ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [434] -- 99 Days And Counting...

[ Posted Friday, April 28th, 2017 – 16:09 PDT ]

Tomorrow, in case you hadn't heard, will be Donald Trump's 100th day as president. Grading his performance has been a weeklong event in the media. Rather than our normal Friday format, what follows is our honest evaluation of Trump's first 100 days, which might be summed up as: "Coulda been better, coulda been a lot worse."

The most heartening conclusion for liberals, after 99 days, is that Trump's incompetence is his saving grace. Imagine how much worse things could have been right now if Trump really did have his act together, in other words.

The most obvious conclusion to be drawn is one that everyone should know already -- Trump likes style a lot more than he has ever cared about substance. He loves signing things in media photo opportunities, not caring in the slightest what is actually on the papers he's signing. The media attention is what he craves, not making actual policy changes. Which, as previously mentioned, is a huge relief to his political opponents.

Most presidents pay attention to the voters they didn't convince, in their first 100 days. Some sort of effort at reaching out to the other side of the aisle normally gives an incoming president a "honeymoon" period with the public, as even those who hadn't voted for him decide to give him the benefit of the doubt. Trump -- again, unsurprisingly -- didn't do any such thing, and the concrete result was the complete absence of a honeymoon. The highest job approval average he's managed yet has been 46 percent -- which is smaller than the percent that actually voted for him.

Trump has lurched between trying to please his base by making good on promises he made on the campaign trail and smacking his base in their metaphorical face by either completely flip-flopping on other promises or just going along with anything Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell put on his desk, no matter how bad the impact of such actions among his own base is going to be.

A perfect example of this is Trump now bragging about how many executive orders he's signed. All throughout the campaign, Trump excoriated President Obama for doing exactly the same thing. "Tyranny!" was the cry, or "He thinks he's an emperor, not a president!" Concerns about tyrannical imperialism are heard no more, however, because Trump is now downright proud of doing exactly what he supposedly disapproved of when Obama was doing it. Such a reversal has been par for the course for Trump. Everything he said on the campaign trail was some sort of performance art, as far as Trump is concerned, and he will be held to none of it now that he's in office. On balance, this is a good thing, because it allows him to disavow all sorts of inane things he promised he'd do.

In fact, Trump has seemed to get into the most trouble when he actually tries to follow through on his promises. Perhaps he's learning the lesson "don't even try," one would like to think.

But we do try to be fair, so let's take a realistic look at what Donald Trump has and has not accomplished during his first 99 days in office. These can be broken down into four main categories: stuff he's undone, stuff he's done, stuff he's tried but failed at, and stuff he hasn't done at all.

 

Stuff Trump has undone

Republicans in Congress have -- very quietly -- been undoing all they can of Barack Obama's legacy. They discovered a law that had only been used once before, which allowed them to undo Obama's final actions as president. They've only got a few more weeks of this legislative window being open, though, so this will soon cease to be even a possibility. But the larger impact of their frenzied undoing may be that it becomes a regular event. Congresses in future may go through similar "tear it all down" periods at the start of future presidents' terms, in other words. Time will tell.

The reason they (and Trump) have been very quiet about all this is that most of the regulations they've been so busy overturning were actually good ones that poll very favorably with the public. There simply was no outcry to undo this stuff -- in some cases, exactly the opposite was true. What possible constituency of actual voters were demanding that everyone's browser history be sold to the highest bidder? If the media hadn't been so distracted by all of Trump's tweets and other bumbling, this would have been an incredibly unpopular thing to do, but Congress snuck it by while most people weren't even looking.

The other Obama actions that Republicans overturned were almost as breathtaking as the browser history fire sale. Who was demanding that mentally unfit people be given easier access to purchase guns, after all? Other rules overturned (that few noticed) have resulted in the following: making it easier for coal companies to destroy streams and rivers with toxic pollution, making savings for retirement harder, letting Wall Street completely off the leash again, allowing Trump to "take back" designations of National Monuments from previous presidents, not requiring federal contractors to disclose violations of labor regulations, getting rid of a rule requiring records of worker injuries, and allowing bears to be shot while hibernating. Other than a few small interest groups (and a few large corporate interests), who was clamoring for any of this to happen?

What's really astonishing about all of this is that this is the area where Trump has actually accomplished the most. Bills passed Congress, Trump signed them, and the new policy became law. The way things are supposed to normally work in Washington, in other words. But due to Trump's amusing antics (on Twitter and in person), the media largely yawned at all of it. If these new laws had been the only thing happening, more attention would have been paid, and the public may have gotten outraged over at least a few of these extremely unpopular actions.

Trump has been most effective when the media is not paying attention -- a fact which surely must annoy him on some level.

 

Stuff Trump has done

A recent Saturday Night Live sketch had "Trump" in the Oval Office, demanding to be read a list of his accomplishments in advance of the 100-day milestone. The list consisted of: "Neil Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court," and nothing else.

It was funny because it's so close to being the entire truth. Trump has not managed to achieve any major goal at all during his first 100 days beyond getting his nominee confirmed to the highest court in the land. All of those grandiose things he promised while campaigning -- many of which he promised "on Day One" -- simply have not happened. No major bill has even made it through a single chamber of Congress, much less been put on Trump's desk. The wall remains unbuilt. Obamacare still exists. Muslims are not being banned, nor are they being subjected to "extreme vetting." China is now our best buddy. There is no magic plan to defeat ISIS.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves -- this category is supposed to be stuff Trump actually has done. And, late-night comedy aside, Trump has managed to score some minor victories even while his major promises remain almost completely unfulfilled.

To accurately measure Trump's 100 days, we started with his own explicit 100-days promises. Trump, very late in the campaign, gave a speech in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was in many ways the most concrete speech he ever gave as a candidate, because it made 28 solid promises that Trump said he would achieve in his first 100 days. Read off a TelePrompTer (rather than ad-libbed), Trump pledged to the public that these things would all be quickly accomplished.

Trump has successfully done five of them, and partially done at least seven more. Here are the things Trump promised that he achieved, in some fashion or another [Note: in all of the below lists, many items have been reworded for brevity, but the ones in quotes are taken directly from Trump's speech]:

  • Federal workforce hiring freeze (this was temporary and has already been lifted, but Trump did follow through on his promise early in his term).
  • Requirement that every new regulation requires getting rid of two other regulations (Trump signed this into being, but the effects of it have yet to be seen, really).
  • Allowing the Keystone XL pipeline (and other pipeline projects) to move forward.
  • Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (largely symbolic, since it was dead on arrival in Congress, but Trump did formally withdraw very early on in his presidency).
  • Nominate a Supreme Court justice.

On that last one, Trump was even more successful than he promised, since he couched it as "begin the process of selecting a replacement," but he not only named Gorsuch, he also got the Senate to confirm him. So on the one big thing he's achieved, he actually did better than he promised.

Trump has at least partially succeeded on several other promises:

  • Lift restrictions on oil and coal.
  • "Cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama" (Trump has certainly tried his best to live up to this one).

The other three on this list all deal with lobbying. Trump promised a 5-year ban on White House and congressional officials becoming lobbyists, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, and a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for elections. While some of this was announced by the White House, there also have been stories of "waivers" being issued already, so that Trump White House officials can indeed move right into a cushy lobbying job. Also, all that insistence on stopping foreign influence has to be seen as more than a little ironic, given all the problems Trump and his team have been having over Russian influence in his own campaign. So Trump may have achieved some sort of Potemkin-village "lobbyist ban" (to use an appropriate Russian metaphor), but in reality the swamp has not been drained one tiny bit.

There are two other items that Trump could claim at least partial credit on as well:

  • "I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately."
  • "Begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back."

On the first, Trump just announced a new tariff on Canadian softwoods. But all Trump really promised was to begin the process, so perhaps other tariffs will be forthcoming in the next 100 days. On the second, Trump has indeed created a much more aggressive deportation policy, but he hasn't gone nearly as far as many of his supporters had hoped. This too will be a developing story, but in all fairness Trump has to be given some sort of credit for at least starting the processes he said he would.

 

Stuff Trump tried but failed to do

There are three big items in this category. Two of which failed (so far) in the courts, and one of which failed (so far) in the House of Representatives. Here they are, in Trump's language from the Gettysburg speech:

  • "Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting."
  • "Cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities."
  • "Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications."

Trump has tried to do the first one twice now, and both times federal judges have stopped him. Trump made it pathetically easy for judges to rule against him because all the judges have to do is to listen to Trump's announcement of the policy idea on the campaign trail to see how unconstitutional the intent behind it truly is. Trump wasn't helped by a Chris Christie interview, either, where Christie admitted that Trump directed him to "make a Muslim ban legal" somehow.

Just last week, another federal judge halted Trump's policy towards sanctuary cities as well. The federal government is not supposed to blackmail states or cities in this fashion, to put it bluntly.

But while Trump has so far been stymied, liberals shouldn't get complacent about the status quo quite yet. Yes, Trump has been blocked. But Trump can appeal, and he just put a staunch conservative on the Supreme Court -- so he might just win these cases in the end.

As for repealing and replacing Obamacare, Trump doesn't even get partial credit. All throughout the campaign, Trump promised voters the moon, the sun, and the stars on healthcare reform. His plan would be wonderful. He knew how to fix everything. Everyone would be covered. Everyone's costs would go down. It would be far, far better than Obamacare in every conceivable way. Trust him, he knew exactly what to do.

Once in office, Trump did nothing. Not a thing. He had no plan. He couldn't come up with even the bare-bones outline of a plan. Not even a one-page memo on what his goals were. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Trump never had a plan and couldn't create one if his life depended on it (as indeed many Americans' lives do).

Then Trump thought he was saved by Paul Ryan's hastily-assembled trainwreck of a bill. "Aha!" Trump thought, "I'll just get behind this and sign it and then I can say I repealed Obamacare!"

But Ryancare was (and continues to be) nothing short of a spectacular failure. When the public learned what was in it (and how many of them would lose health insurance), only 17 percent backed the Ryancare plan. During the same period a rather astonishing thing happened -- Obamacare suddenly became very popular, for the first time since the law's passage. Obamacare began polling at higher than 50 percent approval, something it had never managed previously, as the public finally learned what all of the components of it were (all of which were under threat of removal in Ryancare). So the only thing Paul Ryan achieved was to make Obamacare a success. That's gotta hurt -- but don't worry, Obamacare covers that pain.

The White House increased the pressure on Ryan as the 100-days marker approached, and there was supposed to be a last-minute push to revive Ryancare -- after making it even worse in an attempt to get Tea Partiers to vote for it. No vote has happened, because by making it worse Ryan alienated moderate members of his own party. All of Trump's pressure tactics have not even moved the bill through the Republican House.

So not only did Trump fail to come up with his own big, beautiful healthcare plan (as he had promised), the one he got behind is a total Dumpster fire and will not pass even one house in Congress. That is an abject failure, any way you look at it.

 

Stuff Trump hasn't done

The first eighteen points on Trump's Gettysburg agenda were actions he was going to personally take as president. He has failed to deliver on four of them:

  • Propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress.
  • Label China a currency manipulator (Trump completely flip-flopped on this one).
  • Renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA (this one is somewhat of an embarrassment for Trump, since he was all set to announce he was withdrawing on his 100th day, but then some advisors talked him down off the ledge, so now he's merely promising to renegotiate at some unspecified future point).
  • "Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure."

Anyone think that last one is going to happen? Billions for water and environmental infrastructure? Yeah, right. Trump has (so far) not backed out of the Paris agreement on climate change, but could do so at any time.

But the big list of things Trump has not even attempted yet is the last ten items in his Gettysburg speech. This was a list of all the wonderful bills Trump was going to personally propose to Congress, and "fight for their passage within the first 100 days." Not a single one of them has happened. Trump has gone zero-for-ten, on a list he created.

Donald Trump has not proposed a single item on this list as a bill Congress could pass. Here are eight of the ten things Trump promised, but has not delivered:

  • "End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free."
  • "American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral."
  • "School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends Common Core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2- and 4-year college more affordable."
  • "Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families."
  • "End Illegal Immigration Act. Fully funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first."
  • "Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars."
  • "Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides veterans with the ability to receive public V.A. treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values."
  • "Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics."

Not a single item on that list has appeared from the White House.

The remaining two Trump tried to "accomplish" right before the bell rang, but can't be counted as any sort of serious efforts towards achievement. The first was:

  • "Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the F.D.A.: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications."

Trump gets no credit for this, even with the Ryancare bill, because he never came up with even a shadow of his own plan, which is why it's in both our "tried and failed" and "didn't even try" categories. The final item is one where Trump thought he could do his homework on the bus and hand it in for some sort of partial credit:

  • "Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate."

Trump did announce his "tax plan" this week. It was a joke, really -- a one-page document with fewer than 200 words, and only seven actual numbers. All that talk about big benefits for the middle class didn't make the final cut, although all the goodies for corporations did. But a one-page memo isn't any sort of "Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act." It's a one-page memo, no more. And even Trump advisors aren't now cheerfully talking about four percent growth rates, instead they're guardedly speaking of three percent growth. In the first quarter of this year, the American economy grew at 0.7 percent, if anyone wants a reality check.

We wrote yesterday about one glaring conclusion that pretty much everyone in the political and media world has missed, when considering Trump's tax plan -- with one change, Trump would save himself 81 percent of the taxes he paid on the one form we have for him (from 2005). Thank you, Rachel Maddow and DCReport.

Trump paid $38.4 million in taxes, on gross earnings of over $150 million. But if the Alternative Minimum Tax is abolished (as Trump's tax plan calls for), he would only have paid $7.2 million in taxes in 2005. That's an effective rate of only 4.7 percent, and it would mean Trump would save a whopping 81 percent of his tax bill. Why aren't Democrats screaming this from the mountaintops? We have no idea, because it's pretty obvious and pretty egregious. It would make a dandy talking point, in other words, for any Democrat who cares to point it out.

 

Other Trump promises

All of the items we discussed above come directly from that one Trump speech in Gettysburg. But Trump made plenty of other promises to the voters, and he's either failed to follow through or completely reversed course on so many of them it's hard to keep track of them all.

Trump was going to release his tax returns, now he's not ever going to. He was going to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal, but has not. He was going to pay off the entire national debt in a few years (sometimes ten, sometimes eight, sometimes "in my first term"), and yet everything he's even proposed at this point would explode the deficit and debt enormously (his tax plan, by some estimates, would blow a $7-trillion hole in the budget, in the first ten years alone). He was going to appoint a special prosecutor to hound Hillary Clinton, but (thankfully) decided not to. He was going to sue all the women accusing him of sexual misconduct, but (thankfully) decided not to. NATO was obsolete, until it suddenly wasn't.

First, Trump already had a secret plan to defeat ISIS. Then he was going to have one "in his first 30 days." Then he punted entirely to "the generals," who were going to create such a plan in 30 days. It's been 99 days, and no plan has been announced. Thankfully, he's largely following the Obama plan, which has been chalking up success after success in the fight against ISIS (especially in Iraq).

Trump was also going to reverse Obama's Cuba policy, but hasn't. He was going to sock it to all those nasty hedge fund managers by eliminating the carried interest loophole, but this didn't make it into his tax memo.

Trump was going to build a wall, deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants, and institute "extreme vetting" in 90 days. None of these have happened. Trump is caught in the fight over what was supposed to be a "temporary travel ban" and apparently forgotten about why it was only going to be temporary (because once the extreme vetting started, it wouldn't have been necessary).

Here's a Trump promise for anyone craving a belly laugh: "I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off." Or you could listen to any of the numerous times Trump took Obama to task for playing too much golf -- all real knee-slappers, now.

Trump has followed through on a few of his campaign promises, to be scrupulously fair. He signed a bill allowing states to defund Planned Parenthood. He promised to accept no salary, and donated his first paycheck to the National Park Service (while simultaneously proposing a budget which would severely slash their funding).

 

Conclusions

On big-picture items, Trump's first 100 days certainly resembles that SNL list. He got a Supreme Court justice confirmed, and not much else. No big legislative victories at all -- not even if you only count "passed the House of Representatives" (usually a pretty low bar, when your own party controls it).

On smaller-bore stuff, Trump is touting his achievements using the same executive powers he once disparaged Barack Obama for using (Trump even sneered at Obama because he "couldn't get anything through Congress"). But while Trump gets his signing ceremonies for each of these, most of them don't really have any effect at all. He signs orders which instruct a cabinet member to, essentially, do their job. "Use the powers of your office to get some stuff done" isn't really that groundshaking a policy statement, in other words.

The Trump administration's incompetence is at least partially a self-inflicted wound. Trump has famously disdained staffing the executive branch, letting hundreds of positions remain unfilled. Because of this, he has nobody to go to who has the experience of actually turning policy ideas into legislation. So nothing gets sent to Congress, and the policy goal remains no more than an early-morning Trump tweet. Call it "small government in action" (or, perhaps, "inaction").

This is good news for liberals, of course, because as we began by pointing out, the first 100 days would have been a lot worse if Trump did actually have a full and experienced staff who knew how to get things done.

On the domestic policy front, Trump has done nothing major. He has not proposed an actual piece of legislation yet. He put out a bare-bones budget paper which is never going to see the light of day in Congress (it's too brutal for even Republicans to act on), and he put out a one-page memo of bullet points on taxes. That's it.

On the foreign policy front, Trump has not started World War III or dropped a nuclear weapon on anyone. This normally wouldn't be seen as much of an achievement, but for Trump it truly is. Sad!

Snark aside, though, we already wrote about Trump's first-100-days military actions earlier, where he has had mixed success at best. He launched a botched raid in Yemen, he sent 59 cruise missiles into Syria, and he dropped one whale of a big bomb in Afghanistan. He finally figured out where his aircraft carrier was, and it's now where he said it was supposed to be a few weeks ago.

More generally in foreign policy, Trump has tried to appear distant from Russia and has fully embraced China. Tensions are at an all-time high with North Korea, but with all the bluster coming from the White House, Trump is seriously constrained by what he can even threaten, due to nobody wanting to see North Korea destroy Seoul.

Trump cleaned out the incompetents he originally hired in the national security area, and the second-stringers he put in are actually sane and know the limits of American military power, so that's something in his favor. The whole Michael Flynn fiasco may still come back to bite Trump, though, if recent revelations of illegal payments from Russia are any indication. The whole "Russian influence" storyline is not going away any time soon, either, on a more general level.

One thing Trump has been able to achieve success at is keeping his base happy. No matter how many times Trump fails to come through on his promises to the working class, they still solidly support him for now. Over 90 percent of Trump voters say they'd still vote for him, which is kind of astonishing, but has to be seen as a clear win for Trump at this point.

Overall, however, Trump making zero moves towards Democrats or even independents has kept his poll numbers historically low. On job approval, Trump's average has fluctuated from just under 40 percent to a high of 46 percent. That represents not just the lowest first-100-days ratings since polling began, but a jaw-droppingly-low ceiling of support. Trump likes superlatives (especially about himself), but it's doubtful he'll be bragging about being the "Most unpopular president ever!" any time soon. Trump had no honeymoon, because he refused to even attempt reaching out to anyone other than his base, and he hasn't even gotten a bump in the polls after successful military actions (the traditional "rally 'round the president" bump for Trump was only two percent -- much lower than usual).

Donald Trump's first 100 days are almost over. So far, they've been pretty unimpressive. Granted, this measure may be a false one to judge the success of any president (nobody remembers George W. Bush's first 100 days, they remember what happened after 9/11, for instance). But at this point in time, it's what we've got to work with.

The overarching conclusion that has to be drawn is that Trump is an ineffectual president. He doesn't know much about following through when it comes to governing, which is obvious in many ways. He still loves making news (especially with his tweets), but it usually turns out to be a lot of sound and fury, signifying not very much. The other conclusion worth drawing is that Trump is a very reactive president. His daughter can show him something on cable news, and he is immediately convinced that he should launch a missile attack. He planned on announcing his withdrawal from NAFTA, and then a few phone calls changed his mind. Right or wrong, he makes snap decisions with immediate consequences. He has shown a willingness to ignore just about any of his campaign promises, and his base forgives him for doing so each and every time.

Of course, to be fair, he could always improve. Eventually maybe he'll staff up the departments under his control with some people with real governing experience. Eventually maybe his "we're going to study this for the next few months" executive orders may come to fruition, and actual policy may appear. Eventually he may figure out how to work with the Republican Congress to actually pass some bills. Anything's possible, in other words.

For now, though, liberals are all breathing a lot easier after seeing Trump's peripatetic first 100 days. Trump can't seem to get his act together on multiple issues, and the Republican Congress is fast becoming the "can't-do" Congress. That's all to the good, when you consider what their stated goals are. Other than confirmation battles, we simply haven't had a big showdown in the Senate yet -- because the House hasn't been able to pass any important bills. Today, we avoided a government shutdown, showing (for the time being) that Paul Ryan is fully aware of the futility of letting the Tea Party run rampant over must-pass bills. Democrats are cheerfully embracing the concept of congressional gridlock, in much the same way Republicans did after Barack Obama became president. Nothing getting done is a lot better than seeing them competently pass a Republican agenda, in other words.

Meaning that Trump's first 100 days were a lot better than any liberal probably hoped for. Trump couldn't get anything done, Paul Ryan couldn't get anything done, and this was all good news. The White House spent all their time and energy over internal squabbling and jockeying for access to Trump.

So, realistically, we've got to end with an honest statement to sum up Donald Trump's first 100 days: "It could have been a lot worse." Let's hope that he stays just as unfocused and ineffective for his entire term in office, because so far that has been the best restraint on the damage he could be capable of. That's not exactly a rousing statement for the history books, but it is an honest assessment of Trump's first 100 days in office. It could have been much, much worse.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

170 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [434] -- 99 Days And Counting...”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Let's hope that he stays just as unfocused and ineffective for his entire term in office, because so far that has been the best restraint on the damage he could be capable of.

    Yep.

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    response to comment 41 from A very busy week

    "then why are you appealing to her as an authority on the topic of you dragging this old thread into whatever post is most recent, when she unequivocally agreed with me that you shouldn't?"

    Liz has every right to change her mind.
    Pointing out the change wasn't an appeal of any kind.
    It was a friendly dig in response to her comment.

    And after reviewing the rulebook, I believe my commenting habits are not restricted by your desires.

    "just sparing the rest of the CW community from having to scroll through my every response to your accusations against Israel"
    "you seem to have no problem affronting reason when doing so agrees with your anti-israel stance"

    Posting a link to a current BBC article about Bibi's offensive behavior, and mentioning the former Israeli policy of giving aid to al Qaida as reported by Haaretz, and linking to a BBC article about Mattis consorting with a "crazy nutjob" are not "accusations" nor "anti-Israel".

    I am pointing out verifiable facts.
    I find the actions and policies of the current right wing Israeli government offensive and worthy of comment.
    You seem intent on defending the actions and policies of the current right wing Israeli government... and that is an affront to reason by someone who supposedly supports Democrats and opposes Trump and his comparably offensive right wing policies and actions.

    "you say israel is helping AQ, which is a lie of omission. they're helping anyone who isn't shooting at them"

    I'm not saying it, Israeli media reported the covert Israeli policy, and Israel was forced to abandon it because it is indefensible.
    The fact that you are defending the Israeli policy of aiding the terrorists who flew planes into US buildings, bombed US embassies, bombed a US naval vessel, attacked US forces in Iraq repeatedly, and launched numerous other terrorist attacks on us and our allies by saying that al Qaida isn't shooting at Israelis is truly disturbing.

    If you don't understand why it is disturbing, I can't help you.

    And Israeli aid for people other than al Qaida doesn't change the fact that they aided al Qaida, or make my noting of that aid a lie of any kind.

    If you aided al Qaida, you would still be prosecuted and found guilty of aiding our enemy even if you also provided aid to Children's Hospital and PETA.

    "is this another conspiracy theory? how do you think snubbing the press conference would have looked for mattis back home? any different from snubbing the meeting? no politician could possibly meet your expectations and hope to remain in office."

    A press conference that doesn't happen isn't a snub. Lots of meetings take place without press conferences afterwards, particularly when the counterpart in the meeting is an undeserving "crazy nutjob" who actively supports policies against US interests.

    I don't understand your "conspiracy theory" question. What conspiracy am I theorizing?
    And why are you defending a Trump appointee for an unnecessary courtesy towards a "crazy nutjob" (as you put it), and why are you concerned about him losing his job?
    What is your motivation?

    "what you're missing here is that i agreed with you about bibi's hypocrisy. it may make political sense, but it's absolutely craven and deplorable. i guess some folks just can't take yes for an answer."

    You didn't say you agreed with me, you didn't give "yes" as an answer, and you denied the hypocrisy.

    But I accept your agreement now.

    "ah, the conspiracy theorist returns"

    You think noting the facts about Israeli aid for al Qaida as reported by journalists is a "conspiracy theory"?

    Israel did aid al Qaida.
    It was a covert policy that wasn't publicly debated or agreed to in the Knesset or announced by the government.
    And when it was exposed in the media, Israel abandoned the policy.

    Where is the conspiracy theory?
    Are false accusations a rational defense?

    "you didn't address any of my questions"

    Your questions seeking to distract from the Israeli purchases of oil from our enemy ISIS are irrelevant. Israeli intelligence was most certainly aware, and allowed the purchases.

    Israel shouldn't aid our enemies or allow Israelis to do so, even if there is money to be made.

    "your argument is insulting, and does not reflect reality."

    When the current right wing Israeli government lobbies the US to launch a regime change war in Syria, Israel is "taking sides" in the Syrian conflict.

    You are continuing to make a dishonest argument by denying that reality.

    The "diversity of opinion in Israel" created the current right wing government, and they are responsible for the policies of that government regardless of how the coalition making up the government was formed.

    "netanyahu's constituency has goals, and he realized that to achieve those goals, he had to ally with a faction even more extremist than his own. your expectations of political behavior seem to come from a well-meaning place, but it is a rainbows and unicorns fantasy, with a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory tarring anyone who fails to meet those expectations."

    Again you are making false accusations of conspiracy theories and insulting me for valid criticism of Israeli policies, as if expectations for policies from an ally that don't harm US interests and basic morality are not valid.

    Since you now claim to agree with me, why do you seem to want to absolve the current right wing government of responsibility for their policies and actions. That only makes sense if you support Bibi's twisted right wing goals.

    "i said it was rational, not that it was noble. you seem to have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between those two concepts"

    Not at all.
    I don't think forming an extremist right wing government is rational.
    And I don't see why you do.

    A

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What is this comment doing in the FTP column???

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stop commenting on old threads and don't post non-sequiturs in new threads.

    It's really very simple.

  5. [5] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    There isn't really anything to debate in your column.

    And the conclusion that things could have been much worse holds true in the alternate universe with Hillary in charge... just with different former Goldman Sachs employees scheming away.

    I hope some folks in the Democratic party and the media pick up on your 81% talking point, and that they start emphasizing the bad things that have been done and undone instead of dwelling on the distractions.

    Since our resident trumpling has abandoned his role of providing the alt-right perspective, if anybody wants a good laugh and cry, the less than 10 percent of Trump voters who wouldn't vote for him again seem to be in a tizzy.
    I read some comments under an "article" at ZeroHedge and their anger at the born again neocon Trump is extreme.

    I think there's a column in there somewhere if you can stomach it.

    A

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ZeroHedge??

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Where have I heard that name before ... hmmmm, that's twice in as many weeks. What gives!?

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Imagine how much worse things could have been right now if Trump really did have his act together, in other words.

    If he really had his act together, he would have won the popular vote, too ... and then some!

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Things can always be worse, I suppose.

    But, how bad do things have to get before the realization sets in that, unless Trump is stopped in his tracks, America may never recover on the home front from the backward policies and negative impacts of a presidency that steers by a guiding principle of 'America First' and may completely and forever lose any semblance of its global leadership role?

    How much worse does it have to be before the analyses of Trump and his presidency stop essentially normalizing the abnormal?

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    If only those 10% of angry Trump voters lived in New Jersey. If they were angry enough to vote for Trump in 2016 they might even be angry enough now to sign the petition and hijack the 2017 New Jersey primaries.
    https;//www.change.org/p/registered-new-jersey-voters-hijack-the-2017-new-jersey-primary

  11. [11] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    If only 10% of the Bernie/Hillary supporters angry at Trump lived in New Jersey. They could work with the angry Trump voters in 2018 to put the fear in the hearts of Congress and if they were angry enough start in the 2017 New Jersey primary.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don, there is an overabundance of anger, most of it misguided.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Although, if 10% of the Hillary voters were angry at Hillary, you might be on to something! :)

  14. [14] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    If he really had his act together, he would have won the popular vote, too ... and then some!

    Actually, Trump DID win the popular vote.. :D

    In a "re-match" thru a WaPoop poll, Trump not only beat NOT-45 AGAIN, he also won the Vanity Vote as well.. :D

    The simple fact is, as in Brexit, all the hysterical fear-mongering from the Hysterical Left regarding President Trump simply has not come to pass...

    His poll numbers are very similar to Obama's numbers..

    These are facts that no one can dispute...

    Based on these facts, the *ONLY* logical conclusion is that President Trump is a better President than the Left is willing to give him credit for...

  15. [15] 
    michale wrote:

    the less than 10 percent of Trump voters who wouldn't vote for him again seem to be in a tizzy.

    Any facts to support this claim??

    No??

    Didna think so.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Welcome back, Michale!

    Be nice.

  17. [17] 
    michale wrote:

    One thing Trump has been able to achieve success at is keeping his base happy. No matter how many times Trump fails to come through on his promises to the working class, they still solidly support him for now. Over 90 percent of Trump voters say they'd still vote for him, which is kind of astonishing, but has to be seen as a clear win for Trump at this point.

    Change "Trump" to Obama and "working class" to Left Wingery and you'll discover that it's really not all that astonishing, eh? :D

    I mean, seriously...

  18. [18] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Thank you...

    Always :D

  19. [19] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course, to be fair, he could always improve. Eventually maybe he'll staff up the departments under his control with some people with real governing experience.

    Yea, cuz "governing experience" is a sure-fire way to get competence, eh?? :D

    If it were, then we wouldn't even HAVE a President Trump, now would we??

  20. [20] 
    michale wrote:

    Hay, but since we're talking about the first 100 days.. Let's take a look at the Democrat Party's first 100 days..

    The Democrats’ First 100 Days
    Column: Disunity, obstruction, incoherence, obsession, obliviousness

    Let's reverse angle. The president's first 100 days in office have been analyzed, dissected, evaluated. Not much left to say about them. What about the opposition? What do the Democrats have to show for these first months of the Trump era?

    Little. Trump's defeats have not come at the Democrats' hands. Those setbacks have been self-inflicted (over-the-top tweets, hastily written policies, few sub-cabinet nominations) or have come from the judiciary (the travel ban, the sanctuary cities order) or from Republican infighting (health care). Deregulation, Keystone pipeline, immigration enforcement—Democrats have been powerless to stop them.

    Chuck Schumer slow-walked Trump's nominations as best he could. In fact his obstruction was unprecedented. But the cabinet is filling up, the national security team in place. On the Supreme Court, Schumer miscalculated royally. He forced an end to the filibuster for judicial appointments, yet lost anyway. If another appointment opens this summer, and the Republicans hold together, the Democrats will have zero ability to prevent the Court from moving right. No matter what he says in public, Schumer can't possibly think that a success.
    http://freebeacon.com/columns/democrats-first-100-days/

    If Democrats want to cast stones on the first 100 days, they should remember the danger of doing so whilst residing in glass houses...

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Since our resident trumpling has abandoned his role of providing the alt-right perspective,

    {{sssiiigggghhhh}}

    Why did I ever think things would change around here.. :^/

  22. [22] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    6,7

    Actually, it was a reference to the same event.

    It took me two weeks to stop shaking my head after the brief visit delving into the alt-right abyss.
    I wouldn't want to have to do opposition research on the Bannon crowd. It was my first and hopefully last visit to that website. Racism, misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia seems to be their bread and butter and openly tolerated. I was there looking to check the source for a Syria story (which my last mention about them noted wasn't credible), and there was an equal amount of anger about Trump's embrace of the neocon ideology because of his flipflop on Syria intervention, but also the Wall Street giveaway and his privacy sell out on browser histories... three things CW mentioned in the current column.

    But I do think that Trump's original core of supporters turning on him so vociferously is worthy of a column just because the issue is being ignored in the rest of the media... I just wouldn't want to have to write it.
    And to be clear, that segment of his former supporters isn't representative of the Republican establishment. In other words, he can only lose that support once because there are thankfully not many more of them to lose. That's bad for Democrats who want to see Trump's poll numbers drop further, but good for the country that their contagion hasn't spread...

    ... which is not to suggest that the slightly less virulent form affecting the rest of his supporters isn't bad enough.

    A

  23. [23] 
    altohone wrote:

    15, 21

    See my response to Liz in 22.

    A

  24. [24] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    9

    I was thinking about your comment relative to Bush the Lessor.
    Do you think it will get worse than that?

    How would you respond if your valid criticism of the Trump administrations was called anti-American?

    A

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    See my response to Liz in 22.

    So, your "source" for that 10% number is a single "brief visiting delving into the alt-right abyss"...

    Your words, not mine...

    But I do think that Trump's original core of supporters turning on him so vociferously is worthy of a column

    It might be.. If you actually had any real FACTS to support your 10% claim, beyond a single "brief visit into the alt-right abyss"...

    Let's face reality here.. You have absolutely no credible facts to support your 10% claim...

    The claim is nothing but wishful thinking on your part...

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    I, on the other hand, can fully document that the 10% number is totally fabricated wishful thinking..

    Talk to voters across the country about President Trump's first 100 days in office and a few things become abundantly clear:

    His supporters — those who turned out in force and voted for him — still overwhelmingly love him.
    npr.org/2017/04/29/526091739/trump-continues-to-have-staunch-supporters-and-determined-opposition

    An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Sunday found that President Donald Trump only had 42% approval from Americans, the lowest since 1945 — but that 96% of Trump supporters say that they would vote for him again. Moreover, the poll indicates that Trump could win the popular vote if the 2016 electorate were to vote a second time.
    breitbart.com/california/2017/04/23/poll-trump-supporters-popular-vote-96/

    One hundred days into his presidency, Donald Trump's supporters see a shrewd businessman who has roared into Washington, following through on campaign promises to cut government regulation, secure the border and be a fresh departure from business as usual.
    courant.com/politics/hc-trump-100-days-supporters-20170427-story.html

    I could go on and on, but you get the idea...

    The myth that Trump supporters are abandoning President Trump is just that. A myth borne of wishful thinking and Party bigotry...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    Welcome back.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (13)-
    Without any empirical evidence I would guess that at least 10% of Bernie supporters are mad at Hillary.
    If at least 10% of Hillary voters are not mad at Hillary and 10% of Trump voters are mad at Trump, then maybe it's the Hillary voters that are the real crazies that can't admit that they were duped.

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW=
    Why would Trump be upset that he has been most effective when the media is not paying attention?
    That is Trump's tactics working to perfection.
    Say a bunch of stupid unimportant things for the media to blather about while he gets other stuff done that goes unnoticed.
    The basic magician's trick of look here while real trick is happening over there.
    Hillary's contribution aside, that's how he got elected.

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was thinking about your comment relative to Bush the Lessor. Do you think it will get worse than that?

    I hope not.

    But, while I hope and pray that the Trump era is an aberration, I think we need to view and assess the Trump presidency in relation to US administrations of the last couple of decades, at least.

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    ...then maybe it's the Hillary voters who are the real crazies that can't admit that they were duped.

    There may be more than a little truth to that analysis. :)

  33. [33] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Just like Trump I always try to put in just enough truth to make things seem plausible. :D

  34. [34] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (31)-
    We could also compare the Trump presidency to that movie where a 12 year old inherits a Major League Baseball team- but probably without the happy ending.

  35. [35] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    After Trump admitted to Reuters that being president wouldn't be as 'easy' as he thought it would be, Conservative David Frum tweeted:

    "All this information was cunningly concealed by being put in books and other forms of writing."

    If Trump is a stress test for the Republic, it would explain all the stress.

  36. [36] 
    altohone wrote:

    25

    Take it up with CW.

    He used a "more than 90% would vote for Trump again" claim in his column.
    I just converted it to less than 10% who wouldn't.

    I don't know where he got the number, but he is generally reliable on such things.

    A

  37. [37] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    31

    I hope you're right.

    Any comment on the second question in 24?

    A

  38. [38] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick

    Response is up in previous column.
    Almost missed yours.

    A

  39. [39] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Trump wasn't helped by a Chris Christie interview, either, where Christie admitted that Trump directed him to "make a Muslim ban legal" somehow.

    Sounds like Rudy Giuliani's handiwork... Chris Christie also?

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Take it up with CW.

    He used a "more than 90% would vote for Trump again" claim in his column.
    I just converted it to less than 10% who wouldn't.

    I don't know where he got the number, but he is generally reliable on such things.

    OK, so NOW you claim that the 10% was extrapolated from CW's 90% rather than from your comment to Liz about your single "brief" visit to the alt-right abyss...

    OK, I am glad we cleared that up... :D

    But we're still left with the FACT that, if the election were re-run today, the WaPoop poll shows that not only would President Trump win the election, he would also win the Vanity Vote as well..

    This would seem to belay the claim that President Trump's support is faltering in any meaningful way..

    Regardless of all these facts, do you REALLY think that President Trump losing LESS than 10% of his supporters, even if it WERE factually accurate, warrants any serious commentary???

    I think the fact that NOT-45 would even lose the VANITY VOTE in the here and now should be much more concerning to the Left Wingery...

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale-
    Welcome back.

    Thank you, Don.. :D

  42. [42] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller [6] / [7]

    ZeroHedge is a "grey news site" that was intensive in its Russian-influenced coverage of the election. It's also one of the few public sites that will provide primary-dealer level specificity regarding the internals of the 5-yr Treasury auction just minutes after it closes.

    The comments on its political articles are a good window into what's going on among some of the anti-semetic / West-is-doomed factions of the Trump base.

    The current Russian-influenced content has been moved to the featured contributors. The comments on their piece on the coming NK-induced WW III were a hoot.

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    35

    After Trump admitted to Reuters that being president wouldn't be as 'easy' as he thought it would be, Conservative David Frum tweeted:

    "All this information was cunningly concealed by being put in books and other forms of writing."

    LOL. They "concealed" it where they knew he'd never look. He doesn't have the attention span to read a book, and it's really sad and very telling that a large portion of the electorate believes that Trump actually WROTE a book... with his anemic attention span! "The Art of the Deal" was 100% written by Tony Schwartz, and not a single word in it was written by the pathological liar who tells crowd after crowd that he wrote it. He's not brilliant, people... he's a con artist blowing smoke and flashing mirrors.

    I have to give Frum props, though, because he's not your typical conservative suffering from the cognitive dissonance of so many who spent 8 years whining about Barack Obama being nothing but a "community organizer" with no political experience who are now insisting that what Washington needs is someone with no political experience. :)

  44. [44] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz, Kick and gang

    Anyone interested in the US-Syria-Iran nexus should check this out.

    It is part 2 of the interview, and part 1 was no longer on the RNN homepage but is interesting as well.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18950:Iran-Can-Work-With-U.S.-if-Trump-Drops-the-Threats

    It's about 12 minutes long I think.

    Liz, I directed this comment to you because at about 6:45 into the video, they play a 20 second or so clip of Biden talking at a Harvard forum which I'd never seen before... and basically saying things publicly which the media is reluctant to mention.

    Kick, at the beginning of the video there is also a mention of Iran now directly supporting the Houthis that wasn't denied by former senior Iranian diplomat Seyed Hossein Mousavian being interviewed... which I thought was interesting.
    I'll check out the source for details (the interviewer just mentioned a name), but this contradicts what I wrote to you recently, and I feel obligated to set right things like that.

    A

  45. [45] 
    altohone wrote:

    40

    It's not a "claim".
    See CW's column near the end.

    But the outrage about Trump among former supporters in the comments at that alt-right website is real and the corporate media is ignoring it.

    A

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    if donald did not have the attention span to read a book, how do you explain the similarities between the propaganda of his campaign speeches and that of Adolf Hitler in My New Order, the book his ex-wife ivana said he kept on the night stand? osmosis?

    JL

  47. [47] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    This is too funny.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rob-quist-turned-down-dnc-bernie-sanders_us_5904e8c6e4b05c39767ff02d?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    Quist turns down Perez, welcomes Bernie.

    I should point out that HuffPo posted the story before the Quist campaign responded to a request for comment, so my guess is there may be a denial coming soon.

    But it's still funny.

    A

  48. [48] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet

    Since you finally managed a brief bit of civility, my response to your comment is up in A Very Busy Week.

    A

  49. [49] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone,

    It's not a "claim".
    See CW's column near the end.

    Semantics...

    But the outrage about Trump among former supporters in the comments at that alt-right website is real and the corporate media is ignoring it.

    It's ONE alt-right website..

    Why SHOULDN'T it be ignored???

    Just because it happens to fit with your Anti-Trump agenda, doesn't mean it's newsworthy...

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Kick,

    He's not brilliant, people... he's a con artist blowing smoke and flashing mirrors.

    And yet, he has been, and will likely continue to be, a VERY successful businessman..

    He handily dispatched 19 very qualified, very well-connected and very well-funded Republican candidates...

    And he TOTALLY devastated the BIGGEST, MEANEST and most well-funded political juggernaut in the history of politics...

    Until you can reconcile these FACTS with your opinion, said opinion is nothing but Party fanaticism and has absolutely no basis in reality..

  51. [51] 
    altohone wrote:

    49

    If you stick your head in the sand, all the former Trump supporters magically disappear.

    Where's your cite for the evidence that "it's only one alt-right website"?

    A

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    If you stick your head in the sand, all the former Trump supporters magically disappear.

    If I was sticking my head in the sand, you would have a point..

    But I am not, so you don't..

    Where's your cite for the evidence that "it's only one alt-right website"?

    It took me two weeks to stop shaking my head after the brief visit delving into the alt-right abyss.
    I wouldn't want to have to do opposition research on the Bannon crowd. It was my first and hopefully last visit to that website.

    But the outrage about Trump among former supporters in the comments at that alt-right website is real and the corporate media is ignoring it.
    -Altohone

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    But the outrage about Trump among former supporters in the comments at that alt-right website is real and the corporate media is ignoring it.

    Singular.....

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Yale College Republicans Taunt Grad Student ‘Hunger Strikers’ With Barbecue, Corn and Baked Beans
    https://heatst.com/culture-wars/yale-college-republicans-taunt-grad-student-hunger-strikers-with-barbecue-corn-and-baked-beans/?mod=sm_fb_post

    Hehehehehe Now THAT's funny!!! :D

    SJW snowflakes are always a source of fun and laughs...

  55. [55] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm most surprised at 45's inability to craft a plan for the economy. I never bought the idea that he was some sort of business genius - more of a loud mouth con artist. However with the house and the senate on his side, I'd have thought that a real tax proposal plus some sort of draft infrastructure plan would have been under discussion.

    There are some competent people in the administration who are obviously motivated to give some money away to stimulate the economy, but somehow or another 45 has managed to stifle their efficacy.

    We are seeing a lot of confidence - consumer, small business, manufacturers, etc. and the profit numbers are good.cThis Confidence and the good profit number from last quarter currently are propping up the stock market. However there are a lot of dark clouds hovering - for example nearly every regional bank missed their loan targets, auto sales are down, other retail numbers are weak, and, as CW mentioned, growth is stagnant.

    The Q1 adjustments will bear watching - given the numbers in the pipe, particularly the housing numbers, it looks like 0.7% might drop to 0.5%.

    Q2 is going to be interesting - is the 0.7% a hiccup or some sort of secular slowdown? We are long overdue a market correction, even if things were ticking along, plus if the Fed decide that they need to create some more breathing space might just keep raising interest rates. I would expect 45 to flip if they do.

    Also, 45 might actually manage to gin up some sort of flashpoint on the Korean peninsula, trigger a trade dispute or create some other catastrophe only he could.

    The last vestige of self respect 45 has is tied up in the markets and the economy - at the moment he is doing nothing to help them (at best) and one is looking weak and the other looks maxed out. A mini recession is long overdue.

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    52

    My comment about the site doesn't substantiate your claim that it's only that site.

    A

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    My comment about the site doesn't substantiate your claim that it's only that site.

    Until such time as you can substantiate your claim that it's more than that site, my claim that it's only one site stands as factual..

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    The idea that there is widespread disappointment with President Trump amongst Trump supporters is a myth..

    Wishful thinking by a Left Wingery who is desperate to believe ANYTHING that helps them cope...

  59. [59] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    44 follow up

    This is the only thing I could find about supposed new Iranian assistance for the Houthis in Yemen.

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-25/if-yemens-houthis-werent-iranian-proxies-they-could-be-soon

    An article by Iona Craig (who was mentioned in the video) about the Houthis launching one missile at Riyadh... and the article says the missile was built in Yemen.

    Apparently, the "evidence" is a presumption of technical help from Iran in making the missile, but she offers no evidence to back it up.

    And according to her bio, she left Yemen last year.

    It seems a little funky and weak.
    And the title of the article isn't exactly reassuring about the content either.

    A

  60. [60] 
    michale wrote:

    Until such time as you can substantiate your claim that it's more than that site, my claim that it's only one site stands as factual..

    But, hay... I'll cut you some slack.. :D

    It might even be TWO sites.. Could be three sites..

    Hell, you might even be able to find TEN sites that have some disgruntled Trump supporters who no longer support the President...

    Even if you COULD substantiate such, it doesn't mean that A> the disgruntled-ness is widespread amongst Trump supporters and 2> that it's newsworthy...

    I am sure I can find some dumb liberal who sits in their own shit and swears to the high heavens that NOT-45 won the election...

    That doesn't make it reality... Or newsworthy...

  61. [61] 
    altohone wrote:

    57

    I never claimed any other alt-right websites were similar. I only mentioned the one site.
    You made the claim that it's ONLY that site.
    And your claim is not factual without substantiation.

    And it violates common sense to think all disaffected former Trump supporters hang out at one website.

    Are you no longer visiting alt-right websites?
    You used to link to articles from them all the time.

    A

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neilm [55]: I'm most surprised at 45's inability to craft a plan for the economy.

    Crafting a "heads, we win; tails, you lose" plan takes time. Maybe Mnuchin is waiting for a downturn, since his specialty is profiting from the misery of others.

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    60

    Ah, your comment didn't appear until I submitted mine.

    I accept your retraction... or, whatever the admission of the possibility that there may be other similar websites amounts to.

    I figured you may have personal knowledge due to your record.

    A

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    I never claimed any other alt-right websites were similar. I only mentioned the one site.
    You made the claim that it's ONLY that site.
    And your claim is not factual without substantiation.

    You made the claim that 10% of Trump supporters are disillusioned...

    I asked you to substantiate it.

    You referred me to a comment you made to Liz.. When I proved that to be bogus, you changed the claim and said it was because CW said over 90% of Trump supporters still support him..

    And so on and so on and so on...

    All I am asking you to do is substantiate your claim that 10% of Trump supporters are disgruntled and no longer supporting Trump...

    As usual, you CAN'T so you go on a whimsical tour of non-sequitors and irrelevance...

    I accept your retraction...

    If that's how you have to characterize it so you can make it thru your day, far be it from me to stand in yer way.. :D

    But the simple fact is, you have NOTHING to substantiate your claim that 10% of Trump supporters are disappointed and you have NOTHING to substantiate your opinion that these non-existent disgruntled Trump supporters are newsworthy...

  65. [65] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's play a game! A game that lasts, well, forever.

    Starting tomorrow, California time, let's refrain from making comments that contain the words I, me, and you.

    And, let's use the time between now and then to practice!

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    I don't know how possible it is, but we all could give it a shot.. :D

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In case the rule of the game may be misconstrued,
    that should read, let's refrain from making comments that contain the words I, me, or you.

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It will be lots of fun! :)

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey Michale, try rephrasing [66]!

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... we all could give it a shot. :D

    Let's also refrain from using those words when quoting from comments that use them.

    If nothing else, it will force us to think before pressing submit. Heh.

  71. [71] 
    altohone wrote:

    64

    Again, take it up with CW.
    The distrust of his numbers is unusual.

    A

  72. [72] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    Ewe Ken try if ewe want two, but eye don't think wee Ken dew it.

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obviously, some of us can't do it, Don ...

    :-(

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, that kind of cheating will not be tolerated!

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That reminds me ...

    ... what should be the penalty for breaking the rule?

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz [75],

    twenty straight hours forced to sit in front of a television showing nothing but keeping up with the kardashians.

    JL

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That'll keep your Canadian friend on the straight and narrow. No bout adout it!

  78. [78] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    That reminds me ...

    Is "your" also out since it is the possessive form of "you"?

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That 's a good question.

    I'm guessing it should be out.

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I was trying to avoid me, you know. :)

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Damn.

    Well, this is still practice time.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There may have to some leeway but, we need to beware the slippery slope.

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    [76]

    twenty straight hours forced to sit in front of a television showing nothing but keeping up with the kardashians.

    Talk about cruel and unusual punishment! Pretty sure that violates international laws!

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    46

    if donald did not have the attention span to read a book, how do you explain the similarities between the propaganda of his campaign speeches and that of Adolf Hitler in My New Order, the book his ex-wife ivana said he kept on the night stand? osmosis?

    You mean the book of speeches by Hitler that Trump's friend Marty Davis of Paramount gave him because he thought Trump would find it interesting?

    Never heard of it. ;)

    You know, JL, you make a very good point. The fact that Trump's rhetoric so closely matches the world's most famous nationalist workers' demagogue is obvious. It's very instructive to compare Hitler’s first address as Chancellor of Germany to Trump’s Inaugural address... instructive and disturbing.

    Trump, just as Hitler did, blames the nation's problems on the "others" and their corruption of the nation's ruling political elite. Trump, just as Hitler did, promises to round up "outsiders" and expel them. Trump, just as Hitler did, claims he "alone" can save the nation. I could go on, but those are a few of the main points.

    On this day in history 1945, the coward Hitler shot himself. What a sorry excuse for a human being.

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There's one in every crowd.

  86. [86] 
    neilm wrote:

    Bill Maher made some good points with his questions to Elizabeth Warren on Friday's Real Time.

    AS has been discussed here, basically most Americans support Warren's policies, but are so fed up with Washington screwing them that just enough throw their hands in the air and vote for anybody but an insider. 45 is simply the "murder weapon" - it could be anybody once it becomes clear even to the most committed of 45's supporters that he is too incompetent to fix anything.

    Mark Cuban 2020?

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Mark Cuban? No, he isn't the right choice.

    Senator Biden is the guy who the people want but, they just don't know it yet.

    Biden For President, Jerry Brown for the US Senate!

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    It's hard to forget how Elizabeth Warren treated Secretary Geithner during his appearances before her oversight committee in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

    She is also the wrong person for 2020.

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mark Cuban 2020?

    Not if America wishes to be taken seriously.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    44, 59

    This is the only thing I could find about supposed new Iranian assistance for the Houthis in Yemen.

    Interesting links. Thank you.

    It seems a little funky and weak.
    And the title of the article isn't exactly reassuring about the content either.

    Yep. Guess we'll have to stay tuned.

  91. [91] 
    michale wrote:

    Again, take it up with CW.
    The distrust of his numbers is unusual.

    Nice dodge...

    Is there ANYTHING beyond CW's words to support the claim that 10% of Trump supporters have abandoned Trump??

    No, there is not..

    Ergo the claim that was made is false...

    These are the facts..

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    Will 2020 Be Another 1972 for Democrats?
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/27/will_2020_be_another_1972_for_democrats_133718.html

    This is the problem that the Democrat Party is facing in the here and now...

  93. [93] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump, just as Hitler did, blames the nation's problems on the "others" and their corruption of the nation's ruling political elite. Trump, just as Hitler did, promises to round up "outsiders" and expel them. Trump, just as Hitler did, claims he "alone" can save the nation. I could go on, but those are a few of the main points.

    NOT-45 has two arms and two legs. Just like Hitler...

    NOT-45 has a nose and a mouth. Just like Hitler...

    NOT-45 has ten fingers and ten toes. Just like Hitler.

    I could go on, but those are a few of the main points..

    :eyeroll:

    GODWIN is rolling in it's grave....

    People wonder what happened to calm, rational, non-hysterical political discourse??

    THAT is what happened to it..

    The Left Wingery killed it...

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    President Trump has accomplished many of the campaign promises he ran on in 2016, and is currently enjoying an 84 percent approval rating among Republicans in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll. More importantly, a full 98 percent of people who voted for him in November say that they are happy with their decision.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/04/29/doug-schoen-what-democrats-wont-admit-about-trumps-first-100-days.html

    So much for the claim that 10% of Trump supporters are abandoning President Trump...

    The claim that more than 90% of Trump supporters would vote for President Trump again was dead on ballz accurate...

    The claim that 10% of Trump supporters are disappointed in President Trump is 1000% bullshit and wishful thinking...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  95. [95] 
    michale wrote:

    ABC/Wapo Poll: 98 Percent of Trump Voters Happy With Their Choice
    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/poll-trump-voters-remain/2017/04/23/id/785857/

    And, as usual, the claims that were made in comment #94 are backed up with facts..

    Aside to Liz..

    This is REALLY hard.. :D

    It's also imprecise and, given certain person's proclivity to be be aggressively and selectively nuanced and all about what the definition of 'IS' is in pursuit of ideological agenda, will likely lead to MORE confrontation, not less...

    But, as I said before... When in Rome.. :D

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    In many ways, President Trump’s attempts to implement his hard-line immigration policies have not gone very well in his first three months. His travel ban aimed at some Muslim-majority countries has been blocked by the courts, his U.S.-Mexico border wall has gone nowhere in Congress, and he has retreated, at least for now, on his vow to target illegal immigrants brought here as children.

    But one strategy that seems to be working well is fear. The number of migrants, legal and illegal, crossing into the United States has dropped markedly since Trump took office, while recent declines in the number of deportations have been reversed.

    Many experts on both sides of the immigration debate attribute at least part of this shift to the use of sharp, unwelcoming rhetoric by Trump and his aides, as well as the administration’s showy use of enforcement raids and public spotlighting of crimes committed by immigrants. The tactics were aimed at sending a political message to those in the country illegally or those thinking about trying to come.

    “The world is getting the message,” Trump said last week during a speech at the National Rifle Association leadership forum in Atlanta. “They know our border is no longer open to illegal immigration, and if they try to break in you’ll be caught and you’ll be returned to your home. You’re not staying any longer. If you keep coming back illegally after deportation, you’ll be arrested and prosecuted and put behind bars. Otherwise it will never end.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-immigration-setbacks-one-trump-strategy-seems-to-be-working-fear/2017/04/30/62af1620-2b4e-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html

    Yep.....

    Thank the gods, that President Trump was elected...

  97. [97] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    GODWIN is rolling in it's [SIC] grave....

    1. until you can figure out how to do it correctly, STOP USING APOSTROPHES!

    2. nobody forced donald to keep a book of hitler's speeches by his bed, much less to copy their style of propaganda.

    3. mike GODWIN is a real person who is still alive, and who agrees that many political comparisons between trump and hitler are valid.

    JL

    To be clear: I don’t personally believe all rational discourse has ended when Nazis or the Holocaust are invoked. But I’m pleased that people still use Godwin’s Law to force one another to argue more thoughtfully. The best way to prevent future holocausts, I believe, is not to forbear from Holocaust comparisons; instead, it’s to make sure that those comparisons are meaningful and substantive. This is something a pleasantly surprising percentage of commentators in this political season have managed to do (like this piece on Trump by New America and CNN analyst Peter Bergen):

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/bergen-is-trump-fascist/index.html

    ~mike godwin

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes, it is hard. And, worth the effort. We'll see how it goes but, there will probably be far less confrontation/heat and far more light ...

  99. [99] 
    michale wrote:

    1. until you can figure out how to do it correctly, STOP USING APOSTROPHES!

    When in doubt, leave it out. :D

    But the thing is, I am never in doubt.. :D

    3. mike GODWIN is a real person who is still alive, and who agrees that many political comparisons between trump and hitler are valid.

    Yep.. He killed the GODWIN principle TOTALLY and COMPLETELY to further a ideological agenda..

    Sad....

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    3. mike GODWIN is a real person who is still alive, and who agrees that many political comparisons between trump and hitler are valid.

    And the comparisons between NOT-45 and Hitler are ALSO valid as well...

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    3. mike GODWIN is a real person who is still alive, and who agrees that many political comparisons between trump and hitler are valid.

    And, further.....

    "Furthertheless is NOT a word. Stop using it!!"
    -Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY

    :D

    Further, I was not talking about the person Michael Godwin rolling in ITS grave..

    I was talking about the GODWIN principle being dead as a logical and valid principle..

    Because once you start making exceptions to the principle SOLELY based on Partisan Ideology, the principle ceases to be a valid widely accepted principle and just because a cheap ideologically based talking point...

    GODWIN....

    Killed by the Hysterical Left Wingery...

    RIP

  102. [102] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    If Biden is going to run in 2020 he will need to start his announcement speech now in order to finish by 2020.

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    If Biden is going to run in 2020 he will need to start his announcement speech now in order to finish by 2020.

    Ouch..

    And the ref takes a point away!! :D

  104. [104] 
    neilm wrote:

    Elizabeth:

    I wasn't being serious regarding Cuban - my point was that the knee jerk reaction crowd who want anybody but an insider could do better with a competent one instead of a clown.

    I can't see how this crowd will regard Biden as an outsider intent on breaking the system.

    The common theme, from Michale to Altohone, then out there to Don, is that Washington is corrupt and favors the elites. It is sad that politic team support separates these three because if a third party were possible in this country then there would be a common home for them and many others. Probably enough to win in a landslide. But then, who would pay for all the campaign ads for the new party?

  105. [105] 
    neilm wrote:

    Good news is that 45 is protecting those with pre-existing conditions. Bad news is that his own plan doesn't.

    What a clown.

  106. [106] 
    michale wrote:

    The common theme, from Michale to Altohone, then out there to Don, is that Washington is corrupt and favors the elites.

    There's a reason for that...

    It's because it's exactly what the facts indiate.. :D

    I wasn't being serious regarding Cuban - my point was that the knee jerk reaction crowd who want anybody but an insider could do better with a competent one instead of a clown.

    And the assessment of President Trump being a clown ignores the three accepted facts...

    1. Great businessman

    2. Bested 19 GOP candidates..

    3. Totally devastated NOT-45's campaign...

  107. [107] 
    neilm wrote:

    And the assessment of President Trump being a clown ignores the three accepted facts...

    Thanks for the early laugh Michale.

    So, did you hear the 45 has carried out his promise to close the "carried interest" loophole?

    Well before we go celebrating one thing that 45 has done to stick it to Wall St, let's look into the details.

    Carried interest should be taxed as labor (at ~40%) and not capital gains (at ~24%). Hedge funds are making a 16% savings from this loophole.

    45's new plan eliminates this loophole - not by actually doing anything about it of course, but by lowering business income rate to 15% - lower than the 24% they have been paying. He's giving them more money! That'll teach them.

    Nevertheless, the Isn't-45-just-dreamy-I-want-to-have-his-babies crowd (*cough* Michale *cough*) will probably regale us with his great campaign promise follow though.

  108. [108] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    I have often said that my ideas do not come from out in left field, they come from outside the stadium, across the parking and on the sidewalk on the other side of the street.
    That being said, isn't it an indictment of our current political system that One Demand being nothing more than citizens applying the tools our founding fathers provided for citizens to participate in selecting our representatives is considered a crazy unworkable idea even though it could provide a home for the three of us, many others and even for those like the Bernie supporters working on the Democratic Party from within. Maybe even enough to win in a landslide.

  109. [109] 
    michale wrote:

    Thanks for the early laugh Michale.

    In between chortles, why not actually address the facts?? :D

    So, did you hear the 45 has carried out his promise to close the "carried interest" loophole?

    Don't know economics, don't use a carried interest loophole (whatever it is), don't give a flying fig about what President Trump does with it..

    The simple fact is, President Trump has been doing a bang up job of restoring American prestige, confidence and honor around the globe...

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    I have often said that my ideas do not come from out in left field, they come from outside the stadium, across the parking and on the sidewalk on the other side of the street.

    Here is the problem I have with "One Demand" - it requires a different species than the one we are dealing with.

    Sadly, the real world is populated by Homo sapiens sapiens - very much a self serving name. The world required to make "One Demand" work requires a different species: Homo give-a-damn. From even before Juvenal's "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses) and on to today's Kardashians we have shown that the current species is sadly unable to think rationally.

  111. [111] 
    altohone wrote:

    91, 94

    Less than 10% and greater than 90% are the same thing.

    One must ignore the qualifier in the comment to take umbrage.

    Don and others used the 10% claim without the qualifier. Perhaps that is from where the anger arises?

    Liz- How long does practice last?

    A

  112. [112] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    And the comparisons between NOT-45 and Hitler are ALSO valid as well...

    about having fingers and toes? if one's goal is to point out that both hitler and hillary are land mammals, then sure.

    the point of godwin's law wasn't that all hitler comparisons are invalid, just the ones that have nothing to do with hitler. donald had a book written by hitler, kept it by his bed, and copied hitler's propaganda techniques. from the book. by hitler. it's not rocket surgery ;p

    JL

  113. [113] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    110

    Citizens United is a recent upending of previously agreed restrictions.

    Those working against those restrictions (including undermining pre-CU limits like some of the efforts at the state level) have gained the upper hand.

    But our history suggests that at least a slightly more rational system for campaign finance can gain sufficient public support.

    Neither party (one party pays lip service to the idea) currently supporting those efforts does make it more difficult.

    That said, the recent change by the DNC to eliminate the weak corporate/lobbyist restrictions which Obama had implemented is a step in the wrong direction, but there are currently six members of Congress who refuse corporate and PAC money, and two of them are Republicans.

    It's not our species... it's the sub-species Homo sapiens corruptus that too many voters believe must be tolerated... and the source... the virulent species altering disease that can infect normal humans over time that must be guarded against.

    All very difficult to be sure, but that's no reason not to try.

    A

  114. [114] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil and anyone interested in UK politics

    I found this very interesting

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18947:Britain%27s-Labour-Party-Leader-Undermined-by-Labour-Members-of-Parliament

    part 1 and 2 run together

    One of the things mentioned that US corporate media has not covered is that Theresa May currently enjoys a 10 seat majority, but that 25 members of the Conservatives are being prosecuted for violating campaign finance laws.

    They note that without that cheating, the referendum for Brexit may never have occurred and that the prosecutions may be the reason May violated her promise not to call a snap election.

    They also talk about the far more strict campaign finance laws in the UK, which goes back to the human nature/flawed species comment you made... if people in the UK can do it, so can we.

    And, I'm a little rusty on the nomenclature, but I think technically my comment above should be amended to Homo sapiens sapiens v. corruptus or something like that.

    Sorry Liz, I'm on my way out and don't have time to edit to stay within the rules.

    A

  115. [115] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    neilm-
    Unfortunately, as this point almost all the evidence suggests you are right about the inability of people to think rationally.
    The problem I have with that argument is that usually the people that say it (not necessarily you) often then turn around and say that the exact same things that people need to do that won't work with One Demand will work to elect or influence the corporate politicians, overturn Citizen's United, etc.

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Less than 10% and greater than 90% are the same thing.

    Yes it is..

    But the claim was that the actual number, which is 2%, would be newsworthy..

    Obviously that claim is bull-carp...

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    about having fingers and toes? if one's goal is to point out that both hitler and hillary are land mammals, then sure.

    And if one wants to make the point that leaders use high sounding rhetoric, then ya'all's goal is achieved..

    But to make the leap from using high sounding rhetoric to being the cause of 10 million dead...??

    That's a leap that is completely and utterly ridiculous and SOLELY based on Party zealotry..

    the point of godwin's law wasn't that all hitler comparisons are invalid,

    Yes, that is EXACTLY the point of the godwin law...

    Because, unless the comparison-ee is someone who HAS been responsible for the brutal death of 10 million people, the comparison IS invalid...

    And the *FACT* that the comparison is borne SOLELY and COMPLETELY from Party fanaticism ALSO indicates that the comparison is invalid..

    donald had a book written by hitler, kept it by his bed, and copied hitler's propaganda techniques. from the book. by hitler. it's not rocket surgery ;p

    That's like saying, since NOT-45 praised and worked with Robert Byrd, NOT-45 is a flaming KKK'er racist...

    Anyone want to concede that???

    Of course not.....

    There are certain factors common to all great leaders... The fact that SOME of those leaders turned out to be NOT so great, downright diabolical, is a testament to THEM and them alone, NOT to the qualities...

    Give an example of a leadership quality that President Trump shares with Hitler and one can tie that exact same quality into a great Democrat leader....

    The idea that the trait itself is fully, completely and unequivocally indicative of a Hitler-esque outcome??

    Well, that's hysteria that, frankly, is beneath a respected founder of Weigantia....

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    93

    NOT-45 has two arms and two legs. Just like Hitler...

    NOT-45 has a nose and a mouth. Just like Hitler...

    NOT-45 has ten fingers and ten toes. Just like Hitler.

    Choosing to post several straw man arguments containing deflection is weak tea but not at all unexpected from this poster. Deflection, whataboutism, and the straw man argument are handy tools when the contents of a post are true and can't be refuted.

    People wonder what happened to calm, rational, non-hysterical political discourse??

    THAT is what happened to it..

    The Left Wingery killed it...

    There's nothing hysterical contained in the post. It was written calmly and rationally based on facts that are easily seen when one chooses to stop rolling their eyes and actually compare the views of the subjects of the post. Anyone that wants to dispute the similarities would be much better served by actually discussing them versus deflecting to another entirely different person and inferring the poster is hysterical.

    One does not have to be a member of the left wing in order to see the similarities between the rhetoric of Hitler and Drumpf. Indeed, one does not even have to be a voter or an American for that matter. :)

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    112

    about having fingers and toes? if one's goal is to point out that both hitler and hillary are land mammals, then sure.

    Hitler was a defective land mammal, being that he only had one testicle and was afflicted with unilateral cryptorchidism. It seems these demagogue types often have testosterone issues.

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    Choosing to post several straw man arguments containing deflection is weak tea but not at all unexpected from this poster. Deflection, whataboutism, and the straw man argument are handy tools when the contents of a post are true and can't be refuted.

    The arguments posted were identical straw-man arguments to the exact same kind of straw-man arguments that were posted that prompted the second straw-man arguments..

    There's nothing hysterical contained in the post.

    Comparing President Trump to Hitler *IS* hysterical, no matter how it is spun...

    One does not have to be a member of the left wing in order to see the similarities between the rhetoric of Hitler and Drumpf.

    No.. One just has to be a Party fanatic or zealot...

    Anyone that wants to dispute the similarities would be much better served by actually discussing them versus deflecting to another entirely different person and inferring the poster is hysterical.

    The fact of the matter is that those similarities are ALSO shared by FDR, Ronald Reagan, Obama, JFK, General George Patton, General Mattis, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Abraham Lincoln and a host of other leaders..

    By drawing on the Hitler analogy, the persons making that argument is simply relying on hysterical emotionalism with out an iota of relevant fact...

  121. [121] 
    neilm wrote:

    The problem I have with that argument is that usually the people that say it (not necessarily you) often then turn around and say that the exact same things that people need to do that won't work with One Demand will work to elect or influence the corporate politicians, overturn Citizen's United, etc.

    This is the root of the problem. "One Demand" would work fine in an environment where citizens were actively engaged in the political process and able to act - Venezuelan citizens would probably jump at the chance to engage in "One Demand" - however they do not have the ability to do so. Our population can act in their own interests but choose to be complacent instead - most don't even bother to vote at all, even once ever four years.

    This is why Altohone missed my point on the species - it isn't Homo sapiens corruptus that is the problem - if we were all Homo sapiens corruptus we'd be engaged to make sure we were getting our unfair slice of the pie to the point that everybody would get equal amounts, to the limit of their ability. It is Homo sapiens apatheticus that is the problem.

  122. [122] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's like saying, since NOT-45 praised and worked with Robert Byrd, NOT-45 is a flaming KKK'er racist...

    it's not even a little bit like saying that. hillary didn't use the kkk's methods. donald did use hitler's methods. he didn't use them to mass murder anyone, thank goodness, but there's still a very real danger inherent in unleashing nativist propaganda on a society desperate for change - especially the kind of propaganda found in the pages of 'My New Order.'

    If we fulfill our own greatness, that will all be ended. Working together.
    john gill, star trek - patterns of force

  123. [123] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Comparing President Trump to Hitler *IS* hysterical, no matter how it is spun...

    if donald didn't want to be compared to hitler, he shouldn't have copied his speeches.

    SPOCK: Captain, I never will understand humans. How could a man as brilliant, a mind as logical as John Gill's, have made such a fatal error?

    KIRK: He drew the wrong conclusion from history. The problem with the Nazis wasn't simply that their leaders were evil, psychotic men. They were, but the main problem, I think, was the leader principle.

    MCCOY: What he's saying, Spock, is that a man who holds that much power, even with the best intentions, just can't resist the urge to play God.

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    OK, let's lay your cards on the table..

    Understanding that it is an opinion only...

    Is President Trump capable of ordering the deaths of 6 million innocent men, women and children..

    YES or NO... No mamby pamby depends-what-the-definition-of-is-is equivocation..

    YES or NO...

    If the answer is YES, then there is absolutely NO HOPE of having a rational conversation with you ever again...

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    119

    The arguments posted were identical straw-man arguments to the exact same kind of straw-man arguments that were posted that prompted the second straw-man arguments..

    Checking the definition of "identical" and "straw man," one can easily determine the fallacy of this poster. My post asserted multiple facts:

    1. Trump, just as Hitler did, blames the nation's problems on the "others" and their corruption of the nation's ruling political elite.

    2. Trump, just as Hitler did, promises to round up "outsiders" and expel them.

    3. Trump, just as Hitler did, claims he "alone" can save the nation.

    4. I could go on, but those are a few of the main points.

    All of those are facts. Facts and straw man arguments are two different things. If anyone would care to dispute what is contained in the post, by all means, have at it.

    Comparing President Trump to Hitler *IS* hysterical, no matter how it is spun...

    It wasn't "spun." Rhetoric was posted that Hitler and Trump both utilize(d). Those are facts. Berating posters for posting facts doesn't change those facts. Finding political rhetoric of two people to be similar isn't hysterical.

    One just has to be a Party fanatic or zealot...

    Nonsense. One can compare two people's rhetoric without belonging to any party. Trump can change his party multiple times, but it doesn't change the fact that he's been a con artist for decades... it really doesn't matter what party he's claiming this year. The jumping from party to party is pure opportunism and knowing which voters would be amenable to your rhetoric. The BS and con job that Trump is spewing would never be tolerated in the Party to which he belonged the majority of his life... thus the necessity to relabel himself. A good con knows who his target is and adjusts his rhetoric accordingly. Despite Trump telling the gullible masses that he never knew he was going to run for president, the lying opportunist had already made a short run on the Reform Party ticket of Ross Perot. Trump's party hopping and the fact that he's a con regardless of which party he's claiming lately has been discussed on this board ad nauseam.

    The fact of the matter is that those similarities are ALSO shared by FDR, Ronald Reagan, Obama, JFK, General George Patton, General Mattis, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Abraham Lincoln and a host of other leaders..

    No, they're not. I posted very specific rhetoric that Hitler and Trump both employed as candidates/leaders of their respective countries. Did Patton, Mattis, or Schwarzkopf have campaign rhetoric? Which one of the presidents you listed above ever campaigned that he "alone" could save the nation? Hitler did. Trump did and does. Which one of the leaders above ever promised to round up "outsiders" and expel them? Hitler did. Trump did and does.

    By drawing on the Hitler analogy, the persons making that argument is simply relying on hysterical emotionalism with out an iota of relevant fact...

    Perhaps the emotionalism is on the other end of the post because it certainly wasn't posted on my end in that manner... simply a comment to another poster regarding Trump's bedside reading and a comparison of Trump's rhetoric to the very specific rhetoric contained in the speeches in the book at the bedside which was posted in answer to JL because he made a very good point.

    Anyone who wishes to dispute the very specific facts posted should endeavor to do so versus flailing miserably to discredit the posters who posted those very specific factual comparisons.

    I'm sure we're all acutely aware that facts can be such inconvenient things. :)

  126. [126] 
    michale wrote:

    1. Trump, just as Hitler did, blames the nation's problems on the "others" and their corruption of the nation's ruling political elite.

    Sanders and Clinton blamed the nations problems on "others" and their corruption, just like Trump and Hitler did..

    2. Trump, just as Hitler did, promises to round up "outsiders" and expel them.

    Sanders and Clinton and Obama promised to round up all the "fatcats" and squeeze them for more money...

    3. Trump, just as Hitler did, claims he "alone" can save the nation.

    Clinton and Sanders claimed that they alone could have saved the nation..

    See the point??

    No matter WHAT Trump is accused of, the SAME case can be made with Clinton AND Sanders..

    But I get it... You suffer from PTDS... So, of course your hysterical rhetoric looks completely rational to you...

    But ANYONE who has an objective brain cell in their body will tell you that comparing a President to such a despicable and disgusting human being such as Hitler is a sure sign of derangement brought about by Party slavery....

    Yea, I know, I know... I used 'I' and 'YOU' and 'Slavery'...

    That's because I fully expect Joshua to answer YES to #123 which will be my cue to move on...

    So, I figured one last hurrah....

  127. [127] 
    michale wrote:

    Now, if you want to compare President Trump to FDR who rounded up American Citizens and put them in concentration camps, then you might have an argument..

    But, of course, no one here will make THAT argument because FDR had a -D after his name....

  128. [128] 
    michale wrote:

    But, of course, no one here will make THAT argument because FDR had a -D after his name....

    Which simply proves beyond ANY doubt that the claims that President Trump = Hitler are *NOTHING* more than hysterical zealotry brought about by ideological/Party fanaticism...

  129. [129] 
    michale wrote:

    OK, let's lay your cards on the table..

    Since I asked, it's only fair that I show you mine..

    *ANYONE* who thinks that President Trump is another Hitler is so consumed by Party fanaticism and ideological slavery that it will simply be IMPOSSIBLE to take that person seriously on ANY and ALL conversations henceforth...

  130. [130] 
    altohone wrote:

    116

    In other words, if CW's number was accurate, the number in my comment was dead on balz accurate too unlike the earlier assertions to the contrary.

    But using the polling information (which has been a common subject of derision for inaccuracy in your comments, and does not constitute "facts") that was provided after my comment was made, the assertion is now just that the newsworthiness claim is false.

    Many would disagree with that opinion.
    If Obama's activists had vocally denounced his betrayals three months into his presidency, and if the dissatisfaction had been reported in the media, not only could it have had a positive influence on policy and been good for the country, but it may also have prevented some of the problems his party later faced.

    Putting the shoe on the other foot, paying attention to such things would be wise.
    Even at just 2%, this represents over a million people, and vocal minorities tend to have an outsized influence.

    In this case, adherence to the wishes of that vocal minority would not all be positive, though non-interventionism, maintaining online privacy and reigning in Wall Street would in my opinion be hugely positive... and back during the campaign, you used to agree on two of those issues and touted them as a positive for Trump.

    That said, I don't buy your characterization of Hillary... and the polling about a re-running of a campaign involving the two least popular and least trustworthy candidates EVER says more about the lousy choices than anything else... and I don't fault Trump supporters for still not preferring Hillary, because I wouldn't trust her to protect online privacy or reign in Wall Street, and she was and continues to be itching for even more interventionism.

    No doubt that last sentence will piss off some Democrats.

    A

  131. [131] 
    altohone wrote:

    neil
    120

    "This is why Altohone missed my point on the species - it isn't Homo sapiens corruptus that is the problem - if we were all Homo sapiens corruptus we'd be engaged to make sure we were getting our unfair slice of the pie to the point that everybody would get equal amounts, to the limit of their ability. It is Homo sapiens apatheticus that is the problem."

    There is certainly much truth in the problem of the apathetic. However, the corrupt not only help create that apathy (by funding candidates who will maintain the status quo which you could argue makes them the most engaged), they actively encourage it. The fewer voters there are participating, the easier it is for them to control the outcome in their favor.

    Hillary spent millions trying to win over Republicans rather than trying to engage the apathetic.

    The corrupt represent a very small minority, and they are most certainly the major part of the problem.

    And everybody being corrupt wouldn't decrease apathy.

    A

  132. [132] 
    michale wrote:

    and I don't fault Trump supporters for still not preferring Hillary,

    But the point is not that Trump supporters STILL prefer Trump over NOT-45..

    The point is that Trump has GAINED supporters and NOT-45 has LOST supporters.. This is evidenced by the poll shows that Trump would win the Vanity Vote as well as the Electoral Vote...

    No matter how you want to spin it, President Trump is continuing to rise and NOT-45 is continuing to fall..

    No doubt that last sentence will piss off ALL Weigantians.. :D

  133. [133] 
    altohone wrote:

    126

    "Now, if you want to compare President Trump to FDR who rounded up American Citizens and put them in concentration camps, then you might have an argument..
    But, of course, no one here will make THAT argument because FDR had a -D after his name...."

    Jumping into this conversation...

    The closest accurate comparison to Hitler in recent US history would be Bush the Lessor.

    I worry a great deal about Trump being worse, but I also know our resident trumpling isn't completely wrong about Democrats... the legality issues and consequences of Yemen, Syria, Libya and drone warfare under Obama can't be ignored, and stretching back to Vietnam almost every US president has ordered or enabled war crimes to occur.

    But back to Bush, the last time the US lied about chemical weapons (and acted upon it), it resulted in the war crime of an illegal war of aggression against Iraq that caused the deaths of over a million people, millions of refugees, wasted trillions, massive destruction and horrible, ongoing consequences.
    (and implementing torture as US policy sure adds to the comparison)

    That is the main reason why I am amazed and dismayed about the lack of skepticism among Democrats about the more recent claims about chemical weapons in Syria, despite the reliance on "evidence" from sources who aren't credible.

    A

  134. [134] 
    altohone wrote:

    131

    Better than Hillary is not saying much.

    And your newfound confidence in polling has been noted.

    A

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    125

    Sanders and Clinton blamed the nations problems on "others" and their corruption, just like Trump and Hitler did..

    Oversimplification on the poster's part and doesn't fit with the fact as posted. When did Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton infer that Obama didn't want to release his birth certificate because it might show he was a Muslim? Trump hit that theme many times, once saying: "He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim." The "othering" of Obama and suggesting he is sympathetic to terrorists is Trump's handiwork. When did Bernie claim that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the founders of ISIS? Trump did.

    Sanders and Clinton and Obama promised to round up all the "fatcats" and squeeze them for more money...

    Again, oversimplification. Raising taxes on the rich and rounding up the "others" you demonize on a regular basis and banning them and expelling them from the country are two different things.

    Clinton and Sanders claimed that they alone could have saved the nation..

    Cite? Neither of them claimed they "alone" could fix the nation or infer that they were the only one who could.

    Bernie nor Hillary ran campaign ads saying anything like Trump's that said: "Donald Trump will protect you. He is the only one who can."

    See the point??

    No matter WHAT Trump is accused of, the SAME case can be made with Clinton AND Sanders..

    No, the "SAME" case can't be made using comparisons that are oversimplified.

    But I get it... You suffer from PTDS... So, of course your hysterical rhetoric looks completely rational to you...

    Flailing at other posters doesn't change very specific facts that are inconvenient.

    But ANYONE who has an objective brain cell in their body will tell you that comparing a President to such a despicable and disgusting human being such as Hitler is a sure sign of derangement brought about by Party slavery....

    I wasn't comparing Trump to the man Hitler became. I was simply comparing Trump's campaign rhetoric and speeches to those of Hitler that Trump kept at his bedside because JL makes a valid point that they are strikingly similar. The inconvenient truth.

    That's because I fully expect Joshua to answer YES to #123 which will be my cue to move on...

    So, I figured one last hurrah....

    So props to Trump for ending a debate on these boards by admitting he is a globalist. The evidence was there despite his rhetoric... so nice of him to confirm it for the gullible masses who insisted he'd "evolved." He's a globalist... always has been. The nationalism is something new to him... necessary new rhetoric... all part of the con.

    “Hey, I’m a nationalist and a globalist,” President Trump said. “I’m both. And I’m the only one who makes the decision, believe me.”

    Yes… Believe him.

    Who knew? Anyone who was paying attention to Trump and his decades of history. Everyone knows 70-year-old men don't change their long-held globalist views overnight. :)

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    126

    But, of course, no one here will make THAT argument because FDR had a -D after his name....

    FDR has been criticized on this board before... recently too. So the BS above is utter nonsense.

  137. [137] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Is President Trump capable of ordering the deaths of 6 million innocent men, women and children..

    no.

    but others in authority could commit crimes against humanity in trump's name, using his words to justify their actions. i refer you back to 'patterns of force'

    Go to the booth. See to the Fuhrer at once. He's ill. Turn off that camera.
    ~Melakon

  138. [138] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    128

    *ANYONE* who thinks that President Trump is another Hitler is so consumed by Party fanaticism and ideological slavery that it will simply be IMPOSSIBLE to take that person seriously on ANY and ALL conversations henceforth...

    Injecting the emotional tone to the conversation is this poster's handiwork. The discussion between this poster and JL wasn't about anyone being "another Hitler" (that's not scientifically possible when considering Hitler's history and demise... meaning there can be no clones). The discussion was simply the book of speeches that Trump kept at his bedside and how Trump's political rhetoric was similar to that of the speeches by Hitler (contained in Trump's book).

    Anyone who read anything more into those posts is simply hijacking and conflating posts into an emotional argument of their own making, and the party bigotry BS was introduced by the same source from whence it usually comes.

  139. [139] 
    michale wrote:

    Better than Hillary is not saying much.

    Agreed..

    And your newfound confidence in polling has been noted.

    My confidence, or in this case, lack thereof, is consistent...

    I only use polls because everyone else here places their absolute faith in polls..

    At least, the polls that says what they want to hear...

  140. [140] 
    michale wrote:

    FDR has been criticized on this board before... recently too. So the BS above is utter nonsense.

    Cite???

    And, has FDR been compared to Hitler???

    I mean, BOTH put their own citizens in concentration camps..

    So, if you can find me a cite where one of ya'all compared FDR to Hitler, you will have an argument..

    But you can't, so you don't..

    Injecting the emotional tone to the conversation is this poster's handiwork. The discussion between this poster and JL wasn't about anyone being "another Hitler" (that's not scientifically possible when considering Hitler's history and demise... meaning there can be no clones). The discussion was simply the book of speeches that Trump kept at his bedside and how Trump's political rhetoric was similar to that of the speeches by Hitler (contained in Trump's book).

    EXACTLY...

    Ergo, the ONLY reason that someone would compare President Trump to Hitler would be to invoke a hysterical emotional response against President Trump...

    Since you seem to be saying that you don't think that President Trump could act like another Hitler, insofar as ordering the brutal murder of 6 million innocent men, women and children, there is absolutely NO REASON to compare President Trump to Hitler except to invoke a hysterical emotional response against President Trump..

    For without the brutality of Hitler's actions in ordering the deaths of 6 million innocent men, women and children, all you have is a 3rd rate tin plated dictator with delusions of god-hood...

    So, why not compare President Trump to any old 3rd rate tin plated dictator with delusions of god-hood..

    Because such a comparison will not invoke the hysterical emotional response against President Trump that you desire...

    "Simple logic."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

  141. [141] 
    michale wrote:

    JL,

    Is President Trump capable of ordering the deaths of 6 million innocent men, women and children..

    no.

    Well, carp..

    I am surprised, heartened and disappointed, all at once..

    But, since you do agree that President Trump is incapable of ordering the brutal murders of six million innocent men, women and children, then my argument above, applies as well...

    There is no reason to compare President Trump to Hitler except to invoke a hysterical, emotional and INACCURATE response against President Trump...

    And, since it looks like someone will actually be hanging around a little longer, said one will have to go back to the game.. :D

    And apologize for the slavery invocation...

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    129

    In other words, if CW's number was accurate, the number in my comment was dead on balz accurate too unlike the earlier assertions to the contrary.

    Hey, Punk! "Balz" is misspelled there. It's B-A-L-L-Z. Two L's, unless you're talking about Hitler... then it's one "L" because Hitler had right-sided cryptorchidism and only had one bal.

    Meds! ;)

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    129

    Putting the shoe on the other foot, paying attention to such things would be wise.
    Even at just 2%, this represents over a million people, and vocal minorities tend to have an outsized influence.

    Now, the previous post by yours truly was just funning you, but here's the commentary about what is copied above. Total FACT! Why would 2% matter?

    Pennsylvania - 20 EV - MOV around 3/4 of 1%
    Michigan..,.... - 16 EV - MOV around 1/4 of 1%
    Wisconsin..... - 10 EV - MOV around 3/4 of 1%

    That's 46 EVs that were awarded in three states where the margin of victory was less than 1%. Surely one can see how a small shift is worth a mention when subtraction of those 46 EVs gives one a different election outcome, wouldn't one think?

    VOTE TOTALS
    Pennsylvania
    DJT - 2,970,733
    HRC - 2,926,441

    Michigan
    DJT - 2,279,543
    HRC - 2,268,839

    Wisconsin
    DJT - 1,405,284
    HRC - 1,382,536

    Subtract those "inconsequential" 2% from DJT's vote totals in those states, and explain why anyone with the ability to perform simple math would think that even a 2% reduction in Trump voters wouldn't merit a little mention. :)

    Meds!

  144. [144] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    There is no reason to compare President Trump to Hitler except to invoke a hysterical, emotional and INACCURATE response against President Trump...

    trump is not being compared to hitler overall, at least not by me. he has not advocated for genocide, and has in fact responded forcefully to try to prevent genocide. however, it is an emotionally sobering and completely accurate analysis that trump's speeches are derivative of hitler's speeches. he doesn't have to be like hitler in any other way for that to be dangerous.

    JL

  145. [145] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    139

    I mean, BOTH put their own citizens in concentration camps..

    So, if you can find me a cite where one of ya'all compared FDR to Hitler, you will have an argument..

    But you can't, so you don't..

    That's not a fair comparison since we were comparing speeches. I don't believe we have compared FDR's speeches to Hitler's, but then FDR didn't keep a book of Adolf's speeches by his bedside (as far as I know).

    FDR: So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

    Hitler's speeches were full of terror and demonizing of the "others" and stating that Hitler alone could fix the problems of Germany. One is free to research them and compare them to both Trump's and FDR's speeches... wherein one will find similarities to the former.

    Ergo, the ONLY reason that someone would compare President Trump to Hitler would be to invoke a hysterical emotional response against President Trump...

    BS. The straw man argument won't fly here. That emotional BS is michale's handiwork. JL brought up the similarities in the speeches, and my response was regarding the similarities in their speeches. Projecting the emotional BS onto it and conflating it into a straw man argument in order to knock it down was michale's handiwork and nothing more.

    Since you seem to be saying that you don't think that President Trump could act like another Hitler, insofar as ordering the brutal murder of 6 million innocent men, women and children, there is absolutely NO REASON to compare President Trump to Hitler except to invoke a hysterical emotional response against President Trump..

    We compared the speeches... nothing more. Our posts said nothing about "the brutal murder of 6 million" blah, blah, blah. That emotional BS was michale's handiwork. The conflating is pathetic and hysterical and a straw man argument and has nothing to do with our posts.

    For without the brutality of Hitler's actions in ordering the deaths of 6 million innocent men, women and children, all you have is a 3rd rate tin plated dictator with delusions of god-hood...

    Trump has a book of speeches by Hitler that he used to keep at his bedside and read. Trump has several elements in his rhetoric that resembles the rhetoric from that book of Hitler's speeches. Anything beyond those facts are hysterics and emotional baggage that michale added in order to create a straw man argument easier to knock down.

    So, why not compare President Trump to any old 3rd rate tin plated dictator with delusions of god-hood..

    Because JL correctly pointed out that Trump's bedside book was a book of speeches by Hitler and that Trump's speeches resembled Hitler's speeches. Reading anything more into it is not our handiwork.

    Because such a comparison will not invoke the hysterical emotional response against President Trump that you desire...

    Michale's hysterical emotional response is one of his own making. Kick agreeing with the subject matter posted by JL has nothing to do with anything but the speeches. JL brought up a good point to which agreement following in my response. It really wasn't about anything beyond that. Anyone taking that personal and getting emotional and hysterical is not our problem. It's Trump's book and Trump's rhetoric; neither of us chose Trump's reading material nor his rhetoric.

    "Simple logic."
    -Admiral James T Kirk

    It really is "simple" when you realize that someone here has hijacked a post in order to project their trollish behavior onto other posters. The one with the trollish behavior would naturally think that other posters were posting for the same reasons he does... which couldn't be further from the truth. Trolls do tend to think everything is about them... especially certain trolls. :)

  146. [146] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    143

    trump is not being compared to hitler overall, at least not by me.

    Neither me nor JL compared Trump to Hitler overall... simply discussed the similarity of their political rhetoric. Anyone reading the thread can plainly see that.

    however, it is an emotionally sobering and completely accurate analysis that trump's speeches are derivative of hitler's speeches. he doesn't have to be like hitler in any other way for that to be dangerous.

    Some facts are inconvenient, JL. The speeches are similar and contain some of the same rhetoric... anything beyond that is nothing we discussed.

    If forced to choose a world leader whom Trump most resembled, speeches notwithstanding, Hitler would not remotely be my choice... that would be Mussolini.

  147. [147] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Biden is going to run in 2020 he will need to start his announcement speech now in order to finish by 2020.

    Very funny, Don.

    In point of fact, it has been my experience that when Biden speaks, people who listen actually learn something.

    How many politicians or would-be politicians can one say that about?

  148. [148] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    It is somewhat distressing that the Trump presidency, particularly if it lasts a full term, will lead too many to believe that any celebrity can run for president.

    What is truly sad is how politics has gone from being seen as an honourable profession to something far lesser than that, even by people who used to call themselves cockeyed optimists or at least not susceptible to extreme cynicism.

  149. [149] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Practice time has now officially ended. But, we're all going to need more time to get used to it.

    And, the whole point was to cut down on the name-calling and otherwise disrespectful discourse. So, if we slip up but our comments remain considerate of others, then that would not necessarily mean we have broken the rule.

  150. [150] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    So, I figured one last hurrah....

    And, you were doing so well! :)

    Seriously, this can work! It's already made a big difference and that make this Weigantian very, very happy. :)

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Take it easy on those meds, eh?

    And, don't mix any of them with alcohol, for God's sake!

  152. [152] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    141

    Way to keep your eyes on the ball!

    142

    That's a very good point, but the post-election circumstances drew the focus elsewhere.

    A

  153. [153] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    148

    OK.
    A restating of the complete rules would be nice too since there was some discussion of variables, and it is thus a responsibility of the game master to which this comment is addressed.

    In the spirit of the game, but not to add to the rules, it would be nice if there was condemnation or some sort of reaction for false accusations and lying used in lieu of factual reasoning that is pointed out accurately... even when one disagrees about the subject under discussion.

    That should be a concern of all hoping for less disrespectful discourse.

    A

  154. [154] 
    michale wrote:

    In other words, ya'all are going to continue to compare President Trump to Hitler, even though you concede that President Trump is NOTHING like what made Hitler, Hitler..

    That's close enough to being hysterically enslaved by Party dogma and ideology...

    And as I watched you with your new love
    I haven't see you that happy in years
    We've drifted so far apart and it's hard to admit it
    But there's nothing left for {me} here

    -Lorrie Morgan, I GUESS YOU HAD TO BE THERE

  155. [155] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In other words, ya'all are going to continue to compare President Trump to Hitler, even though you concede that President Trump is NOTHING like what made Hitler, Hitler..

    systematic genocide was not hitler's only defining characteristic. that was the last step in a long sequence of nativist philosophy and escalating political abuses. not believing that donald would do all that hitler did, does not make inconsequential those elements in his speeches that are similar to hitler, and most likely borrowed directly from the book he kept by his bed, which was written by hitler. the only individual responsible for selecting donald's night-time reading material and choosing what sort of rhetoric to espouse in his speeches is donald himself.

    JL

  156. [156] 
    michale wrote:

    systematic genocide was not hitler's only defining characteristic.

    But it's the ONLY characteristic that makes Hitler Hitler.. And it's the ONLY characteristic that makes Hitler so widely known..

    Without the systematic genocide, Hitler would be just a run o the mill world leader who lead his country as "the most efficient state Earth had ever known.....

    "Most efficient state... Earth ever knew."
    "Quite true, Captain. That tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated; rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination."

    -STAR TREK, Patterns Of Force

    No different than any other despot like that scumbag in Venezuala.. Why don't you compare President Trump to him??

    Because THAT scumbag doesn't invoke the Holocaust like Hitler does..

    Let's face reality, JL... The ONLY reason to invoke the Hitler comparison is to link President Trump with the Holocaust... Just like the Left does with those who don't buy into the SKY IS FALLING fanaticism... They are "deniers", invoking, comparing and linking the denial of the Holocaust...

    It's a common Left Wingery trait...

    You have a moral problem with me linking and comparing ya'all's Party zealotry and fanaticism to slavery...

    Yet your comparison of President Trump with Hitler is no different than the comparison of ya'all's Party fanaticism to slavery....

    FDR is more like Hitler than President Trump is.. Yet *NO ONE* here has compared FDR to Hitler..

    Why?? Because Party slavery forbids it...

    I simply cannot fathom having a rational conversation with a group of people who are so far off the reservation that they, either by commission or omission, would think that President Trump is Hitler...

    It would like someone saying that Obama is a child-raping pedophile because he has made statements similar to what the prophet Muhammed has made.. Or that Bernie Sanders is a child-raping pedophile because he has made statements similar to what Mao Zedong has made....

    Could you HONESTLY see yourself having a rational conversation with someone who made such ludicrous and perverse comparisons???

    Of course you couldn't...

    So it is with me.. It's simply not possible to have any rational conversation with someone or someones who has completely, utterly and unequivocally left reality behind and has become consumed by ideology that they simply cannot discuss ANYTHING rationally...

    I honestly and truly have better things to do than to waste my time and try to have rational and civilized conversations with people so far off the reservation...

    As I said.. There is nothing left for me here...

  157. [157] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    But it's the ONLY characteristic that makes Hitler Hitler

    no, it is not. there are other genocides in history that are just as grisly and killed millions of people - some even more than the holocaust, depending on how one measures. mass genocide was only one of the multiple factors that made hitler who he was.

    The ONLY reason to invoke the Hitler comparison is to link President Trump with the Holocaust

    that is not the case in general, and it is certainly not the case now specifically. if donald had learned his propaganda from karl marx, FDR or benjamin disraeli, then it would be their speeches we would be comparing. donald chose hitler for his bedtime reading and as a model for his rhetoric, so that's who we're discussing. anyone who finds that fact uncomfortable can take it up with the reader.

    JL

  158. [158] 
    altohone wrote:

    155

    Hitler's wars of aggression killed four times as many people as the Holocaust.

    The political tactics that were used that allowed him to get to the point where he could carry out both his wars and his genocide can't be ignored in an honest comparison.

    And an illegal war of aggression in Iran alone could result in the deaths of more innocent people than Hitler's atrocities combined, and anybody who doesn't believe Trump is fully capable of issuing the order for such a war is not rational.

    When the threat is officially on the table, and Trump has surrounded himself with people who have actively encouraged such a war, you can't pretend it isn't possible...

    ... just as it would have been with Hillary.

    A

  159. [159] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yet your comparison of President Trump with Hitler is no different than the comparison of ya'all's Party fanaticism to slavery....

    it's absolutely different - the former is factually true, while the latter is factually false. donald trump owned a book by hitler, and copied its rhetoric. to my knowledge, no weigantian has ever copied the ideas of jefferson davis or espoused the philosophy of a state's right to legalize human trafficking.

    These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed.

    JL

  160. [160] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Leo Strauss evidently coined the term reductio ad Hitlerum shortly after the end of WWII. The internet has led to the discovery of Goodwin's law.

    I'm watching for the onset among the base -it's already among the CoC Republicans- of reductio ad Hillerium.
    When larger factions in the base retreat to "Just think about how much worse it would be with Hillery," that's when the trouble begins.

    As an aside, the word "Hitler" appears 132 times in the comments on this page.

  161. [161] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    150

    Take it easy on those meds, eh?

    Yes! Cutting them in half is mandatory; for some reason, alcohol and pills really do a number... such a cheap date... one drink and crazy! :)

    And, don't mix any of them with alcohol, for God's sake!

    Would never do that! It would lay me <----{eeek!} out cold.

    It's fairly easy not to say "eye" and "ewe" (mostly, with the occasional slip), but not being able to say "me" is a real "killer"!

    Heh, this exercise gives new meaning to Melizabeth Killer. :)

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    151

    Way to keep your eyes on the ball!

    Oh, my... but we are a clever punk! :)

    That's a very good point, but the post-election circumstances drew the focus elsewhere.

    The 2016 presidential election was simply used to educate any trumpling (borrowing your word) who thinks that a 2% loss of voters is inconsequential. President Pathological keeps telling his minions how he won in a landslide when the fact is that he won multiple states by less than 1% margin of victory... the difference in Michigan being merely 2 voters per precinct.

    Under those circumstances, even a small shift could cause a seismic event. Heh!

  163. [163] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    155

    But it's the ONLY characteristic that makes Hitler Hitler.. And it's the ONLY characteristic that makes Hitler so widely known..

    So... he was being factual when he said he wasn't a "history buff" because otherwise he wouldn't remotely say something like what was quoted above.

    Without the systematic genocide, Hitler would be just a run o the mill world leader who lead his country as "the most efficient state Earth had ever known.....

    So really NOT a history buff and probably not very well educated to boot to say something like that!

    Right off the top of my head... so not necessarily in chronological order:

    Mein Kampf
    The Nuremberg Laws
    The Summer Olympics in Berlin -- Jesse Owens
    Nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (late 1930s)
    Time Magazine's Man of the Year (late 1930s)
    The Bismarck
    The Hindenburg
    The Volkswagen -- designed by Porsche

    The Evian Conference convened in France by FDR in mid 1938. Regarding the conference, Hitler announced he would send the refugees out on luxury liners if other countries would take them in -- only 2 countries increased their quotas, the Dominican Republic and {?} can't remember the other... so the concentration camps began in late 1939.

    Seriously, look up the Evian Conference, I would guess that most people have no idea that Hitler allowed the Jews to leave and immigrate to other countries, and about 1/4 of them did so... but countries had quotas and wouldn't increase them and allow the refugees entry. In mid 1939 before the concentration camps began, a luxury liner with around 1,000 refugees sailed to Cuba and spent around a week trying to gain entry and were denied. They then sailed to the coast of Florida (heard of that, right?) and directly appealed to FDR for entry but were again denied. They finally gained entry in Europe... France, Belgium, the UK... because {I can't remember the name} a Jewish organization paid half a million dollars for someone to take them in. Of course, as Hitler invaded those nations later, many of them were killed where they had fled... because Cuba nor the United States would take them in.

    So... we're comparing the speeches okay... just the darn speeches. Some people are history buffs and/or studied history in the military or in college... history minors/majors... and that's all we're talking about... the similarity of the speeches of two people in history... nothing more.

    Crack a book, learn something historical, and then get over it.

    FDR is more like Hitler than President Trump is.. Yet *NO ONE* here has compared FDR to Hitler..

    Why?? Because Party slavery forbids it...

    For the thousandth time on this blog, michale has again referred to posters as slaves. Yet, maybe not thousands but at least hundreds of times have people on this board been referred to as slaves by him. Being called a slave over and over when some of us don't even belong to a party, and the guy he accuses us of "hating" because of his Party spent the majority of his pathetic life as a Democrat and praising Democrats, HRC included.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/

    Who cares what Party he's latched onto for political expediency this year? Anybody? The SOB wouldn't be any less of an SOB if he won the presidency as a Democrat. How many times must this be said for it to sink in? The fact is, Trump could never win as a Democrat, and that's no doubt why he changed both his Party and his rhetoric from the globalist he is... believe him... to the nationalist "voice of the people" socialist and changed his beliefs on a darned dime. Nice of him to admit he's a globalist the other day {like... Duh!}. Next thing you know, the SOB will be admitting he's a Democrat.

    Hey, A01... Punk and gang... now there's a way to get a third party started. Let Trump admit he's a Democrat who adopted the rhetoric he needed to get elected by the gullible masses using tailored rhetoric to appeal to their "nationalism" and watch how fast people flee the Democratic Party so as not to be associated with him. .. a Trump by any other Party name would have no less of a foul stench.

    Facts can be so inconvenient.

    It would like someone saying that Obama is a child-raping pedophile because he has made statements similar to what the prophet Muhammed has made.. Or that Bernie Sanders is a child-raping pedophile because he has made statements similar to what Mao Zedong has made....

    Why anyone discussing Mao would choose to discuss pedophilia versus the 78 million people Mao killed is a mystery. Pedophilia versus 78 million deaths when the age of consent in China today is 14 and not sure what it was in Mao's day, but he was born in the late 1800s and died in 1976, surely the laws were different in there somewhere so "pedophilia" is relative. Not making excuses for Mao by any stretch, but international law is complicated.

    Could you HONESTLY see yourself having a rational conversation with someone who made such ludicrous and perverse comparisons???

    Of course you couldn't...

    "Ludicrous and perverse comparisons"? Rational conversation? Like being called a "slave" when you've said many, many times that you belong to no Party? For some reason, bet JL can see that happening because he along with virtually every poster on this board has been referred to as a party slave hundreds if not thousands of times... individually, lumped into a group, labelled and dismissed because it's an easy argument repeated ad nauseam on this board by one person. So... no... it's not really hard to see having a conversation with someone who makes such perverse comparisons because we do it all the time. Rational conversations? How can one have a rational conversation with a poster who keeps calling virtually everyone a Party slave because they may not agree with that poster?

    I honestly and truly have better things to do than to waste my time and try to have rational and civilized conversations with people so far off the reservation...

    So the guy who calls us slaves all the time is the victim here because he takes issue when we discuss his orange idol's political rhetoric matching the books that guy chooses to read? Somebody call the waaaambulance. :)

  164. [164] 
    michale wrote:

    I keep coming back, hoping someone... ANYONE.... will say something to mitigate the utter perversity and disgusting-ness of the hysterical claims here..

    Sadly, it hasn't happened..

    that is not the case in general, and it is certainly not the case now specifically.

    Bullshit..

    Without the Holocaust, there is one of a multitude of dictators you could compare President Trump to..

    Pol Pot... Emperor Tito... Josef Stalin.... Idi Amin....

    But ya'all choose Hitler, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of the linkage to the Holocaust..

    And by choosing such linkage, you and Kick denigrate and disrespect each of those 6 millions jews that were brutally slaughtered by Hitler.. You and Kick make their brutal murders nothing but a throw away Party talking point, totally and completely divorced from reality......

    Frankly, if I had done something so despicable, I would be deeply ashamed...

    But that's speaking from a perspective of someone who is not enslaved by Party ideology and dogma...

    If I had told you 5 years ago that you would fully believe and endorse the idea that a freely, fairly and legally elected POTUS was another Hitler, you would have called me totally whacked...

    Don't bother denying it, because we both know it's true..

    And please.. Spare me the utter and total BULLSHIT that you weren't saying that President Trump was another Hitler. That you were simply saying that President Trump shares some of the same characteristics of Hitler..

    You didn't make that distinction when you first made the comparison..

    It was only when it was pointed out how disgusting and perverse the comparison was, did you and Kick back-pedal like crazy...

    Like I said, I had hoped some of the more rational ones would chime in and concede that the comparison was ridiculous and perverse...

    But, alas, those cooler heads are remaining silent, which forces me to consider the possibility that there ARE no more rational and cooler heads here.. That the entire community has acquired a scorching case of PTDS...

    I'll be checking in from time to time to see if cooler heads and more rational non-hysterical intellect will make it's presence known..

    I don't hold out much hope....

  165. [165] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    But ya'all choose Hitler, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of the linkage to the Holocaust..

    no, hitler was selected in [46] because the themes lifted from hitler's book are evidence that donald trump can and does read. no other direct evidence that donald is literate and reads books came to mind.

    Without the Holocaust, there is one of a multitude of dictators you could compare President Trump to..Pol Pot... Emperor Tito... Josef Stalin.... Idi Amin....

    none of whom wrote a book that donald owned and read. this point has been made and clarified well prior to this thread.

    But ya'all choose Hitler, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of the linkage to the Holocaust..
    And by choosing such linkage, you and Kick denigrate and disrespect each of those 6 millions jews that were brutally slaughtered by Hitler.. You and Kick make their brutal murders nothing but a throw away Party talking point, totally and completely divorced from reality......

    being an individual whose family and wife's family were in fact the victims of that particular genocide, it's nobody else's place to say such things about my motivations, especially someone who has no such personal connection himself.

    Frankly, if I had done something so despicable, I would be deeply ashamed...

    one would hope so, since there's ample evidence that is in fact the case. this started as a conversation about literacy. yes, donald's rhetoric happens to share some similarities with the content of a book he read. yes, that fact is disturbing, given the identity of the author. however, it's a gigantic leap to infer that anyone was by extension calling donald a genocidal murderer. want to know who turned it into THAT conversation, look in a mirror.

    JL

  166. [166] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale
    163

    I keep coming back, hoping someone... ANYONE.... will say something to mitigate the utter perversity and disgusting-ness of the hysterical claims here..

    Since the "hysterical claims" were the handiwork of the guy who stares back at you from any mirror, why not take it up with him? He's the only one here hijacking posts and twisting their meanings in an emotional and hysterical fashion while putting words into people's mouths that they didn't say... a real case of projection of his own modus operandi onto other posters, in my opinion.

    Without the Holocaust, there is one of a multitude of dictators you could compare President Trump to..

    Like Mussolini... been there, done that... see above. Too bad the "Republican" messiah wasn't reading Mussolini's speeches or those of one of those other "multitude of dictators." No one can change history; it is what it is. We didn't write history, Michale, nor did any of us write Hitler's speeches and put them in a book nor make Trump read them and repeat strikingly similar rhetoric. Those ships have sailed. Posters commenting on similarities in people's speeches has turned into a full blown meltdown by another poster who has admitted he's not a "history buff" and insists that one could only wish to compare speeches in order to elicit the hysterical response he's created all by his lonesome because the only thing he knows that person for is one thing. Sounds like a case of being uneducated. It's so much easier to jump to conclusions when one's knowledge of the subject he's hysterically whining about is limited to "one thing." Realizing that not everyone shares those limitations he admits he has would be a good first step for him. As has been stated on these boards many times, please stop projecting fantasy onto others' reality... everything is not about Michale.

    But ya'all choose Hitler, SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of the linkage to the Holocaust..

    This is bordering on insanity now... so typical of the right-wing variety derangement one sees everywhere. So JL commented to another poster and mentioned Hitler's speeches whereupon the poster commented back that JL made a very good point about the specifically similar rhetoric contained in the speeches. That's it... nothing more... anything beyond that is full-blown emotional BS and hysterics on another's part. This right-wing "must be a conspiracy" is laughable, ridiculous, and reeking in its ignorance. Trump does love the uneducated; is there any wonder why he loves them so?

    And by choosing such linkage, you and Kick denigrate and disrespect each of those 6 millions jews that were brutally slaughtered by Hitler.. You and Kick make their brutal murders nothing but a throw away Party talking point, totally and completely divorced from reality......

    I'm going to break the "Melizabeth Killer" rules here to let you know how totally full of excrement you are by saying such a thing when you have no idea whatsoever what you're talking about. I chose nothing; I simply responded to an excellent point on the part of a poster, and you go ballistic and prattle on and on about a nonexistent conspiracy nor did anyone else ever enter my mind when I was responding to JL... everything on the board is not about you.

    Not that it's anyone's business, but my SO's grandmother actually lived through the Holocaust (complete with arm tattoo). Her young husband didn't get a tattoo because he was ill and sent directly to the gas chamber; she never saw him again. Their two young boys... twins... were separated from them and sent somewhere else; she never saw them again either and has no idea where they were taken. She was a sad woman, rest her soul, but a strong one nevertheless. She was fascinating too and would talk to anyone about it. She said the question she got asked the most was why she didn't get that tattoo removed; she said that doing so would leave a scar and that she had enough of those and didn't need any more. She also said she didn't want to ever forget about it and would do whatever it took so the world would never stop talking about it and never forget. I was chosen to write down her story because I was the only one who could type as fast as she talked. I'm a badass fast typist, but nowadays I primarily utilize the technology that's putting so many Americans out of their jobs.

    If I had told you 5 years ago that you would fully believe and endorse the idea that a freely, fairly and legally elected POTUS was another Hitler, you would have called me totally whacked...

    Don't bother denying it, because we both know it's true..

    Pardon me for interrupting your rant, but aren't you the one who insisted that Hitler was only known for one thing? Your knowledge is admittedly lacking, and I'd say the problem here is with your ignorance and not JL's very astute and completely factual observation about the political rhetoric of the two jerks in question.

    And please.. Spare me the utter and total BULLSHIT that you weren't saying that President Trump was another Hitler. That you were simply saying that President Trump shares some of the same characteristics of Hitler..

    You didn't make that distinction when you first made the comparison..

    And... BAM... just like that, your reading comprehension problem presents itself... AGAIN. JL simply compared the political rhetoric, and he was dead on correct. I conceded the point and commented about the SPEECHES and their similarities AND NOTHING MORE. I am not known for my short posts because I have technology and am a badass fast typist. If I had wanted to expand the comparison of the two jerks beyond their rhetoric, I had ample means to do so. No, that expansion was all your handiwork. In your admitted ignorance of the subject matter, you completely read something into it that wasn't there and went emotional and hysterical and hijacked our posts.

    It was only when it was pointed out how disgusting and perverse the comparison was, did you and Kick back-pedal like crazy...

    I didn't backpedal. In fact, I copied the points I made in my response to JL and enumerated them and defended them. Trump and Hitler's speeches have similar rhetoric... the inconvenient truth. I'll say it a thousand times because it's true. Neither did I see JL backpedal. You're hysterical as well as delusional if you think anyone backpedaled, and your dearth of knowledge of history... like your reading comprehension problem... is stunning in its limitations.

    Like I said, I had hoped some of the more rational ones would chime in and concede that the comparison was ridiculous and perverse...

    Anything else you read into it is something you're going to have to reconcile with yourself, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the similarities in the two jerks' political rhetoric.

    Whether Trump means it or not is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten down nameless forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov cocktail that they've been waiting for. -- Michael Moore

  167. [167] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick [165],

    ha! take a look at [157]. what michale doesn't realize is that we ARE the cooler heads :D

    we ARE the weirdos, mister.
    ~the craft

  168. [168] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    166

    ha! take a look at [157]. what michale doesn't realize is that we ARE the cooler heads :D

    We're all just calling it like we see it, right? When have any of us ever done anything but call it like we see it!?! And when did either of us backpedal as was suggested?

    And the exact same day we were posting about all that similarity in rhetoric, the jerk in question gave a speech to a crowd in Pennsylvania. As CW highlights in his "Three-Dot Tuesday" article, Michael Gerson reviews that speech by Trump at 100 days by stating:

    Most of all, Trump used his bully pulpit quite literally, devoting about half his speech to the dehumanization of migrants and refugees as criminals, infiltrators and terrorists. Trump gained a kind of perverse energy from the rolling waves of hatred, culminating in the reading of racist song lyrics comparing his targets to vermin.

    Half the speech!?! That very astute observation by Mr. Gerson -- "R" to those who obsess about Party -- made the little hairs on the back of my neck stand up because as anyone who knows history is acutely aware, the Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda and "He Who Must Not Be Named" employed similar rhetoric to portray the "others" as subhuman... Untermenschen.

    So no backpedal here. Those who know enough of history should quite rightly agree with astute observations such as the one made in your post and those Mr. Gerson made in his review. The rhetoric is strikingly similar, and there's no shame whatsoever in recognizing what's obvious, and comparing rhetoric isn't remotely suggesting anything further, which I would not hesitate to do if the need arises. Believe me.

    My first post on these boards was to suggest the name "Benedict Donald" for Trump because that's how I've always seen Trump... always... as an opportunist like "Been a Dick"... a turncoat who'd sell out his country for his own interests. That was a year ago, and just look how history is playing out now.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/05/13/ftp391/#comment-75291

    And JL ^^^^^ CLICK, CLICK ^^^^^ not kidding here, you simply must check out the post underneath my post... my first day here... and discover who actually posted regarding Trump and a "fascist dictator."

    Read that and weep... from laughter... all part of a conspiracy, no doubt. ;)

    If only people would pay attention to details... really see things as they are... pay attention to what's staring them right in their faces... they'd see what's actually there versus what they want to see. Because those who either can't or won't pay attention to history are doomed to be conned and appear uneducated... oh, I meant to say... doomed to repeat it. :)

  169. [169] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    And when did either of us backpedal as was suggested?

    we both clarified what we initially meant. from the perspective of someone who has convinced himself that we initially meant something different, it would seem like backpedaling. since we didn't, it wasn't.

    Those who know enough of history should quite rightly agree with astute observations such as the one made in your post and those Mr. Gerson made in his review. The rhetoric is strikingly similar, and there's no shame whatsoever in recognizing what's obvious, and comparing rhetoric isn't remotely suggesting anything further, which I would not hesitate to do if the need arises. Believe me.

    agreed, and noted. just because donald uses fascistic rhetoric doesn't necessarily make him a fascist. mike godwin (of godwin's law fame) posted a link to this article as an example of a "non-godwin" analysis of the similarities:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/09/opinions/bergen-is-trump-fascist/index.html

    And JL ^^^^^ CLICK, CLICK ^^^^^ not kidding here, you simply must check out the post underneath my post... my first day here... and discover who actually posted regarding Trump and a "fascist dictator."

    ha. that was a VERY qualified assertion i made. i don't even know when my first post here was. i'm pretty sure it was over a decade ago; i followed a link for one of CW's contests. if you can believe it, FTP (of which we're now posting on #434) didn't even exist yet!

    If only people would pay attention to details... really see things as they are... pay attention to what's staring them right in their faces... they'd see what's actually there versus what they want to see.

    that's why science is so important. the ability to generate hypotheses and test them empirically is what allows us to tell the difference between what sounds "truthy" and what's factually true. converging lines of evidence allow us to distinguish the popular from the accurate.

    JL

  170. [170] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    168

    agreed, and noted. just because donald uses fascistic rhetoric doesn't necessarily make him a fascist. mike godwin (of godwin's law fame) posted a link to this article as an example of a "non-godwin" analysis of the similarities.

    Nice article... and reminds me of the election in France on Sunday.

    ha. that was a VERY qualified assertion i made. i don't even know when my first post here was. i'm pretty sure it was over a decade ago; i followed a link for one of CW's contests. if you can believe it, FTP (of which we're now posting on #434) didn't even exist yet!

    You mean: Draft Congress! :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2007/09/03/anti-war-slogan-contest-winners/#comments

    that's why science is so important. the ability to generate hypotheses and test them empirically is what allows us to tell the difference between what sounds "truthy" and what's factually true. converging lines of evidence allow us to distinguish the popular from the accurate.

    I know, right? We learn from experience and "grow from there," and just as those who fail to learn from history are doomed:

    Ignore science at your peril... our peril.

Comments for this article are closed.