]

Actually, we've already had a decade of indecision and disappointment, which is what created the perfect conditions for aggressively self-confident hucksters like Trump. On the positive side, there may be a natural corrective as the populists are unlikely to be able satisfy the expectations they have created. However, we should not underestimate the ability of Trump and the like to create distractions and manipulate things to their advantage, particularly if the other side fails to settle on a coherent alternative.

I think people tend to underestimate the extent to which democracy and the rule of law are vulnerable. Ultimately, these don't depend on pieces of paper but on the willingness of most people in the system to abide by and support the rules (both letter and spirit). When one party controls all of the arms of government it depends on a critical mass within that party being prepared to stand up for these principles. Nixon was forced to resign in the 70s because key members of his own party refused to support him. It's hard to be optimistic that that would happen today.

I agree with your points, with Trump's dismissal of the CIA report into Russian cybercrime being one example of the dangers of a new man refusing to accept as true what he doesn't like.
My guess is that Trump did not expect to win the election and realised, particularly after meeting Obama in the White House, that he doesn't have the competence to do it. That is why he turned to the experienced people he said during the campaign were responsible for a 'broken America' while for their part, those who have agreed to sit at the high table have done so because they think they will never have a better chance than now to shape American policy to their interests, the assumption being that Trump will be more concerned with his image and making speeches than the detail of policy. How this pans out is another guess, as like Brexit it is still too early to tell how these people will get along with each other, and if the Administration is divided or united.