Sentinel1 wrote:


Although Trump likes to make a big thing about this, I honestly don't think it bothers him, he is a man throughout life has never taken no for an answer, .

Winston Churhchill. ...... hated foreign nationals

But lately I get the feeling that Trump’s critics have evolved from expecting Trump to be Hitler to preferring it. Obviously they don’t prefer it in a conscious way. But the alternative to Trump becoming Hitler is that they have to live out the rest of their lives as confirmed morons. No one wants to be a confirmed moron. And certainly not after announcing their Trump opinions in public and demonstrating in the streets. It would be a total embarrassment for the anti-Trumpers to learn that Trump is just trying to do a good job for America. It’s a threat to their egos. A big one.

And this gets me to my point. When millions of Americans want the same thing, and they want it badly, the odds of it happening go way up. You can call it the power of positive thinking. It is also the principle behind affirmations. When humans focus on a desired future, events start to conspire to make it happen.

I’m not talking about any new-age magic. I’m talking about ordinary people doing ordinary things to turn Trump into an actual Hitler. For example, if protesters start getting violent, you could expect forceful reactions eventually. And that makes Trump look more like Hitler. I can think of dozens of ways the protesters could cause the thing they are trying to prevent. In other words, they can wish it into reality even though it is the very thing they are protesting.

 BigWaaagh wrote:



No, actually, there isn't widespread fraud at all. It's a canard thrown around by the right to justify implementing voter suppression measures, or in this case, placate a man-child egomaniac's inability to process that he lost the popular vote, doesn't have a mandate and has the lowest recorded approval rating at this point in a Presidency, ever.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting sound clip on the radio this morning, from Yates' confirmation hearing a few years back:

Sen. Sessions: "If the President issues an illegal order, should the AG or Deputy AG follow that order?"
Yates: "No, the AG or Deputy AG should follow the law and act as independent advisor to the POTUS."

So what was illegal about Trump's EO?

Spoiler:

Even she couldn't articulate that...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I wasnt a supporter of Trump during the campaign.
But I think now the media go a bit too far. Trump's EO about immigrants from seven muslim countries is not the end of the world.

When Obama does it... <crickets>

When Trump does it... people lose their minds.

See the pattern?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The conditions that produced Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s are so unique, that they are unlikely to be seen on this Earth ever again, and thank God for that.

Trump is a lot of things, but talk of Fascism is miles off the mark.

For example. Have we:

Just came out of a world war that killed millions of people and shattered countries, thus destabilising and destroying the established social order?

Are we worried about the newly created Soviet Union and its threats to spread Communism across the globe, thus encouraging support for Fascism?

Is there a centuries long acceptance of anti-Semitism driving government policy in Europe?

Are there hundreds of thousands of embittered ex-Soldiers in Germany and Italy?

Fascism takes many forms, but I feel a lot of newspapers are wildly out of control.

By all means criticise Trump - he deserves it, but I think we're in danger of diluting the term Fascism, and that is a tragedy.

Ask your grand-parents or your great-grandparents about what REAL Fascism looks like.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...

We have never had an administration before that, at every turn, is actively attempting to weaken and destroy the foundations of this nation.

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

Leaving aside the unusual nature of team Trump looking to his predecessors’ policies for cover, it seems worth pointing out this statement obscures at least five enormous differences between the executive order the White House issued on Friday and what the Obama administration did.

1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...

We have never had an administration before that, at every turn, is actively attempting to weaken and destroy the foundations of this nation.

For the last 8 years the Republicans and their pundits said the very same thing about Obama and his goal to "fundamentally transform America." It was literally a daily topic on talk radio.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting sound clip on the radio this morning, from Yates' confirmation hearing a few years back:

Sen. Sessions: "If the President issues an illegal order, should the AG or Deputy AG follow that order?"
Yates: "No, the AG or Deputy AG should follow the law and act as independent advisor to the POTUS."

So what was illegal about Trump's EO?

Spoiler:

Even she couldn't articulate that...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I wasnt a supporter of Trump during the campaign.
But I think now the media go a bit too far. Trump's EO about immigrants from seven muslim countries is not the end of the world.

When Obama does it... <crickets>

When Trump does it... people lose their minds.

See the pattern?

Sentinel1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Interesting sound clip on the radio this morning, from Yates' confirmation hearing a few years back:

Sen. Sessions: "If the President issues an illegal order, should the AG or Deputy AG follow that order?"
Yates: "No, the AG or Deputy AG should follow the law and act as independent advisor to the POTUS."

So what was illegal about Trump's EO?

Spoiler:

Even she couldn't articulate that...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I wasnt a supporter of Trump during the campaign.
But I think now the media go a bit too far. Trump's EO about immigrants from seven muslim countries is not the end of the world.

When Obama does it... <crickets>

When Trump does it... people lose their minds.

See the pattern?

Exactly people are losing focus blaming the man for being the man, rather than remembering it isn't a new trick at all. In fact Obama drew up the plan but never implemented it. Trump took over shop and thought he'd make use of what was left of Obama's stock.

 reds8n wrote:


It's been explained to Whembley before but we'll go again

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

Leaving aside the unusual nature of team Trump looking to his predecessors’ policies for cover, it seems worth pointing out this statement obscures at least five enormous differences between the executive order the White House issued on Friday and what the Obama administration did.

1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

Still if one repeats a lie often enough I'm sure one can persuade one's own self to believe it too.

 infinite_array wrote:

Unless you can point out an instance where Obama did something comparable to Trump's installation of various Cabinet members who are utterly and vehemently opposed to everything those departments stand for?

 Vankraken wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The conditions that produced Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s are so unique, that they are unlikely to be seen on this Earth ever again, and thank God for that.

Trump is a lot of things, but talk of Fascism is miles off the mark.

For example. Have we:

Just came out of a world war that killed millions of people and shattered countries, thus destabilising and destroying the established social order?

Are we worried about the newly created Soviet Union and its threats to spread Communism across the globe, thus encouraging support for Fascism?

Is there a centuries long acceptance of anti-Semitism driving government policy in Europe?

Are there hundreds of thousands of embittered ex-Soldiers in Germany and Italy?

Fascism takes many forms, but I feel a lot of newspapers are wildly out of control.

By all means criticise Trump - he deserves it, but I think we're in danger of diluting the term Fascism, and that is a tragedy.

Ask your grand-parents or your great-grandparents about what REAL Fascism looks like.

I wouldn't go dismissing the notion that certain people are pushing for the US to go in that direction and things are somewhat fertile for that seed to sprout (if it hasn't already).

We have a lot of people in the US who believe that their way of life is under attack from various different groups. Hearing people talk along with a bit of reading between the lines these are the sorts of messages that get danced around (its politically incorrect to directly come out and say you believe this).
- Fear of illegals causing crime, taking jobs, leech tax money, etc
- Fear of Muslims around the world threatening the US and Christianity in general.
- Fear of Liberals pushing atheism, abortions, and in general attacking Christian values/morality
- Belief that Liberals are going to bankrupt the country with excess spending
- Belief that the "Poor" (hint that is minorities in their mind) are going to get a free ride by leeching off welfare and the liberals are just giving hand outs instead of making them actually work for a living.
- Fear that big government will stand in the way of the American dream so hard working Americans won't be able to get real jobs.
- Belief that labor unions have ruined American industry by keeping incompetent people employed instead of the hard working people who deserve the jobs and making business too costly to operate in the US.
- Mistrust of gays and gay culture being a corrupting influence on people (again attacking Christian values/morality).
- A general belief that we have fallen from the "Golden Age" of America such as the 50s where everything was great and the status quo was how it should of been (Think "Leave it to Beaver" Americana).

As much as I hate to say it there is a lot of deep seated racism in the US still and while its not socially acceptable to be directly racist, a fair amount of people seem to harbor those feelings to varying degrees (from subtle grumblings to outright anger). Also we have constant media bombardment about all the woes and overblown issues in the world that make people think the world is a lot worse than it is. With so much "information" being thrown at people through 24/7 news networks it all becomes a deafening white noise that makes it hard to hear all the nuance and instead people cling to easy to digest tag lines which they repeat. Its shocking how much garbage gets repeated with things like "Crime is at an all time high" when a simple google search on crime statistics show a decrease in crime in across the country. As a white male living in the (sorta) South this is some of the stuff I overhear and some of the vibes I pick up on from being around more conservative minded people. Again its not being shouted from the rooftops but its those occasional comments or responses that you hear which clue you into what they are thinking.

What is the point of this post? Not exactly sure to be honest but the US population has a bit of a paranoia problem and lately rhetoric has been more about "us vs them" and less about diplomacy and working together to fix issues. Thinking that certain groups in your own country are the enemy is what opens the door to potentially accepting strong arm tactics to suppress those groups and erode the freedoms and liberties granted to all citizens of our nation. Call it projecting my own worries if you want but its the picture that gets painted and when these same people who claim moral high ground vote for something as morally bankrupt as Trump then you start to dismiss claims of them being of high morality and see signs of their perceived superiority.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... he appointed his own people to these departments.

The holdovers from Obama administrations are likely going to lose their job because Trump is going to want his own peeps there...

...

As someone wisely said... elections has consequences.

Now thats being pedantic.

Trump’s tough talk on immigration spells huge profit for private prisons
With ICE positioned to expand, prison company growth is not far behind
Written by Beryl Lipton
Edited by Michael Morisy, JPat Brown
President Donald Trump’s tough-on-immigration agenda has been a boon for the for-profit detention industry, which months ago was facing lost government contracts and waves of negative press. This administration’s insistence on a zero-tolerance illegal immigrant policy, which aspires to undo some, if not all, of President Obama’s Executive Orders, has helped prison stocks return to levels comparable with prices of mid-August, when the DOJ announced it would move to phase out its use of private prisons at the Bureau of Prisons.

Now he’s poised to help them grow.

“We are going to triple the number of ICE deportation officers,” Trump told a crowd in Phoenix, Ariz. at the end of August. “Within ICE, I am going to create a new special Deportation Task Force, focused on identifying and removing quickly the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America who have evaded justice.”

ICE currently holds nearly two-thirds of its 34,000 person detainee population in facilities owned and/or managed by CoreCivic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), GEO Group, and other private prison companies. The rest are held in a network of locations, over 600 in total, through similar, temporary agreements with local and state law enforcement, like AirBnB for prison cells, meaning there’s incentive smeared throughout the detention system. With an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., a full crackdown would mean a lot of funding for the agency. By the end of September, the union of ICE employees had endorsed Trump.

The population of immigrant detainees may be more heterogeneous than typical offender populations, and each individual carries a higher price tag in an ICE facility, with per diem detention rates approaching $100 a person a day.

Arizona, a state that shares a 370-mile long border with Mexico, is one of the toughest on those living within the country without legal permission. It’s long pushed laws tough on criminals, citizen and otherwise, implementing legislation like House Bill 2451, requiring unauthorized aliens to serve 85 percent of their time for crimes before deportation and Senate Bill 1070, a controversial law requiring constant documentation of legal status, penned by Kris Kobach, now with the Trump administration.

Arizona - like its fellow border states California, Texas, and New Mexico - also actively employs privately-run facilities, and sometimes stand to receive a kickback, even when the facility isn’t in that state.

“[I]gnore short-term noise. With the political uncertainty, Brexit, contentious elections, things going on in some Western democracies, the temptation to act on that is great. But our experience is: Don’t,” Vanguard CEO Bill McNabb recently cautioned in an interview. “Short-term timing and trading (with mutual funds) around issues does not work. It’s important to tune out the noise and stick with your long-term investment plan.”

His investment firm, which specializes in index funds, owns a majority of both CoreCivic and GEO Group. If private prisons do well, so will they. Three months later the panic of that announcement is receding in the rear view mirror.
Even action like Trump’s federal hiring freeze could bypass ICE and other agencies like CBP, USCIS, and US Marshals under an exemption for national security and public safety, leaving very little to suggest that private prison companies won’t stand to make something off of any quick mass detention and deportations efforts.

The same elements that make prisons appealing have always been at play are there - quick turnaround, jobs for local residents, kickbacks to the host town.

Though not everyone is buying in, with federal-level calls to lock up members of the local immigrant community, ICE enforcement working in all fifty states means local law enforcement across the nation could get a monied boost.

With a lot of money swirling around detention, MuckRock will keep following the paper trail of for-profit detention.

 jmurph wrote:
Remember that you can have tyranny without fascism- fascism is just a modern spin on it. One of the concerns that those who value individual liberties have is that the erosion of the protection of liberties has steadily accelerated over the last few decades. Trump is just doubling down on the bets made by Obama and GWB. It has been a steady march and the political cheerleaders are the ones enabling it. Ironically, both conservatives and liberals *have* decried this trend, criticizing the Patriot Act, warrantless taps and searches, indefinite detentions, drone strikes, etc. but the larger media and populace glosses over the issues in favor of team based politics and horse race elections.

This country elected a man who openly embraced totalitarian tactics, supports torture, and surrounds himself with crypto (and sometimes open) racists. It is hardly shocking that he is doing what he promised, enabled by his predecessors. Worse, his authoritarian style has a lot of open support. The question will be how far it goes.

It’s up against some stiff competition, but there’s a runaway front-runner in the “wrongest idea of 2016” derby. It’s the aphorism, once fashionable on the morning-talk show circuit, that the media mistakenly took Donald Trump “literally but not seriously,” when they should have taken him “seriously but not literally,” as Trump’s supporters did.

If the idea is that the media should have taken Trump more seriously, then I’d emphatically agree. But it turns out that they probably ought to have taken him literally too. It’s been an exceptionally busy first 10 days in office for President Trump, culminating in an executive order on Friday that banned immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days and banned all new refugees from entering the U.S. for 120 days. (Over the weekend, several courts issued rulings temporarily blocking parts of Trump’s order.)

Almost all of the actions that Trump has undertaken, however, are consistent with statements and policy positions he issued repeatedly on the campaign trail and during the presidential transition. It was more than a year ago that Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” for instance. (Friday’s executive order stops short of that, but Trump allies such as Rudy Giuliani have spoken of the order as a legal workaround that seeks to accomplish the same objectives as a Muslim immigration ban.) Another executive order called for building a border wall with Mexico, which was perhaps the signature policy position of Trump’s campaign. And Trump might even try to “make Mexico pay for it” by imposing a tariff on Mexican imports — although most economists argue such a tariff would really make American consumers pay for the wall, via higher prices.

Trump and Congress have taken initial steps toward dismantling Obamacare. He promised that too, although he also promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific,” which should give pause to Republicans hoping to repeal the plan without a replacement in place. Investigating (highly dubious accounts of) voter fraud? Trump talked about that plenty of times on the campaign trail.

There’s been no “pivot,” and there have been no half-measures. Trump is doing pretty much what he said he’d do. Literally.

Why, then, does Trump’s first week and a half in office seem so surprising, even to those of us who weren’t expecting a kindler, gentler Trump? One could wryly remark that it’s a surprise whenever presidents actually keep their promises. But a longstanding body of research from political scientists suggests that this shouldn’t be a surprise. Presidents actually do make a good-faith effort to keep most of their promises.

Instead, the sense of surprise may reflect the dissonance between the sweeping nature of the changes Trump has brought about so far and his narrow and tenuous mandate from American voters. Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, of course, in what turned out to be the biggest discrepancy between the popular vote and the Electoral College since 1876. The 46 percent of the popular vote he received was on the low end also, ranking 23rd of the past 25 election winners, ahead of only Richard Nixon in 1968 and Bill Clinton in 1992. His electoral vote total was slightly more impressive, but also well below average for a winning candidate, ranking 20th out of the past 25 elections. So by pretty much any measure, Trump entered office with one of the three narrowest mandates of the past century, along with Nixon in 1968 and George W. Bush in 2000.

Both Nixon and Bush, however — although they’d later become polarizing presidents — adopted conciliatory tones during their transitions into office. Hardly a partisan word can be found in Nixon’s 1969 inaugural address or Bush’s in 2001. They began their presidencies as relatively popular presidents, therefore. Gallup’s first approval rating poll on Nixon had 59 percent of the public approving of him, against just 5 percent disapproving. For Bush, the numbers were 57 percent approving and 25 percent disapproving. Trump? He started out with 45 percent approving and 45 percent disapproving in the Gallup poll, and his numbers have already gotten worse since last week (although we’ll need more data to confirm whether that’s a meaningful trend).

So Trump’s governing like he’s Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 or Ronald Reagan in 1985, presidents who won via record-breaking landslides. But Trump’s popularity measures are more like those of an embattled president a couple of years into his tenure — think Bill Clinton in 1995, for example. Those low moments don’t necessarily doom a presidency; they didn’t doom Clinton’s, and Reagan and Barack Obama also endured bouts of unpopularity before being re-elected. But we’re in uncharted waters to see a president who is so unpopular so early in his term — and yet who is plowing ahead so stubbornly (or so resolutely, if you prefer) with his agenda.

Then again, this was the agenda Trump promised the country, more or less. So here’s my question: Was Trump elected because of his agenda, or despite it?

That is to say, were his supporters taking him literally, or not?

I don’t have a good answer to this question yet, but it could be the one that Trump’s presidency turns upon. If his supporters took him literally, they’ll presumably see a lot to like so far. But many of these policies have tenuous public support beyond Trump’s base. If this is the framework, then Trump is just continuing with the strategy he’s bet upon all along — doubling down on support from his base — and his approval ratings will probably oscillate within a relatively narrow band of 40 percent to 45 percent support. With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and having a geographic advantage in the way their votes are distributed, that mediocre rating wouldn’t necessarily do much to constrain Trump in the near term, although ratings toward the lower end of that range might be enough to make the House of Representatives competitive in 2018.

If Trump’s supporters didn’t take him literally, however, the downside might be greater. There are quite a few Trump policies, including greater restrictions on immigration, that are fairly popular in spirit but became unpopular when taken to the extreme that Trump takes them. Other voters may have felt they were in on the joke when Trump was running against the staid, politically correct establishment, but will hold him to a higher standard of responsibility now that he is implementing policies rather than just talking about them. Perhaps they’ll give Trump some credit for keeping his promises, but those promises weren’t very popular ones.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Remember that you can have tyranny without fascism- fascism is just a modern spin on it. One of the concerns that those who value individual liberties have is that the erosion of the protection of liberties has steadily accelerated over the last few decades. Trump is just doubling down on the bets made by Obama and GWB. It has been a steady march and the political cheerleaders are the ones enabling it. Ironically, both conservatives and liberals *have* decried this trend, criticizing the Patriot Act, warrantless taps and searches, indefinite detentions, drone strikes, etc. but the larger media and populace glosses over the issues in favor of team based politics and horse race elections.

This country elected a man who openly embraced totalitarian tactics, supports torture, and surrounds himself with crypto (and sometimes open) racists. It is hardly shocking that he is doing what he promised, enabled by his predecessors. Worse, his authoritarian style has a lot of open support. The question will be how far it goes.

You're forgetting your history. Andrew Jackson was elected on a ticket of "I killed lots of British soldiers during the war of 1812, so I'll make a good president."

Jackson later expressed regret at not being able to hang his Vice-President!

Trump pales into comparison with Jackson.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.

I'll try to avoid going OT.

ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.

The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.

ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.

The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...

The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.

Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.

The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,

but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...

That's my take.

Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!

 reds8n wrote:


What foreign business interests did Obama have BTW ?

 infinite_array wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I wasnt a supporter of Trump during the campaign.
But I think now the media go a bit too far. Trump's EO about immigrants from seven muslim countries is not the end of the world.

The problem with the EO (barring the fact that it's stupidly discriminatory and does nothing to stop home-grown radicals who this EO only inflames, and who are the only real terrorist threats at the moment for the US) is that Trump and his cronies passed multiple legal processes in order to do create it. So if Trump is willing to do this, when does the EO that removes vast swathes of voting rights (targeting, strangely enough, minorities and others that didn't vote for Trump/vote for Republicans) come through in order to stop "voting fraud"?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...

We have never had an administration before that, at every turn, is actively attempting to weaken and destroy the foundations of this nation.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The American people could start by sweeping away the zombie parties of the GOP and the Democrats. They have long outlived their usefulness.

New political parties are needed, but that's for the American people to act and to decide.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Remember that you can have tyranny without fascism- fascism is just a modern spin on it. One of the concerns that those who value individual liberties have is that the erosion of the protection of liberties has steadily accelerated over the last few decades. Trump is just doubling down on the bets made by Obama and GWB. It has been a steady march and the political cheerleaders are the ones enabling it. Ironically, both conservatives and liberals *have* decried this trend, criticizing the Patriot Act, warrantless taps and searches, indefinite detentions, drone strikes, etc. but the larger media and populace glosses over the issues in favor of team based politics and horse race elections.

This country elected a man who openly embraced totalitarian tactics, supports torture, and surrounds himself with crypto (and sometimes open) racists. It is hardly shocking that he is doing what he promised, enabled by his predecessors. Worse, his authoritarian style has a lot of open support. The question will be how far it goes.

You're forgetting your history. Andrew Jackson was elected on a ticket of "I killed lots of British soldiers during the war of 1812, so I'll make a good president."

Jackson later expressed regret at not being able to hang his Vice-President!

Trump pales into comparison with Jackson.

Give him a few years

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The American people could start by sweeping away the zombie parties of the GOP and the Democrats. They have long outlived their usefulness.

New political parties are needed, but that's for the American people to act and to decide.

I still say term limits on House and Senate would help with this as a start. I also believe House and Senate members should be forced to use the same healthcare the American people are forced to use.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


The American people could start by sweeping away the zombie parties of the GOP and the Democrats. They have long outlived their usefulness.

New political parties are needed, but that's for the American people to act and to decide.

I still say term limits on House and Senate would help with this as a start. I also believe House and Senate members should be forced to use the same healthcare the American people are forced to use.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.

I'll try to avoid going OT.

ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.

The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.

ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.

The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...

The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.

Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.

The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,

but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...

That's my take.

Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!

Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.

I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As I've said many a time before, the USA has the democracy it deserves. If the American people are worried where this is going, they need to fight for it. By fighting, I don't mean guns or violence, but being informed and fighting back through the political system.

The American people could start by sweeping away the zombie parties of the GOP and the Democrats. They have long outlived their usefulness.

New political parties are needed, but that's for the American people to act and to decide.

Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.

I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.

Sentinel1 wrote:
I blame the media, they over exaggerate political topics for views and then try show the political correct way of thinking, so that next time the viewer gets worked up and needs to watch again and again. Mindless fuel for the people who would protest about anything because they can types. It may also be down to the nature of shouty excitably American's. Remember the Ebola scare? UK: 'Aid agencies struggling against Ebola, more supplies coming'. U.S.A: 'Potentially millions of people infected with Ebola could be in your neighbourhood!'

 reds8n wrote:


.. TBF I've seen people on here argue strongly against the private prison industry.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A general reply to those who replied to my earlier post about what Fascism is.

I'll try to avoid going OT.

ISIL is a threat, but to compare this to powerful nation states such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, states that had coherent ideologies and powerful militaries, is risible nonsense in my book.

The post-WW2 Soviet Union was a clear and present danger to the West, as it had 300 Divisions ready to roll across Europe, and a powerful nuclear arsenal to back them up...which could have wiped out humanity a dozen times over.

ISIL, though a regional problem, with the odd inspired terrorist attack here and there, is not even in the same ball park, the same city, as the Soviet Union.

The USA was nearly strangled at birth, could have been snuffed out during the war of 1812, and was almost destroyed by its civil war. If Lee had won at Antietam, and the British had come over on the South's side, then the Union was finished, and we're looking at the CSA. That's how close it was...

The USA has survived many threats and challenges in its 250+ years, but it's still here because of the strength of those institutions, the foundations are strong, and its love of liberty will never die.

Yes, the war on terror was and has been a disaster IMO, but the best comparison I can make is Vietnam.

The War on Terror is Vietnam 2.0, and Trump is approaching Richard Nixon territory,

but the USA came through Vietnam and Nixon, and it will survive Trump, because the foundations are strong, very strong...

That's my take.

Lot's of good points and observations there. I find perspective to be the medicine to get through this Presidency, but then I look at the fact it's only been barely a week of Trump and, well, gak! Can't wait to see the SCOTUS choice..."shudder"!

Judge Trump after a year, or even 4 years, but the man has barely got his foot in the door. I think it's premature to be judging him this early.

I agree with you that lot of people need to calm down a bit.

 d-usa wrote:
If i take a crap in your living room, do you need to wait a year to judge me?