Obviously their cover is intended as a general statement rather than the specific topics we're covering, but this cover hammers home to me just how public the incompetence and corruption of this administration is. I've seen plenty of governments brought down by their corruption, but I have never seen a corrupt government operate while their corruption was broadcast every day to a live audience. Was it like this during the Nixon years? Did Watergate rumble quietly in the background and then erupt all at once, or was it a constant stream of information about it like this stuff for two years? I'm probably going to go back to Time's covers from the period and have a look.
Anyway, the Time cover reminds me that we need to keep up the mantra that none of this is normal or acceptable and keep up the media scrutiny while it slowly encroaches on the right wing bubble.
It's tough to compare this to Nixon since Nixon's corruption didn't happen in the Information Age. Nowadays we are bombarded with information on what is going on 24/7. You don't need to wake up at 4 AM and read an entire newspaper to be current on WTF is happening at the White House anymore.
Days before taking office, President-elect Donald Trump made two surprise calls to the Air Force general managing the Pentagon’s largest weapons program, the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jet.
Listening in on one of those calls was Dennis Muilenburg -- the CEO of Lockheed’s chief rival, Boeing Co.
This is just bizarre.
Yeah, break down trust between your defense contractors, the military branch providing oversight & the White House. That's an awesome idea.
Great deals, best deals, etc.
Also, not directly related to corruption per se, but lol at Trump not understanding that the Super Hornet & JSF are aircraft with completely different mission orientations or that Boeing literally cannot build the type of aircraft that the USAF currently wants (stealth multirole STOLs).
It's how Teflon Don has run his entire life and how his plan for his businesses worked - have everybody around/under him cutting each other's throats until the whole thing collapses and somehow he always gets out with someone else holding the bag. Only this time he's bankrupting and destroying the last world superpower. He'll probably end up living in a palace somewhere after the US is a smoking ruin.
Sure, but... who's gonna be left holding the bag? Everyone around him is either a buddy or a relative or...
*looks at Pence*
...Oh.
Pence was actually fairly insulated from the Flynn thing, at almost absurd lengths. If I were Reince and any of the other establishment GOP around I would work like hell to keep Pence's hands clean so he can come in after the impeachment.
This is why you're not GOP. You're expecting an impeachment that nobody, not even the so-called "establishment" GOP, wants.
I'll believe Trump is getting impeached when Paul Ryan gets a milliliter of political courage. The corruption and incompetence is a feature, not a bug.
At the moment they are trying to decide where the tipping point is. They do not want to tell "Trump Republicans" to go fuck off but they also do not want to totally fuck over the entire government and more importantly the GOP image either. Trump is doing solid work on convincing them that it will happen at some point and the earlier it happens the more time they have to recover and rebuild before 2018 or 2020.
Judging from the Bretibart railing against Prebius and Flynn lying to Pence I think there's a brewing civil war between the Establishment GOP branch of Trumps cabinet and the Bannon wing.
Days before taking office, President-elect Donald Trump made two surprise calls to the Air Force general managing the Pentagon’s largest weapons program, the Lockheed Martin Corp. F-35 jet.
Listening in on one of those calls was Dennis Muilenburg -- the CEO of Lockheed’s chief rival, Boeing Co.
This is just bizarre.
Yeah, break down trust between your defense contractors, the military branch providing oversight & the White House. That's an awesome idea.
Great deals, best deals, etc.
Also, not directly related to corruption per se, but lol at Trump not understanding that the Super Hornet & JSF are aircraft with completely different mission orientations or that Boeing literally cannot build the type of aircraft that the USAF currently wants (stealth multirole STOLs).
It's how Teflon Don has run his entire life and how his plan for his businesses worked - have everybody around/under him cutting each other's throats until the whole thing collapses and somehow he always gets out with someone else holding the bag. Only this time he's bankrupting and destroying the last world superpower. He'll probably end up living in a palace somewhere after the US is a smoking ruin.
Sure, but... who's gonna be left holding the bag? Everyone around him is either a buddy or a relative or...
*looks at Pence*
...Oh.
Pence was actually fairly insulated from the Flynn thing, at almost absurd lengths. If I were Reince and any of the other establishment GOP around I would work like hell to keep Pence's hands clean so he can come in after the impeachment.
This is why you're not GOP. You're expecting an impeachment that nobody, not even the so-called "establishment" GOP, wants.
I'll believe Trump is getting impeached when Paul Ryan gets a milliliter of political courage. The corruption and incompetence is a feature, not a bug.
At the moment they are trying to decide where the tipping point is. They do not want to tell "Trump Republicans" to go fuck off but they also do not want to totally fuck over the entire government and more importantly the GOP image either. Trump is doing solid work on convincing them that it will happen at some point and the earlier it happens the more time they have to recover and rebuild before 2018 or 2020.
Obviously their cover is intended as a general statement rather than the specific topics we're covering, but this cover hammers home to me just how public the incompetence and corruption of this administration is. I've seen plenty of governments brought down by their corruption, but I have never seen a corrupt government operate while their corruption was broadcast every day to a live audience. Was it like this during the Nixon years? Did Watergate rumble quietly in the background and then erupt all at once, or was it a constant stream of information about it like this stuff for two years? I'm probably going to go back to Time's covers from the period and have a look.
Anyway, the Time cover reminds me that we need to keep up the mantra that none of this is normal or acceptable and keep up the media scrutiny while it slowly encroaches on the right wing bubble.
Watergate in retrospect looks like a cartoon farce and is comparable in that sense... but it was stretched out over a long period of time, and the atmosphere of the era was completely tainted by the Vietnam war (Families were being ripped apart as casualties mounted, veterans were coming back with heroin addictions, campuses across America were rioting and in one case the riot was fired on by National Guardsmen, etc). The status quo was already so strange and perverted that the Nixon administration didn't contrast against it as boldly.
Trump's mess is happening on an extremely compressed timescale, is happening at a time of comparative stability and is thus much easier to notice and is happening right at the start of his damn term so unlike Nixon he can't just deflect to previous Presidential accomplishments because... he hasn't done anything yet.
Judging from the Bretibart railing against Prebius and Flynn lying to Pence I think there's a brewing civil war between the Establishment GOP branch of Trumps cabinet and the Bannon wing.
People have been saying that for over 8 months now.
Judging from the Bretibart railing against Prebius and Flynn lying to Pence I think there's a brewing civil war between the Establishment GOP branch of Trumps cabinet and the Bannon wing.
People have been saying that for over 8 months now.
The sane moderate conservatives in the GOP are going to rise up against Trump aaaaaany day now...
Judging from the Bretibart railing against Prebius and Flynn lying to Pence I think there's a brewing civil war between the Establishment GOP branch of Trumps cabinet and the Bannon wing.
People have been saying that for over 8 months now.
I think it's been taking place for months, years even. But the problem is that the neo-nazi wing of the party is content to stab from the shadows but grin and hold hands when it's time to vote. This won't effect them electorally at all unless we finally find a right wing position too extreme for GOP voters, which hasn't happened yet and I expect doesn't exist.
+3
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
It's not a civil war. That implies that both sides are fighting. It's a purge and takeover conducted by the Bannon wing. The Establishment wing is rolling over and bowing before its new master. The tunicates lost their spines years ago but it took a monster like Bannon to truly realize it and work to exploit it.
Watergate in retrospect looks like a cartoon farce and is comparable in that sense... but it was stretched out over a long period of time, and the atmosphere of the era was completely tainted by the Vietnam war (Families were being ripped apart as casualties mounted, veterans were coming back with heroin addictions, campuses across America were rioting and in one case the riot was fired on by National Guardsmen, etc). The status quo was already so strange and perverted that the Nixon administration didn't contrast against it as boldly.
Watergate itself would be seen as standard ratfucking today. The coverup was genuinely nefarious though, more than any of Trump's nonsense thus far.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So far, Trump's level of cover up seems to consist of 'nuh-uh', congress going 'okie-doke', and the press struggling with themselves to find 'balance' somewhere.
Obviously their cover is intended as a general statement rather than the specific topics we're covering, but this cover hammers home to me just how public the incompetence and corruption of this administration is. I've seen plenty of governments brought down by their corruption, but I have never seen a corrupt government operate while their corruption was broadcast every day to a live audience. Was it like this during the Nixon years? Did Watergate rumble quietly in the background and then erupt all at once, or was it a constant stream of information about it like this stuff for two years? I'm probably going to go back to Time's covers from the period and have a look.
Anyway, the Time cover reminds me that we need to keep up the mantra that none of this is normal or acceptable and keep up the media scrutiny while it slowly encroaches on the right wing bubble.
Watergate in retrospect looks like a cartoon farce and is comparable in that sense... but it was stretched out over a long period of time, and the atmosphere of the era was completely tainted by the Vietnam war (Families were being ripped apart as casualties mounted, veterans were coming back with heroin addictions, campuses across America were rioting and in one case the riot was fired on by National Guardsmen, etc). The status quo was already so strange and perverted that the Nixon administration didn't contrast against it as boldly.
Trump's mess is happening on an extremely compressed timescale, is happening at a time of comparative stability and is thus much easier to notice and is happening right at the start of his damn term so unlike Nixon he can't just deflect to previous Presidential accomplishments because... he hasn't done anything yet.
I am not sure that National Guard (or Police) firing on rioters/demonstrators would get the same reaction in this day and age (especially if rioters are the wrong skin color). In fact, if they are defined more as rioters than demonstrator/protestors, I can almost guarantee there would be no penalty, just support, from the White House.
Obviously their cover is intended as a general statement rather than the specific topics we're covering, but this cover hammers home to me just how public the incompetence and corruption of this administration is. I've seen plenty of governments brought down by their corruption, but I have never seen a corrupt government operate while their corruption was broadcast every day to a live audience. Was it like this during the Nixon years? Did Watergate rumble quietly in the background and then erupt all at once, or was it a constant stream of information about it like this stuff for two years? I'm probably going to go back to Time's covers from the period and have a look.
Anyway, the Time cover reminds me that we need to keep up the mantra that none of this is normal or acceptable and keep up the media scrutiny while it slowly encroaches on the right wing bubble.
Watergate in retrospect looks like a cartoon farce and is comparable in that sense... but it was stretched out over a long period of time, and the atmosphere of the era was completely tainted by the Vietnam war (Families were being ripped apart as casualties mounted, veterans were coming back with heroin addictions, campuses across America were rioting and in one case the riot was fired on by National Guardsmen, etc). The status quo was already so strange and perverted that the Nixon administration didn't contrast against it as boldly.
Trump's mess is happening on an extremely compressed timescale, is happening at a time of comparative stability and is thus much easier to notice and is happening right at the start of his damn term so unlike Nixon he can't just deflect to previous Presidential accomplishments because... he hasn't done anything yet.
I am not sure that National Guard (or Police) firing on rioters/demonstrators would get the same reaction in this day and age (especially if rioters are the wrong skin color). In fact, if they are defined more as rioters than demonstrator/protestors, I can almost guarantee there would be no penalty, just support, from the White House.
Lots of people supported the Kent State shootings. Like Reagan.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Judging from the Bretibart railing against Prebius and Flynn lying to Pence I think there's a brewing civil war between the Establishment GOP branch of Trumps cabinet and the Bannon wing.
People have been saying that for over 8 months now.
It's a conflict to be sure. But not even the Russia thing will get any real movement unless unavoidably forced.
The problem is the GoP has their head so far up their own delusional asses that they don't dare break the party line even if they hate each other or are attacking choices in public.
It's miserable to watch because they will rally against some things that are objectively terrible, and that they themselves decry.
Yet when it comes to any kind of vote or choice being made, the best you can hope for is they will abstain from it... so long as it won't actually tank the party position.
Now, maybe things will come to a head at some point, and people who talk the talk with actually do some goddamn walking.
But I think it's too much a part of party doctrine to change.
If team Bannon wants to usurp the overall GoP, so long as Trumpco is holding the reigns, I think they are just going to grumble and follow along like the good little Republicans are supposed to do. Party before all others, party before the country, and party before self.
Obviously their cover is intended as a general statement rather than the specific topics we're covering, but this cover hammers home to me just how public the incompetence and corruption of this administration is. I've seen plenty of governments brought down by their corruption, but I have never seen a corrupt government operate while their corruption was broadcast every day to a live audience. Was it like this during the Nixon years? Did Watergate rumble quietly in the background and then erupt all at once, or was it a constant stream of information about it like this stuff for two years? I'm probably going to go back to Time's covers from the period and have a look.
Anyway, the Time cover reminds me that we need to keep up the mantra that none of this is normal or acceptable and keep up the media scrutiny while it slowly encroaches on the right wing bubble.
Watergate in retrospect looks like a cartoon farce and is comparable in that sense... but it was stretched out over a long period of time, and the atmosphere of the era was completely tainted by the Vietnam war (Families were being ripped apart as casualties mounted, veterans were coming back with heroin addictions, campuses across America were rioting and in one case the riot was fired on by National Guardsmen, etc). The status quo was already so strange and perverted that the Nixon administration didn't contrast against it as boldly.
Trump's mess is happening on an extremely compressed timescale, is happening at a time of comparative stability and is thus much easier to notice and is happening right at the start of his damn term so unlike Nixon he can't just deflect to previous Presidential accomplishments because... he hasn't done anything yet.
I am not sure that National Guard (or Police) firing on rioters/demonstrators would get the same reaction in this day and age (especially if rioters are the wrong skin color). In fact, if they are defined more as rioters than demonstrator/protestors, I can almost guarantee there would be no penalty, just support, from the White House.
Lots of people supported the Kent State shootings. Like Reagan.
The first time the term "hardhats" came up in popular discourse was when a group of construction workers stormed a government building to raise a flag that had been lowered in honor of the Kent State slain, so...
We know how Nixon's term ended up, and so it's easy to view it as less frightening to live through at the time. And in turn to decide that everything trump does is unprecedented and descend into apocalyptic defeatism, or the belief that because Trump is entirely unique he merits an entirely unique response.
It's not only historically inaccurate, it makes the job of effective resistance that much more difficult.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
There are specifics about Trump's behavior that are outliers, historically. But this is far from the first racist, isolationist, mysoginist, corrupt, etc administration we've ever had. As Rev Barber said, to think that it is discounts all the suffering that came before us.
It's just a lot scarier for us than the historical examples because we're down in it this time. Not reading about it in the past tense.
There are specifics about Trump's behavior that are outliers, historically. But this is far from the first racist, isolationist, mysoginist, corrupt, etc administration we've ever had. As Rev Barber said, to think that it is discounts all the suffering that came before us.
It's just a lot scarier for us than the historical examples because we're down in it this time. Not reading about it in the past tense.
It's probably the first administration where, as far as I can tell, there is no evil genius pulling the strings behind the scenes. Bannon is as close as they have, and he really isn't that impressive a person.
There are specifics about Trump's behavior that are outliers, historically. But this is far from the first racist, isolationist, mysoginist, corrupt, etc administration we've ever had. As Rev Barber said, to think that it is discounts all the suffering that came before us.
It's just a lot scarier for us than the historical examples because we're down in it this time. Not reading about it in the past tense.
...When people say that, though, they're usually talking about like pre-Roosevelt Presidencies. It's not terribly relevant to the modern era.
Like, has there been a time in this half of the century where a President refused to actually reside in the capitol buildings, lounging around private resorts & penthouses instead? Was there a time when a President brought in their immediate family members who started hawking their shit on TV?
It isn't the first time a racist asshole was in the White House, no, but this is probably the first total scam artist & oligarch with fascist ties swept himself into power in the 20th century. I'm pretty sure this is the first time in many generations where one has serious cause to worry about the President using their position to rob them blind.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
There are specifics about Trump's behavior that are outliers, historically. But this is far from the first racist, isolationist, mysoginist, corrupt, etc administration we've ever had. As Rev Barber said, to think that it is discounts all the suffering that came before us.
It's just a lot scarier for us than the historical examples because we're down in it this time. Not reading about it in the past tense.
...When people say that, though, they're usually talking about like pre-Roosevelt Presidencies. It's not terribly relevant to the modern era.
Like, has there been a time in this half of the century where a President refused to actually reside in the capitol buildings, lounging around private resorts & penthouses instead? Was there a time when a President brought in their immediate family members who started hawking their shit on TV?
It isn't the first time a racist asshole was in the White House, no, but this is probably the first total scam artist & oligarch with fascist ties swept himself into power in the 20th century. I'm pretty sure this is the first time in many generations where one has serious cause to worry about the President using their position to rob them blind.
I don't think anyone is making the argument that this isn't bad. But profiteering from the executive isn't exactly unknown in our system. Dick Cheney did just fine as the shadow president, after all.
Really, in terms of impacting the lives of Americans on a daily basis, the stuff that Trump's up to looks a lot more like a 19th century president than a 20th century one. That's why those comparisons get made. Because we need to be ready to stand up to the next Trail of Tears or round of Internment Camps.
I highly doubt you'll see anyone in politics get on a soap box over bribes, because I'm certain the majority of them, and certainly someone they know, has taken part in receiving them to some degree. It's why you hardly ever see any politician call another a 'liar.' It's much too easy to deflect by picking something out and turning the accusation around.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
Can you give specifics? I hadn't heard about this.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
Can you give specifics? I hadn't heard about this.
Trump didn't own his brand name in China for construction. He's been suing for like ten years and keeps losing in Chinese court. Cue him saying "Maybe One China is the right idea after all" last week. Cue him immediately winning his trademark case in China.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
I think the more important angle was that Trump said he was going to get something for the One China policy remaining in place, and everyone assumed he meant "for the country", even those that figured he'd fail and thought he was stupid to try.
But instead he's blatantly selling out the stability of that international relationship for his own gain. He got something all right, but he's the only one that benefits.
It's kinda mindblowing in its directness as a fuck you to the American people.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
Can you give specifics? I hadn't heard about this.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
I think the more important angle was that Trump said he was going to get something for the One China policy remaining in place, and everyone assumed he meant "for the country", even those that figured he'd fail and thought he was stupid to try.
But instead he's blatantly selling out the stability of that international relationship for his own gain. He got something all right, but he's the only one that benefits.
It's kinda mindblowing in its directness as a fuck you to the American people.
I make great deals, the best deals.
But hey, I didn't say who'd be cashing out on them.
Trump estimates his own name as being worth a couple billion IIRC - it came up pre-election when there was some debate about how rich he actually was. I think it was also one of the reasons John Oliver started the whole "Drumph" thing, but that had other reasons as well.
And, well, that's Trump's own possibly inflated estimate. I have no clue how much getting that trademark in China is worth.
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
Can you give specifics? I hadn't heard about this.
Trump didn't own his brand name in China for construction. He's been suing for like ten years and keeps losing in Chinese court. Cue him saying "Maybe One China is the right idea after all" last week. Cue him immediately winning his trademark case in China.
Amazing and totally unrelated I'm sure.
As a heads up, this WaPo article is saying that parts of the trademark business were set in motion prior to the whole One China kerfuffle.
It looks like the guy who was holding the trademark lost it in September, and some guidelines that were supposedly in the works for some time were issued in January?
The actual awarding of the TM itself still seems problematic, tho, as far as I can tell.
There are specifics about Trump's behavior that are outliers, historically. But this is far from the first racist, isolationist, mysoginist, corrupt, etc administration we've ever had. As Rev Barber said, to think that it is discounts all the suffering that came before us.
It's just a lot scarier for us than the historical examples because we're down in it this time. Not reading about it in the past tense.
...When people say that, though, they're usually talking about like pre-Roosevelt Presidencies. It's not terribly relevant to the modern era.
Like, has there been a time in this half of the century where a President refused to actually reside in the capitol buildings, lounging around private resorts & penthouses instead? Was there a time when a President brought in their immediate family members who started hawking their shit on TV?
It isn't the first time a racist asshole was in the White House, no, but this is probably the first total scam artist & oligarch with fascist ties swept himself into power in the 20th century. I'm pretty sure this is the first time in many generations where one has serious cause to worry about the President using their position to rob them blind.
Well... Nixon.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
Can you give specifics? I hadn't heard about this.
President Trump was finally given the formal legal ownership of the “TRUMP” brand to supply construction services in China this week, after a decadelong battle.
Let’s be clear: The notification was not a surprise. In fact, the decision to rule in Trump’s favor predates his election as president, and this week’s announcement was essentially a legal formality.
Nor does it seem likely that Trump will benefit financially from this decision while he remains president — in fact, the opposite could well be the case. While his organization does have long-standing plans to open hotels in China, real estate experts here say political sensitivities and the risks of upsets in the Sino-U.S. relationship mean investors will be steering well clear of his brand for the time being.
...
The news has also been used to reignite the debate about whether his business interests conflict with his role as president, and about whether his success in securing trademark rights violate the Constitution’s bar on receiving benefits from a foreign state.
How are people not freaking out about China bribing Trump with a trademark?
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
Can you give specifics? I hadn't heard about this.
Trump didn't own his brand name in China for construction. He's been suing for like ten years and keeps losing in Chinese court. Cue him saying "Maybe One China is the right idea after all" last week. Cue him immediately winning his trademark case in China.
Amazing and totally unrelated I'm sure.
As a heads up, this WaPo article is saying that parts of the trademark business were set in motion prior to the whole One China kerfuffle.
It looks like the guy who was holding the trademark lost it in September, and some guidelines that were supposedly in the works for some time were issued in January?
The actual awarding of the TM itself still seems problematic, tho, as far as I can tell.
Kevin Drum made the point that while he won the case before winning the presidency, it was expected to be challenged, there was a 90 day window to challenge it, and generally the court cases hadn't gone well for Trump.
Instead, for some reason, no challenge was made.
It is certainly possible that this is a coincidence. The problem is that the president isn't only supposed to not be corrupt, he's supposed to appear incorruptible. And this sure does LOOK like corruption. He wanted something as a private citizen from China, he couldn't get it, and now that he is president he gets it. That's a BIG problem, even if there's probably no explicit quid pro quo agreement.
...Now, in terms of pure foreign policy I certainly prefer corruption to Trump starting WW3 with China just to prove he has a big dick, and agreeing to the One China Policy isn't even a change of US policy. But in terms of good governance this is not sustainable.
I'd probably recommend that the European democracies take notes on how to handle Trump though. If you don't like Trump's public rhetoric just a minor bribe will get him to change his mind. These are matters of huge import across the world, and Trump cares more about getting rights to a trademark for hotels in China.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
There are specifics about Trump's behavior that are outliers, historically. But this is far from the first racist, isolationist, mysoginist, corrupt, etc administration we've ever had. As Rev Barber said, to think that it is discounts all the suffering that came before us.
It's just a lot scarier for us than the historical examples because we're down in it this time. Not reading about it in the past tense.
...When people say that, though, they're usually talking about like pre-Roosevelt Presidencies. It's not terribly relevant to the modern era.
Like, has there been a time in this half of the century where a President refused to actually reside in the capitol buildings, lounging around private resorts & penthouses instead? Was there a time when a President brought in their immediate family members who started hawking their shit on TV?
It isn't the first time a racist asshole was in the White House, no, but this is probably the first total scam artist & oligarch with fascist ties swept himself into power in the 20th century. I'm pretty sure this is the first time in many generations where one has serious cause to worry about the President using their position to rob them blind.
21st Century. We are living in the future. It is a Brave New World.
You won't have clean water to drink, but the JOBS though!
Kind of interesting to me that this tweet breaks from form slightly and shares a news story without commentary.
This sort of quid pro quo is why I do not hold my breath waiting for the GOP to impeach Trump for his graft, nepotism, incompetence or compromised position; he will ram through their garbage, and they will get paid. Crazy guy will rob the bank, they'll get their cut of the loot.
Posts
Obviously their cover is intended as a general statement rather than the specific topics we're covering, but this cover hammers home to me just how public the incompetence and corruption of this administration is. I've seen plenty of governments brought down by their corruption, but I have never seen a corrupt government operate while their corruption was broadcast every day to a live audience. Was it like this during the Nixon years? Did Watergate rumble quietly in the background and then erupt all at once, or was it a constant stream of information about it like this stuff for two years? I'm probably going to go back to Time's covers from the period and have a look.
Anyway, the Time cover reminds me that we need to keep up the mantra that none of this is normal or acceptable and keep up the media scrutiny while it slowly encroaches on the right wing bubble.
At the moment they are trying to decide where the tipping point is. They do not want to tell "Trump Republicans" to go fuck off but they also do not want to totally fuck over the entire government and more importantly the GOP image either. Trump is doing solid work on convincing them that it will happen at some point and the earlier it happens the more time they have to recover and rebuild before 2018 or 2020.
this is the gop image
Watergate in retrospect looks like a cartoon farce and is comparable in that sense... but it was stretched out over a long period of time, and the atmosphere of the era was completely tainted by the Vietnam war (Families were being ripped apart as casualties mounted, veterans were coming back with heroin addictions, campuses across America were rioting and in one case the riot was fired on by National Guardsmen, etc). The status quo was already so strange and perverted that the Nixon administration didn't contrast against it as boldly.
Trump's mess is happening on an extremely compressed timescale, is happening at a time of comparative stability and is thus much easier to notice and is happening right at the start of his damn term so unlike Nixon he can't just deflect to previous Presidential accomplishments because... he hasn't done anything yet.
People have been saying that for over 8 months now.
The sane moderate conservatives in the GOP are going to rise up against Trump aaaaaany day now...
I think it's been taking place for months, years even. But the problem is that the neo-nazi wing of the party is content to stab from the shadows but grin and hold hands when it's time to vote. This won't effect them electorally at all unless we finally find a right wing position too extreme for GOP voters, which hasn't happened yet and I expect doesn't exist.
Watergate itself would be seen as standard ratfucking today. The coverup was genuinely nefarious though, more than any of Trump's nonsense thus far.
I am not sure that National Guard (or Police) firing on rioters/demonstrators would get the same reaction in this day and age (especially if rioters are the wrong skin color). In fact, if they are defined more as rioters than demonstrator/protestors, I can almost guarantee there would be no penalty, just support, from the White House.
Lots of people supported the Kent State shootings. Like Reagan.
It's a conflict to be sure. But not even the Russia thing will get any real movement unless unavoidably forced.
The problem is the GoP has their head so far up their own delusional asses that they don't dare break the party line even if they hate each other or are attacking choices in public.
It's miserable to watch because they will rally against some things that are objectively terrible, and that they themselves decry.
Yet when it comes to any kind of vote or choice being made, the best you can hope for is they will abstain from it... so long as it won't actually tank the party position.
Now, maybe things will come to a head at some point, and people who talk the talk with actually do some goddamn walking.
But I think it's too much a part of party doctrine to change.
If team Bannon wants to usurp the overall GoP, so long as Trumpco is holding the reigns, I think they are just going to grumble and follow along like the good little Republicans are supposed to do. Party before all others, party before the country, and party before self.
The first time the term "hardhats" came up in popular discourse was when a group of construction workers stormed a government building to raise a flag that had been lowered in honor of the Kent State slain, so...
It's not only historically inaccurate, it makes the job of effective resistance that much more difficult.
It's just a lot scarier for us than the historical examples because we're down in it this time. Not reading about it in the past tense.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It's probably the first administration where, as far as I can tell, there is no evil genius pulling the strings behind the scenes. Bannon is as close as they have, and he really isn't that impressive a person.
...When people say that, though, they're usually talking about like pre-Roosevelt Presidencies. It's not terribly relevant to the modern era.
Like, has there been a time in this half of the century where a President refused to actually reside in the capitol buildings, lounging around private resorts & penthouses instead? Was there a time when a President brought in their immediate family members who started hawking their shit on TV?
It isn't the first time a racist asshole was in the White House, no, but this is probably the first total scam artist & oligarch with fascist ties swept himself into power in the 20th century. I'm pretty sure this is the first time in many generations where one has serious cause to worry about the President using their position to rob them blind.
This isn't even a complicated story. China gave Trump a gift with the intention of influencing his presidency, and because Trump has not divested himself of his business ventures it is now a gargantuan conflict of interest. China gets a relatively inexpensive way of bribing our government.
This is really obvious corruption! And... nobody who can do anything about it cares about this?
I don't think anyone is making the argument that this isn't bad. But profiteering from the executive isn't exactly unknown in our system. Dick Cheney did just fine as the shadow president, after all.
Really, in terms of impacting the lives of Americans on a daily basis, the stuff that Trump's up to looks a lot more like a 19th century president than a 20th century one. That's why those comparisons get made. Because we need to be ready to stand up to the next Trail of Tears or round of Internment Camps.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Can you give specifics? I hadn't heard about this.
Trump didn't own his brand name in China for construction. He's been suing for like ten years and keeps losing in Chinese court. Cue him saying "Maybe One China is the right idea after all" last week. Cue him immediately winning his trademark case in China.
Amazing and totally unrelated I'm sure.
I think the more important angle was that Trump said he was going to get something for the One China policy remaining in place, and everyone assumed he meant "for the country", even those that figured he'd fail and thought he was stupid to try.
But instead he's blatantly selling out the stability of that international relationship for his own gain. He got something all right, but he's the only one that benefits.
It's kinda mindblowing in its directness as a fuck you to the American people.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Relevant tweet chain:
edited for spelling.
How much was that trademark worth?
I make great deals, the best deals.
But hey, I didn't say who'd be cashing out on them.
All the tea!
The South China Sea.
Trump estimates his own name as being worth a couple billion IIRC - it came up pre-election when there was some debate about how rich he actually was. I think it was also one of the reasons John Oliver started the whole "Drumph" thing, but that had other reasons as well.
And, well, that's Trump's own possibly inflated estimate. I have no clue how much getting that trademark in China is worth.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/16/no-fake-trump-hotels-in-china-but-no-special-favors-for-the-president-either/
It looks like the guy who was holding the trademark lost it in September, and some guidelines that were supposedly in the works for some time were issued in January?
The actual awarding of the TM itself still seems problematic, tho, as far as I can tell.
Well... Nixon.
Here's a WaPo article about it
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/16/no-fake-trump-hotels-in-china-but-no-special-favors-for-the-president-either/?utm_term=.145eca1653f2
Kevin Drum made the point that while he won the case before winning the presidency, it was expected to be challenged, there was a 90 day window to challenge it, and generally the court cases hadn't gone well for Trump.
Instead, for some reason, no challenge was made.
It is certainly possible that this is a coincidence. The problem is that the president isn't only supposed to not be corrupt, he's supposed to appear incorruptible. And this sure does LOOK like corruption. He wanted something as a private citizen from China, he couldn't get it, and now that he is president he gets it. That's a BIG problem, even if there's probably no explicit quid pro quo agreement.
...Now, in terms of pure foreign policy I certainly prefer corruption to Trump starting WW3 with China just to prove he has a big dick, and agreeing to the One China Policy isn't even a change of US policy. But in terms of good governance this is not sustainable.
I'd probably recommend that the European democracies take notes on how to handle Trump though. If you don't like Trump's public rhetoric just a minor bribe will get him to change his mind. These are matters of huge import across the world, and Trump cares more about getting rights to a trademark for hotels in China.
21st Century. We are living in the future. It is a Brave New World.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319913-poll-trumps-approval-rating-drops-to-39-percent
He did it!
You won't have clean water to drink, but the JOBS though!
Kind of interesting to me that this tweet breaks from form slightly and shares a news story without commentary.
This sort of quid pro quo is why I do not hold my breath waiting for the GOP to impeach Trump for his graft, nepotism, incompetence or compromised position; he will ram through their garbage, and they will get paid. Crazy guy will rob the bank, they'll get their cut of the loot.
Because it wasn't him.