Trump: Torture definitely works

[Thanas]

Guardian

Donald Trump says torture 'absolutely' works: 'we have to fight fire with fire'
Trump gives first presidential TV interview as draft executive order points to return to practices such as waterboarding


Donald Trump has used his first TV interview as president to say he believes torture “absolutely” works and that the US should “fight fire with fire.”

Speaking to ABC News, Trump said he would defer to the defence secretary, James Mattis, and CIA director, Mike Pompeo, to determine what can and cannot be done legally to combat the spread of terrorism.

But asked about the efficacy of tactics such as waterboarding, Trump said: “absolutely I feel it works.”

“When Isis is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since medieval times. Would I feel strongly about waterboarding. As far as I’m concerned we have to fight fire with fire.”

Trump said he asked intelligence chiefs earlier this week whether torture works. “The answer was yes, absolutely,” he said.

He added that terrorist groups “chop off the citizens’ or anybody’s heads in the Middle East, because they’re Christian or Muslim or anything else ... we have that and we’re not allowed to do anything. We’re not playing on an even field.”

The interviews come after reports that Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would reinstate the detention of terrorism suspects at facilities known as “black sites”.

This would remove limitations on coercive interrogation techniques set by a longstanding army field manual intended to ensure humane military interrogations, which is mostly compliant with the Geneva Conventions. Mattis and Pompeo were “blindsided” by reports of the draft order, Politico said citing sources.

Trump faces resistance to the prospect of the reintroduction of torture.

Senator John McCain, a torture survivor and co-author of a 2015 law barring the US security agencies from using interrogation techniques beyond those set out in the US army field manual, signalled his defiance.

“The president can sign whatever executive orders he likes. But the law is the law. We are not bringing back torture in the United States of America,” said McCain, the Arizona Republican who chairs the Senate armed services committee.

McCain referenced explicit guarantees from Pompeo and Mattis during their Senate confirmation proceedings to follow the interrogations law and the army field manual. “I am confident these leaders will be true to their word,” McCain said.

The former CIA head Leon Panetta, who gave the orders to close the agency’s black sites told the BBC that it would be a “mistake” to reintroduce enhance interrogation techniques and “damaging” to the reputation of the US. Panetta said torture was violation of the US values and the constitution.

Steve Kleinman, a retired air force colonel and chairman of the research advisory committee to the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, warned that weakening US prohibitions against torture carried significant consequences for national security.

“If the US was to make it once again the policy of the country to coerce, and to detain at length in an extrajudicial fashion, the costs would be beyond substantial – they’d be potentially existential,” he said.

Mark Fallon, who was the deputy chief of Guantánamo’s Bush-era investigative taskforce for military tribunals, said: “It does appear like a subterfuge to enact more brutal methods because that was what candidate Trump campaigned on during the election.”

Fallon warned that the field manual’s appendix M, which allows extended “separation” of a detainee from other captives, represented a “slippery slope that could bring back torture”.

Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, has been urged to by her own MPs to make Britain’s opposition to torture clear to Trump when she visits him on Friday.

At prime minister’s questions Andrew Tyrie, a senior Tory MP, said: “President Trump has repeatedly said he will bring back torture as an instrument of policy. When she sees him on Friday, will the prime minister make it clear that in no circumstances will she permit Britain to be dragged into facilitating that torture, as we were after 11 September?”

Good job, USA.

[Flagg]

Christ, did they put lead paint in the milk served at lunch in the cafeteria?

I have to laugh.

It's that or crying, and if I cry I don't think I'll stop.

Who would have thought we'd have a worse POTUS than Dubya in less than a decade since he left office?

[Dartzap]

I happened to see a list of all his executive orders since Friday l, on Facebook earlier, and it struck me that there are many Americans who have had an unhealthy obsessions with the House of Windsor over the decades. It seems they have learned the wrong lessons on the use of power and ended up with a Mad King instead.

Best hope you don't lose the colonies, chaps

[The Romulan Republic]

Disgusting, but pretty much to be expected from Dear Leader Donald.

[Flagg]

Disgusting, but pretty much to be expected from Dear Leader Donald.

Please don't disgrace Kim Jong Un by comparing him to President Pussygrabber.

[Ralin]

Senator John McCain, a torture survivor and co-author of a 2015 law barring the US security agencies from using interrogation techniques beyond those set out in the US army field manual, signalled his defiance.

“The president can sign whatever executive orders he likes. But the law is the law. We are not bringing back torture in the United States of America,” said McCain, the Arizona Republican who chairs the Senate armed services committee.

McCain referenced explicit guarantees from Pompeo and Mattis during their Senate confirmation proceedings to follow the interrogations law and the army field manual. “I am confident these leaders will be true to their word,” McCain said.

Riiiiiiiight.

The US military is great at following orders. If they didn't balk at a war of aggression against Iraq they aren't going to jeopardize their pensions/tuition assistance/other assorted benefits by refusing to torture people who can't fight back.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their are exceptions, but generally I expect soldiers will follow orders, because that's what they're trained to do. Though actually, they're supposed to disobey illegal orders, and the US Army swears its oath to uphold the Constitution, not obey the President.

Still, nice to see that John McCain seems to have relocated his soul from wherever he stashed it the last few years.

[LaCroix]

I happened to see a list of all his executive orders since Friday l, on Facebook earlier, and it struck me that there are many Americans who have had an unhealthy obsessions with the House of Windsor over the decades. It seems they have learned the wrong lessons on the use of power and ended up with a Mad King instead.

It's funny that, while being on record for complaining about Obama using too many executive orders (who signed less than G.W Bush ), the GOP has no problem that Pres. Trump is closing up so quickly that he might end up actually signing more in the first week than Obama in his first months, or even his first year. (Ignoring the fact that Trump has the Govenment behind him and could do things the regular way, while Obama was pretty much forced to use them due to partisanship.)

[wautd]

Donald Trump says torture 'absolutely' works

Trump sure is consequent. He seems to disagree with every scientific consensus.

[Edi]

I happened to see a list of all his executive orders since Friday l, on Facebook earlier, and it struck me that there are many Americans who have had an unhealthy obsessions with the House of Windsor over the decades. It seems they have learned the wrong lessons on the use of power and ended up with a Mad King instead.

It's funny that, while being on record for complaining about Obama using too many executive orders (who signed less than G.W Bush ), the GOP has no problem that Pres. Trump is closing up so quickly that he might end up actually signing more in the first week than Obama in his first months, or even his first year. (Ignoring the fact that Trump has the Govenment behind him and could do things the regular way, while Obama was pretty much forced to use them due to partisanship.)

At the clip he is going, it will be more exec orders in the first 100 days than Obama managed in eight years.

The situation is that whatever Republicans say about small government, limited power and so forth, IT IS ALWAYS A 100% LIE. They do not accept anything Democrats do, whether in or out of power, as legitimate. Democratic wins in elections are not legitimate. Democratic actions as a majority are illegitimate. Democratic actions in the minority are illegitimate. Anything and everything Democrats do at any time is illegitimate.

That is how they regard things, at least the Tea Party and Trumpists do. Moderate Republicans may exist, but sighting frequencies are right about up there with unicorns and the Loch Ness monster.

[Tribble]

I happened to see a list of all his executive orders since Friday l, on Facebook earlier, and it struck me that there are many Americans who have had an unhealthy obsessions with the House of Windsor over the decades. It seems they have learned the wrong lessons on the use of power and ended up with a Mad King instead.

It's funny that, while being on record for complaining about Obama using too many executive orders (who signed less than G.W Bush ), the GOP has no problem that Pres. Trump is closing up so quickly that he might end up actually signing more in the first week than Obama in his first months, or even his first year. (Ignoring the fact that Trump has the Govenment behind him and could do things the regular way, while Obama was pretty much forced to use them due to partisanship.)

At the clip he is going, it will be more exec orders in the first 100 days than Obama managed in eight years.

The situation is that whatever Republicans say about small government, limited power and so forth, IT IS ALWAYS A 100% LIE. They do not accept anything Democrats do, whether in or out of power, as legitimate. Democratic wins in elections are not legitimate. Democratic actions as a majority are illegitimate. Democratic actions in the minority are illegitimate. Anything and everything Democrats do at any time is illegitimate.

That is how they regard things, at least the Tea Party and Trumpists do. Moderate Republicans may exist, but sighting frequencies are right about up there with unicorns and the Loch Ness monster.

Exactly, as far as a lot of Republicans are considered, they are literally at war with the Democrats and will not stop until that war is won and all Democrats (as well as other parties) are eliminated both as a party and ideology. There is no such thing as a "compromise" in the Republican mindset, only "temporary defeats" that must be reversed at the earliest opportunity. The enemy must be destroyed, they will accept no less. If Jesus himself literally descended from the heavens and said to Republicans "love thy neighbours, including thy Democrats"... given the state of things right now they'd probably denounce him as a communist traitor and try to lock him up.

[TheFeniX]

“When Isis is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since medieval times. Would I feel strongly about waterboarding. As far as I’m concerned we have to fight fire with fire.”

No matter how big a guy might be, Nicky would take him on. You beat Nicky with fists, he comes back with a bat. You beat him with a knife, he comes back with a gun. And you beat him with a gun, you better kill him, because he'll keep comin' back and back until one of you is dead.

He added that terrorist groups “chop off the citizens’ or anybody’s heads in the Middle East, because they’re Christian or Muslim or anything else ... we have that and we’re not allowed to do anything. We’re not playing on an even field.”

This is some high-level posturing or delusions, probably both. Not the idea of an uneven playing field. That's true. What's delusional is that the U.S. is the underdog in this fight when it can bring enough to the field to wipe it off the map.

[LaCroix]

What's delusional is that the U.S. is the underdog in this fight when it can bring enough to the field to wipe it off the map.

Along with THE MAP if they really wanted to...

[Simon_Jester]

This is why I've been telling people for years, that yes, having the Republicans running the system would lead to worse human rights outcomes than having Obama in office, despite Obama's decision to continue the Bush-era policies. Because the Republican Party as an institution has forgotten that human rights are even a thing, except insofar as they are the right of white men to do what white men feel like. Individual Republicans here and there remember, but that's it.

Trump has gone farther than another Republican politician might have, but that's only because he's the unbridled expression of what the Republican Party has become. As I've said elsewhere, the Republicans have spent the entire time since 1994 crafting a Trump-shaped hole in the mind of the Republican voter base. All The Toupee had to do was step into it.

Everyone who criticized Obama- you didn't like King Log? Meet King Stork.

There is ONE valid criticism of Obama on this issue, which I fully intend to adhere to for the rest of my life. And it is a damning criticism. Namely, that by not pushing hard to end these abuses, Obama created a situation in which it would be easier for the Republicans to make them worse the next time they take power. That is, I repeat, a damning criticism. But anyone who thought Obama was a rat on human rights has no concept of just how vile American politics have become at the low end of the scale, or what he was fighting against.

[K. A. Pital]

Obama was a rat on human rights.

But there's always a King Rat.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Talk shit about my boys in Ratking and I don't care how based a comrade you are, we will have problems.

Really though, Trump's decision making process on whether or not a policy or a plank of a worldview is "true" or not can be boiled down to a three-point decision-making process:

1) Is this idea complicated? Does it require committed effort to comprehend the constituent concepts that underpin it and make it up, does it place you outside of the comfort zone of your established knowledge base, will it take hard intellectual effort to understand it, etc?
2) Is this idea self-aggrandizing? Does it offer opportunities to associate yourself with character traits that you want to project to the public like machismo, sagacity, decisiveness, potency, etc?
3) Is this idea disruptive? Would it require you to make changes to your behavior, your thinking, your habits and vices and luxuries and plans, etc?

If 1 and 3 are a "yes", and 2 is a "no", then the idea is a non-starter. If they meet said criteria, then to paraphrase Mr. Show, the hypothesis is true and the king consults with his menagerie of birds. It's a distillation and concentration of the reactionary mind's decision-making processes that's been ongoing for decades and if there's an apogee beyond Trump, I shudder to think how much worse it could be.

[TheFeniX]

Trump has gone farther than another Republican politician might have, but that's only because he's the unbridled expression of what the Republican Party has become. As I've said elsewhere, the Republicans have spent the entire time since 1994 crafting a Trump-shaped hole in the mind of the Republican voter base. All The Toupee had to do was step into it.

Honest question here: is he really? Because I recall the RNC trying to discredit and destroy him for months but being blown-out by the anti-establishment/racist component of the party. Trump seemed to have the support of primary voters, not the people in charge of the RNC. They didn't finally rally around him until it became apparent they had to in order to keep the party in one piece and/or out of self-preservation.

Essentially, any (R) is better than a (D).

And thinking back, Trump was saying some non-crazy things when fighting Tea Party cronies like Ted Cruz for the nomination: talking about single-payer health-care, support for (non-abortion services, mind you) planned-parenthood. Registered Republicans voted for a guy whose support for Hillary Clinton could easily be found online. I think a lot of this stems from them feeling the people they pushed into office to fix things the "first" time around fucked them over.

Trump was talking about helping them. The details didn't matter to them, just the message: "Trump will look out for you. Democrats don't care about you."

Does anyone else remember the "joke" that Trump was trying to get the (R) nomination just to make sure Hillary got elected? That's how "laughable" the idea of candidate AND President Trump was. Shit isn't funny anymore. And then, "winning by even narrow margins still means you won." The same people who were calling out Trump as deplorable are now celebrating that their guy (read: team) won. Because winning is all that matters. This seem to be an idea conservatives, in general, live by.

I don't believe Trump won because he was some kind of True Son of the Republican party. I think he won because the Republican party is a trainwreck of people who keep getting fucked over and will literally vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name instead of considering switching parties or voting third party. They just got "lucky" this time since they were able to push through the candidate they actually wanted.

And as bad as things are, would we REALLY be that much better off with President Cruz (assuming Clinton wouldn't have crushed him)?

[Flagg]

The Republican Party as a political organization has ceased to exist. What we have is a group of oligarchs and kleptocrats wearing the decaying skin of the Republican Party bolstered by far right Tea Party loons, white supremacists, and neoconservative war whores. Trump ran on a position of "change" and for once in his self deluded egomaniacal rapist life he's doing exactly what he said he was going to. He just didn't bother telling people exactly what form and magnitude the change would be or that it would be in the interest of the American people.

So now that every sucking chest wound fuckface who would never vote for President Pussygrabber while also refusing to vote for Clinton has underoos full of pure fear shit because they've seen what they have wrought... They blame Clinton for "running a shitty campaign" because in America the left (actual left wingers not American-left wingers) eats its own rather than growing the fuck up and acting like adults. This is just the start.

[Simon_Jester]

The Republican Party as a political organization has ceased to exist. What we have is a group of oligarchs and kleptocrats wearing the decaying skin of the Republican Party bolstered by far right Tea Party loons, white supremacists, and neoconservative war whores. Trump ran on a position of "change" and for once in his self deluded egomaniacal rapist life he's doing exactly what he said he was going to. He just didn't bother telling people exactly what form and magnitude the change would be or that it would be in the interest of the American people.

So now that every sucking chest wound fuckface who would never vote for President Pussygrabber while also refusing to vote for Clinton has underoos full of pure fear shit because they've seen what they have wrought... They blame Clinton for "running a shitty campaign" because in America the left (actual left wingers not American-left wingers) eats its own rather than growing the fuck up and acting like adults. This is just the start.

...What Flagg said.

I never thought I'd say this, but just, "what Flagg said."

Trump has gone farther than another Republican politician might have, but that's only because he's the unbridled expression of what the Republican Party has become. As I've said elsewhere, the Republicans have spent the entire time since 1994 crafting a Trump-shaped hole in the mind of the Republican voter base. All The Toupee had to do was step into it.

Honest question here: is he really? Because I recall the RNC trying to discredit and destroy him for months but being blown-out by the anti-establishment/racist component of the party. Trump seemed to have the support of primary voters, not the people in charge of the RNC. They didn't finally rally around him until it became apparent they had to in order to keep the party in one piece and/or out of self-preservation.

Essentially, any (R) is better than a (D).

Oh, the RNC may cheerfully despise him. Doesn't matter. What I'm getting at here isn't about Trump's policies, it's about his (lack of) character. The "Trump-shaped hole" I'm describing is a personality. The RNC has been working very hard to condition its voter base to support a certain type of candidate, and the only reason Trump was able to jump in and snag the nomination is because Trump is an extremely good example of that candidate type.

Even if they didn't mean to, the effect is the same. The RNC has carefully conditioned tens of millions of Americans to roll over and vote for the guy who struts and pounds his chest and insults liberals loudly. Who lies big because he doesn't actually give a damn about whether anything coming out of his mouth is true. Who's intimately associated in their minds with wealth, and totally inexperienced in government, because they believe that big business is good for America while big government is bad.

The sort of person who thinks George W. Bush was a good president (not just adequate, good) is inevitably going to be predisposed to think that Trump would make a great president.

Trump stepped in, here, to fill a role that had already been created in advance, because the RNC wasn't able to cast anyone else equally convincing to play the part. The RNC may not have even realized just how good a fit a random fraudulent millionaire psychopath would be for that role... but they created the role anyway, one piece at a time.

And thinking back, Trump was saying some non-crazy things when fighting Tea Party cronies like Ted Cruz for the nomination: talking about single-payer health-care, support for (non-abortion services, mind you) planned-parenthood. Registered Republicans voted for a guy whose support for Hillary Clinton could easily be found online. I think a lot of this stems from them feeling the people they pushed into office to fix things the "first" time around fucked them over.

Trump was talking about helping them. The details didn't matter to them, just the message: "Trump will look out for you. Democrats don't care about you."

Right, because he's got seventy years' experience as a fraudulent psychopath. He can tell anyone anything, because he doesn't care. This is the power of the Big Lie in politics, and for decades the Republican Party has been trying very hard to make the Big Lie as powerful a tool in American politics as possible.

The RNC never counted on an outsider being able to come in and take over their support base by being a bigger liar than their favored candidates. But that isn't my point; my point is that said big liar had a ready-made niche to occupy, where he could win simply by playing to his own strengths: lying, posturing, and sleazy machismo.

Does anyone else remember the "joke" that Trump was trying to get the (R) nomination just to make sure Hillary got elected? That's how "laughable" the idea of candidate AND President Trump was. Shit isn't funny anymore. And then, "winning by even narrow margins still means you won." The same people who were calling out Trump as deplorable are now celebrating that their guy (read: team) won. Because winning is all that matters. This seem to be an idea conservatives, in general, live by.

I don't believe Trump won because he was some kind of True Son of the Republican party. I think he won because the Republican party is a trainwreck of people who keep getting fucked over and will literally vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name instead of considering switching parties or voting third party. They just got "lucky" this time since they were able to push through the candidate they actually wanted.

I think the problem here is that we're not using consistent terms to describe WHO is responsible for what.

There's the Republican base, there's the Republican leadership and intelligentsia.

My point is that the Republican leadership and intelligentsia have been manipulating their own base for a long time. And that the final result of all this manipulation is that the base will vote for whoever lies the biggest, whoever postures the loudest, whoever out-machos his opponent, and whoever makes the most sweeping promises to fix the country by doing all the things that broke the country in the first place, only harder.

In 2012 this resulted in Mitt Romney having a very difficult run for the nomination, because he had to beat down several challengers who were all trying to step into that role of "lying posturing donkey."

In 2016, the lying posturing donkey won, because if there's one thing Donald Trump is good at, it's being a lying, posturing donkey.

Had Trump, the uber-donkey, not shown up in the race, the win might have gone to a more normal Republican candidate. But no such candidate would have attracted the same fire among Republican base voters. Because all 'normal politician' Republican candidates, including the RNC leadership figures, are at best oval-shaped pegs in a circular hole. They don't quite fit the parameters they've been training their own base to support.

Trump fits those parameters perfectly, which is why he was able to so easily defeat an entire field of candidates, many of whom were decades younger and yet more experienced politically than himself. Because he was the round peg trying to fit a round hole.

And as bad as things are, would we REALLY be that much better off with President Cruz (assuming Clinton wouldn't have crushed him)?

Cruz would be as bad ideologically, but nowhere near as corrupt and thuggish personally. He's a Republican, not a fascist. He'd tolerate waterboarding, maybe, but he wouldn't have tried to make it mandatory in his first two weeks in office.

[Broomstick]

Moderate Republicans may exist, but sighting frequencies are right about up there with unicorns and the Loch Ness monster.

Moderate Republicans DO exist - such a creature is why my spouse and I have health insurance right now. But the moderates don't get in the news, and thus are largely invisible.

[Simon_Jester]

And it doesn't seem very likely that they'll be setting the national policy agenda, given that Trump's win is handing legitimacy over to the complete-wingnut faction of the party.

[TheFeniX]

The RNC has carefully conditioned tens of millions of Americans to roll over and vote for the guy who struts and pounds his chest and insults liberals loudly.

While I agree with pretty much everything else, here is where I don't see it. The Republican base, what's left of it ideologically, was more than ready for a RINO like Trump, but that's not due to conditioning but the Republican glitterati being so damned incompetent. They may have "rolled with" the anti-establishment movement, but they didn't create it. Well, not intentionally. They were just trying to find new support in a cratered party. "Carefully" is just not something I'd attribute to the current Republican party, at least not in that area.

Republicans have always beat their fist on the table talking about small gubmint and other stupid shit. They were always willing to do that to get elected then support all the federal expansion they could. They worked with Clinton on... just about everything but blowjobs. It was years of big gubmint GW driving the party and the country into the ground that finally gave actual crazies control of the party. Long-term Republicans, those who helped create the Tea Party movement, were treated as the enemy: they weren't conservative enough.

I have to go with the idea that the RNC is just stepping light around the monster they let out of the closet. They are profiting and pandering, but they lost control a while ago.

My point is that the Republican leadership and intelligentsia have been manipulating their own base for a long time. And that the final result of all this manipulation is that the base will vote for whoever lies the biggest, whoever postures the loudest, whoever out-machos his opponent, and whoever makes the most sweeping promises to fix the country by doing all the things that broke the country in the first place, only harder.

Democrats are guilty of this as well. I remember a shot (out of many) Obama took at Hillary in 2008 to the effect of "Clinton will promise big and do nothing." Obama was also a candidate talking about change and making big promises. His "inexperience" was looked at as a strength by his supporters and a weakness by his opponents in both the DNC and RNC.

You don't have to manipulate anything, for good or worse, when faith is low: people will vote for change. ANY change.

Had Trump, the uber-donkey, not shown up in the race, the win might have gone to a more normal Republican candidate. But no such candidate would have attracted the same fire among Republican base voters. Because all 'normal politician' Republican candidates, including the RNC leadership figures, are at best oval-shaped pegs in a circular hole. They don't quite fit the parameters they've been training their own base to support.

What fire though? Turn-out was pretty low. Trumps win was in the Electoral College, not the popular vote. An energized Democratic base would have crushed Trump. A 2008 Obama would have done it, and that was 8 years ago.

If this is the best the carefully molded Republican base can muster with the candidate they wanted, not winning the popular vote against Hillary Clinton (who couldn't beat Obamas 2012 numbers), that's a good thing. They have to rely on voter-disenfranchisement, disaffected Democratic voters, 8 years of a (black) Democratic president, pandering to their fascist base, pathetic voter turn-out, and rule lawyering (electoral college) just to win against a mediocre Democrat?

[Flagg]

The RNC has carefully conditioned tens of millions of Americans to roll over and vote for the guy who struts and pounds his chest and insults liberals loudly.

While I agree with pretty much everything else, here is where I don't see it. The Republican base, what's left of it ideologically, was more than ready for a RINO like Trump, but that's not due to conditioning but the Republican glitterati being so damned incompetent. They may have "rolled with" the anti-establishment movement, but they didn't create it. Well, not intentionally. They were just trying to find new support in a cratered party. "Carefully" is just not something I'd attribute to the current Republican party, at least not in that area.

Republicans have always beat their fist on the table talking about small gubmint and other stupid shit. They were always willing to do that to get elected then support all the federal expansion they could. They worked with Clinton on... just about everything but blowjobs. It was years of big gubmint GW driving the party and the country into the ground that finally gave actual crazies control of the party. Long-term Republicans, those who helped create the Tea Party movement, were treated as the enemy: they weren't conservative enough.

I have to go with the idea that the RNC is just stepping light around the monster they let out of the closet. They are profiting and pandering, but they lost control a while ago.

My point is that the Republican leadership and intelligentsia have been manipulating their own base for a long time. And that the final result of all this manipulation is that the base will vote for whoever lies the biggest, whoever postures the loudest, whoever out-machos his opponent, and whoever makes the most sweeping promises to fix the country by doing all the things that broke the country in the first place, only harder.

Democrats are guilty of this as well. I remember a shot (out of many) Obama took at Hillary in 2008 to the effect of "Clinton will promise big and do nothing." Obama was also a candidate talking about change and making big promises. His "inexperience" was looked at as a strength by his supporters and a weakness by his opponents in both the DNC and RNC.

You don't have to manipulate anything, for good or worse, when faith is low: people will vote for change. ANY change.

Had Trump, the uber-donkey, not shown up in the race, the win might have gone to a more normal Republican candidate. But no such candidate would have attracted the same fire among Republican base voters. Because all 'normal politician' Republican candidates, including the RNC leadership figures, are at best oval-shaped pegs in a circular hole. They don't quite fit the parameters they've been training their own base to support.

What fire though? Turn-out was pretty low. Trumps win was in the Electoral College, not the popular vote. An energized Democratic base would have crushed Trump. A 2008 Obama would have done it, and that was 8 years ago.

If this is the best the carefully molded Republican base can muster with the candidate they wanted, not winning the popular vote against Hillary Clinton (who couldn't beat Obamas 2012 numbers), that's a good thing. They have to rely on voter-disenfranchisement, disaffected Democratic voters, 8 years of a (black) Democratic president, pandering to their fascist base, pathetic voter turn-out, and rule lawyering (electoral college) just to win against a mediocre Democrat?

Yeah, enthusiasm last election was way down. I think people were just sick of Trumps dumpster fire campaigning and then when Comey pulled his bullshit stunt with the emails I think the "Clinton is a crook" (despite 20+ years of investigations that led to nothing of any import) meme was the last straw for a lot of people who just tuned the rest of the campaign out and didn't vote.

But here's hoping we have another presidential election!

[Simon_Jester]

The RNC has carefully conditioned tens of millions of Americans to roll over and vote for the guy who struts and pounds his chest and insults liberals loudly.

While I agree with pretty much everything else, here is where I don't see it. The Republican base, what's left of it ideologically, was more than ready for a RINO like Trump, but that's not due to conditioning but the Republican glitterati being so damned incompetent. They may have "rolled with" the anti-establishment movement, but they didn't create it. Well, not intentionally. They were just trying to find new support in a cratered party. "Carefully" is just not something I'd attribute to the current Republican party, at least not in that area.

I think you're still getting mixed up over which 'they' you're talking about.

Here is my argument:

1) That Republican politicians have been using racial dogwhistles, machismo posturing and denigration of liberals as effete, small-government rhetoric, anti-intellectualism, the gospel of wealth, and the Big Lie as tools to drum up votes for decades.

2) That in the process, they have spent large amounts of time and effort, with the cooperation of right-wing media outlets, on creating an audience that is responsive to these views.

3) The catch is that this audience is now inclined to support whoever pushes those buttons the hardest. Whoever blows the racist dogwhistle the loudest. Whoever postures with the most machismo, and spends the most time mocking his opponents as girly-men. Whoever is most blatantly willing to burn down the government. Whoever is most anti-intellectual. Whoever preaches the gospel of wealth the hardest. Whoever lies the biggest.

4) And this audience now forms the Republican voter base. The ones that vote in the primaries. The ones that turn out reliably to every election.

5) This audience started moving under its own power, rather than simply being loyal voters for Republican candidates, starting with the Tea Party. Since they arose, you are correct that the RNC establishment has been having to tread lightly around the beast they've created.

6) Trump stepped into the position described in part (3), because as a psychopathic millionaire real-estate fraud with decades of public exposure as a chest-thumping mass of bravado, he is extremely well suited to the task of blowing the dogwhistles, posturing, mocking his opponents, and so on.

I'm pretty sure you and I agree on (1) through (6) when they are stated clearly.

...

Now, my actual point is that the Republican party leadership and intelligentsia created the audience (as per 2). They put a lot of time and effort into it. And it served them well, getting the neocons into some power in 1994, and more power in 2000, and keeping them in power through 2008.

However, they created an audience that would support "the Republican Party" by backing whoever does the things they're "trained" to vote for (as per 3).

But in the process, they created a systematic vulnerability that you yourself are pointing out- they are vulnerable to whatever posturing creep shows up to blow the dogwhistles, tell the big lies, and so on.

Basically, the mechanism they created (as per 2 and 3) and rely on for their support (as per 4) is a great method for seeking power, but a very bad method for actually exercising it. That creates a contradiction that the Republican party leadership as a whole doesn't seem prepared to deal with.

They have created a ready-made fascist mini-party within the structure of the Republican Party, but not of the structure of that party. And Trump simply took the wheel of the mini-party and drove it to success, leaving the 'hollowed out' remnant that is the RNC-dominated leadership behind.

They were able to put off dealing with this problem from 2000-08 because they had a white good ol' boy in the White House. They were able to avoid dealing with it from 2009-16 because they had a Democrat in the White House who they could blame for the total failure of elected officials with (R)s to do anything constructive at the national level.

They can't avoid dealing with it now, and by "they" I mean the Republicans of the RNC and the party intellectuals. They have two options. One is to let the country fall apart. The other is to recognize that they created a fascist movement in the routine course of trying to get perfectly ordinary politicians elected... and dissent from that fascist movement.

My point is that the Republican leadership and intelligentsia have been manipulating their own base for a long time. And that the final result of all this manipulation is that the base will vote for whoever lies the biggest, whoever postures the loudest, whoever out-machos his opponent, and whoever makes the most sweeping promises to fix the country by doing all the things that broke the country in the first place, only harder.

Democrats are guilty of this as well. I remember a shot (out of many) Obama took at Hillary in 2008 to the effect of "Clinton will promise big and do nothing." Obama was also a candidate talking about change and making big promises. His "inexperience" was looked at as a strength by his supporters and a weakness by his opponents in both the DNC and RNC.

You don't have to manipulate anything, for good or worse, when faith is low: people will vote for change. ANY change.

Yes, but this particular change was supported by specific people for specific reasons. Those are the reasons I'm trying to analyze. If America's political realities were different, they would have voted for a different change, one represented by a different kind of personality.

Had Trump, the uber-donkey, not shown up in the race, the win might have gone to a more normal Republican candidate. But no such candidate would have attracted the same fire among Republican base voters. Because all 'normal politician' Republican candidates, including the RNC leadership figures, are at best oval-shaped pegs in a circular hole. They don't quite fit the parameters they've been training their own base to support.

What fire though? Turn-out was pretty low. Trumps win was in the Electoral College, not the popular vote. An energized Democratic base would have crushed Trump. A 2008 Obama would have done it, and that was 8 years ago.

Please reread the underlined phrase in the passage you quoted. Republican base voters are not the same as "the whole electorate."

Republican base voters are showing an enthusiasm for Trump that they never showed for, say, Romney. Or McCain. Because Trump pushes their buttons. Romney and McCain

That's the direction my argument was trying to go. The seemingly bizarre ability of such a blatantly corrupt and otherwise unsuitable individual to take the White House, despite all the forces and odds against him, comes from a single root cause.

And that root cause is that the Republican Party created a voter base, a certain percentage of Americans, that looks at Trump and sees the ultimate presidential candidate. They're so fucked up that this is what they think a president should look like.

The Republicans did this because they wanted to run people a little like Trump (kind of corrupt, kind of racist, kind of crude and ignorant). But as a side effect, they created a situation where someone a lot like Trump could easily step in front of them.

And now, in the eyes of their own support base, Trump "out-Republicans the Republicans." Not because of his policy platform, but because he pushes the right buttons (the racist dogwhistles, the anti-intellectualism, the big lies, the macho posturing, and so on).

The moderate Republicans may deplore Trump, but in a real sense the only reason Trump could ever take power is because the Republicans convinced, say, 30% of the American population that Trump-like qualities are desirable in a president. That's roughly the same 30% of the population who still thought Bush was a good president back in 2008... because of Bush exhibiting those Trump-like qualities, to a much lesser degree than Trump himself.

If this is the best the carefully molded Republican base can muster with the candidate they wanted, not winning the popular vote against Hillary Clinton (who couldn't beat Obamas 2012 numbers), that's a good thing. They have to rely on voter-disenfranchisement, disaffected Democratic voters, 8 years of a (black) Democratic president, pandering to their fascist base, pathetic voter turn-out, and rule lawyering (electoral college) just to win against a mediocre Democrat?

I have no disagreement with everything you just said.

[Edi]

Moderate Republicans may exist, but sighting frequencies are right about up there with unicorns and the Loch Ness monster.

Moderate Republicans DO exist - such a creature is why my spouse and I have health insurance right now. But the moderates don't get in the news, and thus are largely invisible.

Point taken.