Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Zaune]

On a lighter note, apparently Kid Rock is a semi-serious contender as GOP candidate for Micigan's Senate seat.

And why not?

[Ralin]

but you'd think he might be dimly aware that these bathroom bills are bad for business;

Dimly aware? He flat out said something along the lines of "North Carolina should just let transgender people use the bathroom in peace. This whole thing is stupid and it's just going to lead to lawsuits and cost everyone money for no good reason" during the campaign.

Pre-Pence Trump's record on trans issues was pretty neutral and arguably a slight net positive. He doesn't hate gays and trans people. He just doesn't care.

[Simon_Jester]

There is that, yes. Although even I have to admit that the economy shitting the bed shortly after the place opened probably had at least as much to do with that as Trump's own ineptitude; you'd have to be the Bloody Stupid Johnson of property management to single-handedly run a casino into the ground with no external factors working against you, and Trump hasn't got the imagination to be that creatively inept.

No, there was more to it than that.. He was borrowing at unsustainable interest rates, transferring money to himself while the corporate interests fell apart, and in general acting like a scaled-up version of every fly-by-night businessman-schemer in history.

Which he is.

He's not Bloody Stupid Johnson, he's Reacher Gilt.

[Zaune]

Minus the charm or charisma, of course, but I see what you mean.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh, he's got the same kind of charisma Gilt had- in person, with a knack for telling people's he's going to cheat them and then inexplicably getting them to go along with it.

[mr friendly guy]

linky

Trump’s National security adviser Michael Flynn resigns

NATIONAL security adviser Michael Flynn has resigned after reports he misled the Trump administration officials about his contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the US.
Mr Flynn’s departure less than one month into the Trump administration marks an extraordinarily early shake-up in the president’s senior team of advisers.
Mr Flynn was a loyal Trump supporter throughout the campaign, but his ties to Russia caused concern among other senior aides.
Mr Flynn initially told Trump advisers that he did not discuss sanctions with the Russian envoy during the transition.
Vice President Mike Pence, apparently relying on information from Mr Flynn, publicly vouched for the national security adviser.
Mr Flynn later told White House officials that he may have discussed sanctions with the ambassador.
In a resignation letter tweeted by White House correspondents Mr Flynn says he “inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador”.
CNN says General Keith Kellogg has been named acting national security adviser.
This is pretty much how long #MichaelFlynn lasted as Trump's national security adviser: pic.twitter.com/KaqdatmGvW
— hellresidentNY (@hellresidentNY) February 14, 2017

Inadvertently huh? The cynical side of me says he hid the truth.

Lets see how long his other officials last.

[Raj Ahten]

As much as a wingnut as Flynn is with him gone who exactly is replacing him in Trump's inner circle? All signs seem to be pointing to the propagandist Bannon, what with his appointment to the NSC and all. I can't say that makes me feel any better about the situation.

[Lost Soal]

Bannon still has to be Senate confirmed... not a huge barrier at this point admittedly but then Bannons already in the inner circle.

[Khaat]

I guess Flynn gets to join the "All On Me" tour with Oliver North. And gets to remain "honorable" in all this because... reasons?

Flynn didn't "forget" to tell anyone anything: he was doing it all under orders/direction (and no, I can't prove it) to do just what he did, with the understanding that there was an under-the-bus (and lucrative conservative book/talk-tour career, post) waiting for him if anyone ever found out. Provided it couldn't just get buried in the daily avalanche of Twitter-shit "alternative facts."

[cosmicalstorm]

Unless there is some 57 dimensional chess going on this is Trumps first really big fail in my opinion. Moon of Alabama puts Words and relations to it.

"He will rue the day he let this happen"

What forced Trump to cancel the guy?

The Flynn Defenestration Will Hamper Trump's Foreign Policy

Trump's National Security Advisor Flynn resigned after only three weeks in office. While I am certainly no fan of Flynn or of Trump I find this defenestration a dangerous event. It will hamper any big change in U.S. foreign policy that Trump may envision.

The resignation followed a highly orchestrated campaign against Flynn by intelligence officials, the media and some people within the White House.

After the election and Trump's unexpected win the Obama administration slapped sanctions on Russia and sent Russian embassy officials back to Moscow. This move was intended to blockade a Trump policy of better relations with Russia. Flynn talked with the Russian ambassador and, as a direct result, the Russian's did not respond tit for tat for the sanctions and expulsions. This was an absolutely positive move and in full accordance with announced Trump policies. Henry Kissinger made a similar move and visited the Russian embassy weeks before he became Nixon's NSC. During the 2012 election Obama made a similar "deal" with the Russians in a comparable situation:

President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have "more flexibility" to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Despite tens or hundreds of claimed White House leaks in the media I am still not sure what really happened next. Trump's enemies and some intelligence officials accused Flynn of lying about the phone calls with the Russian ambassador. It is unclear what the alleged lies really are and especially why they should matter. Obfuscation is part of any White House business. If Flynn had secretly talked with the Israeli ambassador (which he probably did) no one would have attacked him.

So why was Flynn really under pressure and why didn't Trump back him? It would have been easy for Trump to say: "I ordered Flynn to do that. Obama did similar. In both cases it was a GREAT success. USA! USA! USA!" Nobody would have been able to further attack Flynn over the issue after such a protective move.

But Trump, completely against his style, held his mouth and did nothing. What else happened in the White House that let him refrain from backing Flynn?

As it looks now a rather small gang of current and former intelligence officials - with the help of the anti-Trump media - leaked Flynn out of his office. They will not stop there.

Now blood is in the street and the hyenas will lust for more. The Trump magic is broken. He has shown vulnerability. Now they will go after their next target within the Trump administration and then the next and the next until they have Trump isolated and by the balls. He just invited them to proceed. All major foreign policy moves he planned will be hampered. The detente with Russia has probably ended before it even started.

There is another, overlooked country where Flynn's position as NSC influenced policy decisions. Flynn had at times lobbied for Turkey and good relations with the Erdogan government. Even on the very day of the presidential election an op-ed of his damning Erdogan's enemy Gülen and lauding Turkey was published.

After Trump was inaugurated and again talked of no-fly-zones the Turkish president Erdogan made another of his famous 180 degree turns.

Erdogan had wanted a no-fly-zones (aka a Turkish protectorate) in Syria from the very beginning of the war. The Obama administration would not give him one and in the later years shunned him. Erdogan turned to Russia but was told that he would have to limit his ambitions in Syria: no no-fly-zone, no Turkish march to Manbij or Raqqa. Erdogan agreed. But after Trump talked of new sanctions and Flynn was installed as NSC Erdogan again changed his position. He is now again calling for a no-fly-zone and is again promising to conquer Manbij (held by Kurds) and Raqqa (held by the Islamic State). (Any such attempt would be hopeless. The Turkish army and its Islamist proxy forces have tried to conquer the much smaller Al-Bab, held by the Islamic State, for over four month now and still fail at it.)

The Russian's will have taken note of such unreliable behavior. One wonders how Erdogan now feels as his lobbyist in a top position of the Trump administration is gone. If the Trump administration now acts against his plans will he creep back to Putin and ask for forgiveness? Would that be accepted?

Flynn is no big loss for the world, the U.S. or the Trump administration. But Trump has now lost the initiative. He long managed to set the media agenda for the day by this or that "outrageous" tweet or remark. Now this advantage has been taken away from him over some nonsense allegations and his lack of backing for one of his top people.

He will soon rue the day he let this happen.

Posted by b on February 14, 2017 at 12:42 PM | Permalink

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/02/th ... olicy.html

[Raj Ahten]

The other possibility on Flynn's departure being floated around is that he was just too incompetent at running the bureaucracy so he had to go. There have also been reports that he had been falling out of favor with Trump for awhile now, ever since his son retweeted Pizzagate bullshit and got fired.

There might be a kernel of truth to this palace intrigue angle. But the obvious answer here is that the Trump administration being seriously compromised by Russia is biting them in the ass and Flynn is the first domino to fall on the matter (not counting campaign officials that is). The deep state really doesn't want Russian stooges making foreign policy decisions and I can't blame them. Especially when the stooges are as blatant about it as Flynn has been taking paid gigs for RT and so forth.

[Simon_Jester]

Unless there is some 57 dimensional chess going on this is Trumps first really big fail in my opinion. Moon of Alabama puts Words and relations to it.

Trump started failing big within days if not hours of his taking office. This is just the first time he's been seriously inconvenienced by the consequences of one of his failures. In this case, one that took place... days if not hours after he took office, as I understand it.

The thing is, Trump has zero loyalty to his subordinates and is perfectly capable of blowing up at them (or firing them) for any reason or none. We knew this. It's his catchphrase. "You're fired." Anyone who's surprised that he jettisons one of his appointees the moment they become inconvenient is a goddamn moron.

Also, it is so charming that you quote as an informative source an article that thinks the only people after the Trump administration are the 'hyenas.' Still trying to play Cosmical Ali. Still high on buckyballs.

[Lord Revan]

I wonder if that lack of loyality will end up costing the Trump gang in the end since I suspect not that many want to be the guy "that gets fired so that idiot in the White House can save face". I seriously dout that recruitment pool for fanatical supporters of Donald Trump who at same time are semi-respectble enough to get thru senate isn't that huge.

[Simon_Jester]

What happened to Flynn suggests that it already is costing him.

Another side effect is that if Trump keeps trying to hire for personal loyalty, on top of everyone having to pass a Tea Party ideology test, he's going to have to compromise on things like competence and administrative ability. That kind of thing is obviously very bad for the country, but it has the effect of resulting in Trump scandals coming at an escalating rate as time goes on. We can expect to see more and more awkward events and mistakes happening out of Trump's White House, that could have been avoided under, say, the Bush administration.

This is not because Bush himself was any kind of a genius or particularly honest. It's simply that most of his inner circle advisors- people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice- at least know how government works. They were individuals with some degree of talent, and experience working for past presidential administrations, so they could at least carry out the day to day duties of their offices without making random errors due to sheer bungling incompetence.

Trump doesn't seem to have a team of that (minimum) caliber immediately around himself.

[Lord Revan]

Also Bush himself had at least some idea on how the goverment worked and wasn't really an egoist so he could at least to degree admit to himself that he was capable of making mistakes and should correct those when possible or better have people around him that can compensate for those mistakes.

Trump on the other hand is incapable of admit that he is flawed and thus cannot compensate for his own short comings.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. Trump, being a raging narcissist, will just double down and keep digging his hole deeper and deeper. Hopefully ending in impeachment.

[Lord Revan]

aren't all potential "heirs to the throne" 10 times worse then Trump though, so wouldn't it be better for Trump to trash his reputations in the public eye and take the (extremist wing of the) GOP down with him? I'll admit I'm not 100% sure about how the US system works in this case but IIRC it isn't case where you keep impeaching people until a candidate you like comes up.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't say they're worse, just slightly different flavours of horrible. At least most of them don't come across as utterly detached from reality.

And frankly, if he's impeached, he's likely bringing much of the Republican Party down with him anyway. The Party as a whole would likely be divided over his impeachment, and other Republicans would be stained by the association with an impeached President.

And no, its not "keep impeaching people until a candidate you like comes up." Its impeaching the aspiring despot who has (probably) committed multiple crimes and has violated the Constitution. You know, the kind of thing impeachment was created for.

[Flagg]

Trump won't ever be impeached unless congress is taken back in 2018 and the Speaker of the House has a spine stronger than that of a jellyfish, as in not Pelosi. But I'm not even .0001% convinced that the Democrats are capable of dealing with (or even aware of) the new political reality.

[Lord Revan]

I wouldn't say they're worse, just slightly different flavours of horrible. At least most of them don't come across as utterly detached from reality.

And frankly, if he's impeached, he's likely bringing much of the Republican Party down with him anyway. The Party as a whole would likely be divided over his impeachment, and other Republicans would be stained by the association with an impeached President.

And no, its not "keep impeaching people until a candidate you like comes up." Its impeaching the aspiring despot who has (probably) committed multiple crimes and has violated the Constitution. You know, the kind of thing impeachment was created for.

Honestly I don't think Trump has any desire to become a despot, what I belive is that there's people in his inner circle who are planning use him as puppet ruler so that they can become despots without the problem of being directly responsible for their actions.

Who would you consider worse someone who has no idea about how popular he truly is, or someone who is aware of that but still isn't any better then Trump in terms of morals or goals.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think Trump is a raging narcissist who wants to rule by decree, and be free to ignore things like ethics laws, the opposition, and the Constitution. His words and behaviour have demonstrated this repeatedly.

He is surrounded by scumbags, yes. But one problem at a time. Getting rid of Trump would send a signal and maybe reign in the others a bit.

[Flagg]

I wouldn't say they're worse, just slightly different flavours of horrible. At least most of them don't come across as utterly detached from reality.

And frankly, if he's impeached, he's likely bringing much of the Republican Party down with him anyway. The Party as a whole would likely be divided over his impeachment, and other Republicans would be stained by the association with an impeached President.

And no, its not "keep impeaching people until a candidate you like comes up." Its impeaching the aspiring despot who has (probably) committed multiple crimes and has violated the Constitution. You know, the kind of thing impeachment was created for.

Honestly I don't think Trump has any desire to become a despot, what I belive is that there's people in his inner circle who are planning use him as puppet ruler so that they can become despots without the problem of being directly responsible for their actions.

Who would you consider worse someone who has no idea about how popular he truly is, or someone who is aware of that but still isn't any better then Trump in terms of morals or goals.

The worst things about Trump are that it's now acceptable to be a Nazi, the proto-oligarchy being created by his cabinet appointees, and above all, the fact that he's a rubber stamp for the most extreme right wing legislature in modern America.

[Gandalf]

Trump won't ever be impeached unless congress is taken back in 2018 and the Speaker of the House has a spine stronger than that of a jellyfish, as in not Pelosi. But I'm not even .0001% convinced that the Democrats are capable of dealing with (or even aware of) the new political reality.

Trump won't be impeached barring a series of small miracles, but there should be a way to exploit the current party divide, and split him from the wider base. I'm hoping that any Republican running for any office in the next few years is forced to answer for their affiliation with the current administration, its policies and statements.

That would of course require a more effective Democratic party.

[Flagg]

Trump won't ever be impeached unless congress is taken back in 2018 and the Speaker of the House has a spine stronger than that of a jellyfish, as in not Pelosi. But I'm not even .0001% convinced that the Democrats are capable of dealing with (or even aware of) the new political reality.

Trump won't be impeached barring a series of small miracles, but there should be a way to exploit the current party divide, and split him from the wider base. I'm hoping that any Republican running for any office in the next few years is forced to answer for their affiliation with the current administration, its policies and statements.

That would of course require a more effective Democratic party.

No, it would require dropping a nuke in the memory hole. Most congress members were there with Dubya and just like everyone in that administration have never been called to answer for their support of his war of aggression, rendition, or torture. And they won't be called to account for the horrors President Pussygrabber will undoubtedly inflict upon the world.

Remember, it wasn't Bush II that caused the rift in the GlOP, it was the election of Barack Obama.

[Gandalf]

Remember, it wasn't Bush II that caused the rift in the GlOP, it was the election of Barack Obama.

I recall those cracks appearing in 2005 or so, when the mixture of Terri Schiavo and Hurricane Katrina forced people to acknowledge the divisions in the party along with GWB just being a shitty leader, culminating in their losses in 2006. Though this might be us just having a different conception of the same series of events.