Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

Well, it's a pretty straightforward statement of fact.

We can imagine a group that wants to establish a permanent one-party government run by white men who think the free market is good and BIG GUBMINT is bad and so on. Permanent Tea Party Majority, in other words.

And we look at the demographics, and we see that this is not a thing that can happen. That's not stable in the long term as long as it's legal for blacks, Hispanics, people below the age of fifty, etc., to vote. "Suppressing" minority votes and so on wouldn't be enough, they'd have to be effectively legally barred from voting. As was the case in apartheid-era South Africa (where blacks didn't get to vote on the government), or in Israel (where Palestinians don't get to vote on the Israeli government).

The kind of 'soft power' racism and sexism and classism the US now has survives because it does not require the oppressive system to win elections. It just requires the people on the top of the heap to keep being assholes. Trying to legally impose this forever with Permanent Tea Party Majority that could never lose an election again... That would require legally stripping large numbers of American citizens of the votes, not just in the sense of "we make it hard for you to vote," but in the sense of "we make it actively illegal for you to vote. Constitutional amendment territory and shit.

That is Flagg's point.

If you think it's kind of obvious, fine, it arguably is, but it's worth bearing in mind because we're currently facing a Tea Party government that thinks it should be Permanent Tea Party Majority.

Thank you, exactly that. I didn't see the need to go into great detail because I don't care if stupid people (or trolls) can't (or lie and claim that they can't) understand a very clear statement concerning what it would take for current Republicans to stay in power despite demographic changes.

[Flagg]

Come to think of it, isn't he doing the same with his signing of all those executive orders? I've seen a few on news reports, and he always seems to finish by holding the document folder up to the camera with his usual smirk™, as if he's saying "look how clever I am". Argleblargle...

Yeah. He lives in his bubble where he's smarter than everyone and the best at everything. I heard a tape from an interview recorded by his ghost writer in the 90's. He went to West Point in the early 60's and over the course of the interview literally said he was "the best" at everything. He was the best athlete, got the best grades, and was basically Ubermenchen.

The funniest part was Donnie Douchebag saying he was "the best" at baseball, but "It was before baseball was very popular and there wasn't any money in it. This was 1962 when such no-names like Mickey Mantel and Joe DiMaggio were playing. That's how insanely insulated from reality the fucker (or the alien organism on his head that "drives" the Play-Doh looking host body) is.

[Simon_Jester]

Nitpick: DiMaggio retired in the early '50s, although Mickey Mantle was certainly big.

There is a logically consistent way out of this for the Democrats: filibuster any nominee until and unless Merrick Garland gets an up or down vote. He wouldn't be my first choice either, but he is the legitimate nominee of the previous president, and until he gets a fair hearing it can be reasonably argued that no Trump nominee has any legitimacy.

Way back when his name was first announced, I'm sure I remember coming across a report that Garland had been approved in his current position, only a few years before, by a large majority... including many Republicans.

To be fair, so was Gorsuch. Nominees to lower level courts and such are often approved with extremely large or even unanimous votes, simply because neither party wants to get into a bellowing match over them.

[Darth Nostril]

Come to think of it, isn't he doing the same with his signing of all those executive orders? I've seen a few on news reports, and he always seems to finish by holding the document folder up to the camera with his usual smirk™, as if he's saying "look how clever I am". Argleblargle...

"Look I can write my name!"

Then the crowd of paid admirers applauds and the orange baboon smirks at how clever he is in figuring out how to pick up a pen the right way round & make marks on the piece of paper that Bannon placed in front of him.



Apropos of nothing but I was looking for some pics of Drumpf looking particularily gormless for a DA journal entry I'm half thinking of doing when I realised that I can't find a picture of him actually looking normal, his default state really is posturing incompetent assclown.

[Flagg]

Nitpick: DiMaggio retired in the early '50s, although Mickey Mantle was certainly big.

That just makes it worse.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/p ... rches.html

WASHINGTON — President Trump vowed Thursday to overturn a law restricting political speech by tax-exempt churches, a potentially huge victory for the religious right and a gesture to his political base.

Mr. Trump said his administration would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from engaging in political activity at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

Repealing the law would require approval by Congress. Certain tax-exempt organizations — in this case, churches — are not allowed to openly endorse or campaign for political candidates. If they do, under existing law, they risk losing the benefits of their tax-exempt status.

Speaking to a gathering of religious leaders, the president also defended his immigration policy, brushed aside concern about his harsh phone calls with foreign leaders, and ridiculed Arnold Schwarzenegger for his poor ratings in replacing Mr. Trump as host of “Celebrity Apprentice.”

He did not mention an executive order on religious freedom, which critics said would restrict the rights of lesbians and gay men; a draft of the order has circulated, but administration officials have denied that it will be adopted.

In addressing the issue of churches and political speech, Mr. Trump said, “I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

He added that “freedom of religion is a sacred right, but it is under serious threat.”

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised to push for repeal of the law, which was passed in 1954 and named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who proposed the change to the tax code.

Mr. Trump also went off topic in his address to the National Prayer Breakfast. He told the audience not to worry about reports that he had held tempestuous phone calls with the leaders of allies Australia and Mexico, saying a tough approach was long overdue.

“When you hear about the tough phone calls, don’t worry,” he said. “We’re being taken advantage of by countries around the world. It’s time for us to be a little tough. It’s not going to happen anymore.”

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Sign Up

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
Mr. Trump also needled Mr. Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California, for failing to maintain his ratings as the new host of “Celebrity Apprentice.” “We know how that turned out,” he said. “The ratings went down the tubes.”

“I want to just pray for Arnold, for those ratings,” he said.

The president spent much of his speech defending the visa ban on citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries, which caused chaos at airports and set off protests across the country.

“Terrorism is a fundamental threat to religious freedom,” he declared. “It must be stopped and it will be stopped.”

The president described “peace-loving Muslims” who had been killed by jihadi fighters aligned with the Islamic State, as well as a campaign of genocide against Christians in the Middle East. Extremists, he said, took advantage of the “generosity” of Americans to undermine the nation’s safety.

“My administration will do everything in its power to defend religious liberty,” he said. “We have to feel safe and secure.”

Mr. Trump talked about the influence of faith in his own life, referring to the family Bible, which was used when he took the oath of office at his inauguration. His mother, he said, read to him from that Bible during his childhood.

“America is a nation of believers,” he said. “The quality of our lives is not defined by our material success, but by our spiritual success.”

“I tell you that as someone who has had material success,” he added, before noting that many rich people are “very miserable, unhappy people.”


312
COMMENTS
The breakfast featured the usual menu of homilies and testimonials to the power of faith. But the proceedings took a show-business turn when Mark Burnett, the Hollywood producer, stepped to the podium to introduce the president. Mr. Burnett recalled the influence Mr. Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal,” had on him as a recently arrived immigrant. He later produced “Celebrity Apprentice” as a reality television vehicle for Mr. Trump.

The president led his remarks with an extended reminiscence about the show, recalling that he fired his agent after the agent rejected Mr. Burnett’s pitch for the program. “I actually got on the phone and fired him myself,” Mr. Trump said with a smile.

Fuck Trump. That is all.

[TheFeniX]

And we look at the demographics, and we see that this is not a thing that can happen. That's not stable in the long term as long as it's legal for blacks, Hispanics, people below the age of fifty, etc., to vote. "Suppressing" minority votes and so on wouldn't be enough, they'd have to be effectively legally barred from voting. As was the case in apartheid-era South Africa (where blacks didn't get to vote on the government), or in Israel (where Palestinians don't get to vote on the Israeli government).

I don't want to "me too," but this is kind of what I've been getting at with my haphazard comments about the election, but not as well put together like your post.

The "asshole" element of the U.S. has obviously been around forever. But they've had some serious blows (though not serious as I'd like) dealt to them over "recent" years. They established some push-back due to what they would describe as "over-reacting bleeding hearts," but it's a smoke screen. People who, "back in my day," had to keep their mouth shut or get a whippin' are now voicing opinions. "This is terrible and I'm mad. Our Father in heaven, Reagan be your name, please save me from reality."

The current Republican "base" (whatever) runs on hate. Who they should hate, why they should hate them, etc. The problem is to keep the hate going you have to not only continue to grow your hate base, but also keep the undesirables from having power. The current method of voter disenfranchisement won't cut it, not if Democrats can still rally around a Rock Star candidate and show up in force.

The kind of 'soft power' racism and sexism and classism the US now has survives because it does not require the oppressive system to win elections. It just requires the people on the top of the heap to keep being assholes. Trying to legally impose this forever with Permanent Tea Party Majority that could never lose an election again... That would require legally stripping large numbers of American citizens of the votes, not just in the sense of "we make it hard for you to vote," but in the sense of "we make it actively illegal for you to vote. Constitutional amendment territory and shit.

Trump got by on the other side playing his game, acting like amateurs, and voter laziness. Still lost the popular vote. Republicans, to continue their current gameplan, have to rely on that again and will also deal with an ever decreasing voting base as, from what I've read, young angry white guys aren't a growing demographic and old people die.

And this is the brutal hilarity, and I will bring it up again because it makes me audibly laugh (then get angry) every-time I think about it: The "Republican Obama" Trump, the hair-club for men ROCK STAR, who got his voters HYPED and MAD and MOTIVATED to TAKE BACK 'MURRICA..... couldn't beat Hillary fucking Clinton in the popular vote. Hillary Clinton who, last I checked, polled worse than Obama with white evangelicals.

We've gone from Republican LANDSLIDES back when I was a sprat and/or "not alive" due to the "resurgence of true American values: CONSERVATISM!" to "the last two Republican presidents elected to a first term couldn't win the popular vote." Of course Republicans have been pulling every dirty trick in the book. They have to. They probably have no idea "what's happening to this country?!"

[FireNexus]

This is doubly true because even the oppressor groups can't all agree on oppressing the targets of the oppression. There are a lot of middle-class and rich people willing to support candidates who would be good for poor people. There are a lot of white people who will happily vote for presidential candidates who are totally in favor of making life better for black people, there are a lot of men who will vote for candidates that want to make life better for women.

Although this is partially offset by (for example) women who vote for candidates that want to make life worse for women, poor people who vote for millionaires to cut taxes on other millionaires, and so on.

I honestly think that if the denizens of every redneck trailer park were abducted by aliens, never to return, a Republican (well we've been over this, a pretend Republican) would never be elected POTUS again, barring a switcharoo like the Dixiecrats in the '60's. And the number of drunk driving deaths would plummet while the average IQ would soar.

Maybe that's why they're against marijuana legalization? Substitution effect would result in a not-insignificant portion of their base switching to a drug which dumbs down its consumers more transiently and in ways not conducive to terrifying and ruling them. If you swapped alcohol and pot tomorrow, I wonder if this "fear the immigrant" mentality could ever be effective again?

[FireNexus]

Come to think of it, isn't he doing the same with his signing of all those executive orders? I've seen a few on news reports, and he always seems to finish by holding the document folder up to the camera with his usual smirk™, as if he's saying "look how clever I am". Argleblargle...

Yeah. He lives in his bubble where he's smarter than everyone and the best at everything. I heard a tape from an interview recorded by his ghost writer in the 90's. He went to West Point in the early 60's and over the course of the interview literally said he was "the best" at everything. He was the best athlete, got the best grades, and was basically Ubermenchen.

The funniest part was Donnie Douchebag saying he was "the best" at baseball, but "It was before baseball was very popular and there wasn't any money in it. This was 1962 when such no-names like Mickey Mantel and Joe DiMaggio were playing. That's how insanely insulated from reality the fucker (or the alien organism on his head that "drives" the Play-Doh looking host body) is.

There wasn't really any money in it for the players until the 1980s. The standard player contract made sure the team that hired them or they were traded to basically owned them. Players made ok money, and the greats made pretty decent money, but they didn't get rich until they opened a car dealership after they retired.

[TheFeniX]

Makes sense, white evangelicals voted overwhelmingly in favor of Trump. And Republicans have to do everything they can to hold on to whatever voting base they have.

Could bite them in the ass though. White evangelicals vote (R), but Hispanic and Black congregations tend to vote (D).

[Civil War Man]

I've also heard that there is a growing group of younger evangelicals who are disgusted with their elders who are openly worshiping Mammon. While it may not make them vote (D), the pendulum could potentially swing back towards the True Believers becoming uninterested in politics, the way it was before the rise of the Religious Right, because they consider politics to be a dirty business and being involved with it is eschewing spiritual salvation in favor of pursuing earthly power.

[Alferd Packer]

For that to work, you'd need to get the evangelicals to abandon wedge issues like abortion which, frankly, I don't see happening.

[Elheru Aran]

I've also heard that there is a growing group of younger evangelicals who are disgusted with their elders who are openly worshiping Mammon. While it may not make them vote (D), the pendulum could potentially swing back towards the True Believers becoming uninterested in politics, the way it was before the rise of the Religious Right, because they consider politics to be a dirty business and being involved with it is eschewing spiritual salvation in favor of pursuing earthly power.

^ THIS

While I don't talk about it much here, I do go to church (mostly for my wife and the kid as far as spirituality goes, it's pretty much a social activity for me). The one I attend is pretty much 'younger evangelicals' and is definitely trying hard to be apolitical. There are quite a few churches like that around me, trying hard to attract younger people, focusing strongly on spiritual matters and helping one's neighbor rather than being politically involved. This says something when you're pretty much in the heart of the Bible Belt in Georgia. Granted we live in a suburb of Atlanta, so possibly the urban demographics offset that a bit... but my church is still majority white.

For that to work, you'd need to get the evangelicals to abandon wedge issues like abortion which, frankly, I don't see happening.

Yeah, this is a pretty tricky one. As far as I know, *my* church simply doesn't discuss it. Other churches are more involved. I don't know how it all shakes out, to be quite honest, as far as my non-denominational church and others in this area goes.

[Civil War Man]

For that to work, you'd need to get the evangelicals to abandon wedge issues like abortion which, frankly, I don't see happening.

It's unlikely, but less out there than you might expect. Abortion used to be considered something only Catholics cared about, and it being a wedge issue for evangelicals is a fairly recent phenomenon. It will probably never become not a wedge issue, the same way that there are still people opposed to same-sex marriage, but like with same-sex marriage, we could potentially start to see fewer evangelicals over time who are willing to die on that particular hill if the younger generation becomes completely turned off to politics by the excesses of the current leaders.

[Elheru Aran]

For that to work, you'd need to get the evangelicals to abandon wedge issues like abortion which, frankly, I don't see happening.

[snip]we could potentially start to see fewer evangelicals over time who are willing to die on that particular hill if the younger generation becomes completely turned off to politics by the excesses of the current leaders.

This is pretty much it. As I said, my church doesn't discuss it-- if it does come up, people don't approve of it so the general trend is pro-life, but the leadership in my church are very aware of the bitter irony in Republican "pro-life" convictions where they care more about a fetus than the live child, so they try to counter that by caring about people at all stages of life... which is what they're supposed to do anyway!

Frankly, the 'younger generation' is very aware of the blatant hypocrisy being exhibited by senior evangelicals-- Dobson, Falwell Jr. etc-- and while views vary, the general consensus is that the church doesn't belong in the political venue. Rather, the role of the church is to be an independent positive influence on society in its own right, rather than trying to manipulate government to serve the church.

[TheFeniX]

While general religiousness of U.S. citizens has stagnated, there's been multiple shifts in how and where Christians worship. Church attendence is pretty level, but Catholics aren't doing hot with the youngin's. They're bolstering their numbers with Latin American Catholics who are socially conservative and who(m?) the Republican party is doing nothing to directly covet except by being anti-abortion/pro-religion, throwing free votes away to continue to cater to a racist/nationalistic demographic that

A. can't be counted on to exist forever in the numbers needed to maintain what little lead they can muster.
B. ain't gonna vote fer no filthy libural anyway.

Republicans face a tough choice when it comes to the religious: do they continue to cater exclusively to the dieing white evangelicals or do they start trying to extend an olive branch to religious minorities? Because, whereas church attendance is still high, many religious whites ARE finding congregations that care little about politics. The "fire and brimstone" bullshit is not playing well with them. It's just a wonder if they will continue the historical trend toward conservatism as they age.

I don't know. Because let's face it: If you're 65 now. You were born around 1951. Which means you grew up with "colored" and "whites only" drinking fountains. You actually CAN yearn for the "good ol' days" when explicit racism was the norm. When minorities were around only when you wanted them to be around.

Racism damn sure isn't dead. But kids these day WILL remember growing up with a black president. Minorities able to voice opinions. Stuff of that nature.

[MKSheppard]

You realize that maybe Trump has a evil plan in his head?

After everyone says "NOOOOOOOOOOO WE LOVE THE JOHNSON AMENDMENT!" and forces him to back off in a firestorm of RIGHTEOUS indigation, he can back off and say "Okay. Since you liek it so muhc, I'll start seeing it's correctly enforced."

[MKSheppard]

I honestly think that if the denizens of every redneck trailer park were abducted by aliens, never to return, a Republican (well we've been over this, a pretend Republican) would never be elected POTUS again, barring a switcharoo like the Dixiecrats in the '60's. And the number of drunk driving deaths would plummet while the average IQ would soar.

Actually, drunk driving deaths would shift around.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.g ... 811336.pdf

Table 5 on Page 28 of PDF.

Specifcally FARS (Fatality Analysis Reporting System), where they report the statistics of dead drivers with booze in their system through cadaver testing.

The number for BAC >0.08 g/dL which is "drunk" from 1999 to 2004 was:

Whites: 29%
Blacks: 31%
Asians: 23%
Hispanics: 42%
Native Americans: 54%

Right now, whites make up the majority of DUI arrests in this country due to sheer population numbers:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... s/table-43

Total DUI Arrests: 910,470
Whites: 766,440 (I think hispanics are lumped in with whites in this table)
Blacks: 113,928
Asian: 16,831
Native Americans: 12,575

But what happens when the white man is removed? Pedro would quickly become the new face of highway fatalities from alcohol due to both sheer numbers and per capita intensity.

[MKSheppard]

Well, it's a pretty straightforward statement of fact.

No, I mean; how would you establish legal disenfranchisement?

There's only three legal ways open:

1.) Arrest Record. Some states allow felons to vote, while others do an automatic restoration of rights upon completion of Parole (IIRC, Maryland), while others you have to request this from the Governor (Virginia)

2.) Being declared feebleminded. Maryland does this in our constitution:

The General Assembly by law may regulate or prohibit the right to vote of a person convicted of infamous or other serious crime or under care or guardianship for mental disability

3.) Abolishing Jus soli via repeal of the 14th Amendment. Completely unfeasible due to the long history of teh 14th and the Black population. You might as well say "I want a 200M powerball lottery ticket tonight, and a blowjob, and hookers. In fact i'll take the blowjob and whores!" Besides, it wouldn't be effective for about 30 to 40 years, due to this whole thing we have against ex post facto laws, meaning the peopel who had citizenship through jus soli would still have it if jus soili was eliminated.

[Simon_Jester]

MKSheppard:

That is, essentially, the point.

To succeed in this hypothetical endeavor, one would have to do things that are basically impossible. One would have to be in a position to rewrite the Constitution however one likes (and win any armed rebellions that result). Therefore, realistically, the thing cannot be done.
______________________________

Yeah. He lives in his bubble where he's smarter than everyone and the best at everything. I heard a tape from an interview recorded by his ghost writer in the 90's. He went to West Point in the early 60's and over the course of the interview literally said he was "the best" at everything. He was the best athlete, got the best grades, and was basically Ubermenchen.

The funniest part was Donnie Douchebag saying he was "the best" at baseball, but "It was before baseball was very popular and there wasn't any money in it. This was 1962 when such no-names like Mickey Mantel and Joe DiMaggio were playing. That's how insanely insulated from reality the fucker (or the alien organism on his head that "drives" the Play-Doh looking host body) is.

There wasn't really any money in it for the players until the 1980s. The standard player contract made sure the team that hired them or they were traded to basically owned them. Players made ok money, and the greats made pretty decent money, but they didn't get rich until they opened a car dealership after they retired.

Yeah, but 1962 sure as hell wasn't back "before baseball was very popular." I can believe there "wasn't any money in it" by the standards of someone who inherited so much money even his reckless business practices couldn't destroy it all permanently. But anyone who'd say baseball "wasn't very popular" in the early 1960s is just a straight-up pathological liar.

[Okay, psychopaths and pathological liars are technically different, but you get what I'm saying]

[Napoleon the Clown]

It's really fucking easy to keep "undesireables" from voting, if you've got an ethically challenged court system. We used to have them, they're called "literacy tests" and they have no "right answer" as they are "graded" by people who are given freedom to pass or fail at their discretion. And they include vague enough questions that you can fail someone no matter what they answer. There's historical precedent, and a SCOTUS that doesn't feel like preventing it... won't prevent it.

[MKSheppard]

It's really fucking easy to keep "undesireables" from voting, if you've got an ethically challenged court system. We used to have them, they're called "literacy tests"....

That does fall into Option #2 "Feebleminded."

[SCRawl]

It's really fucking easy to keep "undesireables" from voting, if you've got an ethically challenged court system. We used to have them, they're called "literacy tests"....

That does fall into Option #2 "Feebleminded."

Oh, come now. Do you really need the history lesson? Here's a sample from a Mississippi voter application form from 1955:

Write and copy in the space below: Section [blank] of the Constitution of Mississippi: (Instruction to Registrar: You will designate the section of the Constitution and point out same to applicant.)

Write in the space below a reasonable interpretation (the meaning) of the section of the Constitution of Mississippi which you have just copied:

Write in the space below a statement setting forth your understanding of the duties and obligations of citizenship under a constitutional form of government.

The full thing is here.

Keep in mind that these were applied only to Black voters. Do you really think that failing such a test (which was subjectively judged by people who were not interested in letting brown people vote) would indicate feeblemindedness? As Simon points out, only an ethically challenged court system could allow such things to stand as a reasonable test of literacy, and therefore worthiness to vote.

[Ralin]

Speaking to a gathering of religious leaders, the president also defended his immigration policy, brushed aside concern about his harsh phone calls with foreign leaders, and ridiculed Arnold Schwarzenegger for his poor ratings in replacing Mr. Trump as host of “Celebrity Apprentice.”

When I pictured the rise of American fascism, this was not what I imagined.

[Tribble]

Speaking to a gathering of religious leaders, the president also defended his immigration policy, brushed aside concern about his harsh phone calls with foreign leaders, and ridiculed Arnold Schwarzenegger for his poor ratings in replacing Mr. Trump as host of “Celebrity Apprentice.”

When I pictured the rise of American fascism, this was not what I imagined.

Well it's just "Celebrity Apprentice: President Edition" now isn't it? It would be funny if it weren't, you know, real.