President Trump

[silverscreenselect]

I am one of the last people y'all would expect to say these things, but here they are:

I told someone to see it as how we elected a cartoon character, and that made it easier and a little bit funny …. but these past few days, I’ve been pleasantly surprised that he seems to have dropped the act, now that he’s in.

He was respectful about both Clintons’ calls to concede.

He already said the Wall is not going to happen.

He said there are things about the ACA he likes.

I don’t think he has actually bullied anyone since Monday.

Pleasantly surprised.

One of the fears that many conservatives expressed was that Trump, who had expressed a more liberal point of view at times in the past, was a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and did not believe his more recent hard-right statements. I myself wondered how much of his ranting was stage posturing, something he became an expert at in his days with Vince McMahon's wrestling.

On the other hand, naming Steve Bannon from Breitbart as his chief strategist is definitely not a good sign.

[K.P.]

One of the fears that many conservatives expressed was that Trump, who had expressed a more liberal point of view at times in the past, was a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and did not believe his more recent hard-right statements.

Well, so far just based on the 60 Minutes interview, The Wall may consist of fencing; Obamacare's going to be changed, not repealed; and while he will load the Supreme Court with conservative pro-life justices, he doesn't seem eager to come after Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges.

[silverscreenselect]

From 1922, the first New York Times article on Hitler:

http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma ... eNumber=18

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 8389639EDE

Key quotes:

"Another condition favorable to the outburst of [Hitler's] movement is the widespread discontent with the existing state of affairs among all classes in the towns and cities under the increasing economic pressure. ... Hitler is credited with having a rapidly increasing following among workers disgruntled by the high cost of living. It is also said many ultra-radicals, including Communists, have flocked to his banner. ... Hitler, in addition to his oratorical and organizing abilities, has another positive asset-- he is a man of the "common people," and hence has the makings of a "popular hero," appealing to all classes.

... Hitler's program is of less interest than his person or movement. His program consists chiefly of half a dozen negative ideas clothed in generalities. He is "against the Jews, Communists, Bolshevism, Marxist socialism, Separatists, the high cost of living, existing conditions, the weak Berlin government and the Versailles treaty." Positively, he stands only for a strong united Germany under a strong government."

... The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. ... But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch messes of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying; "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."

[flockofseagulls104]

From 1922, the first New York Times article on Hitler:

http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma ... eNumber=18

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 8389639EDE

Key quotes:

"Another condition favorable to the outburst of [Hitler's] movement is the widespread discontent with the existing state of affairs among all classes in the towns and cities under the increasing economic pressure. ... Hitler is credited with having a rapidly increasing following among workers disgruntled by the high cost of living. It is also said many ultra-radicals, including Communists, have flocked to his banner. ... Hitler, in addition to his oratorical and organizing abilities, has another positive asset-- he is a man of the "common people," and hence has the makings of a "popular hero," appealing to all classes.

... Hitler's program is of less interest than his person or movement. His program consists chiefly of half a dozen negative ideas clothed in generalities. He is "against the Jews, Communists, Bolshevism, Marxist socialism, Separatists, the high cost of living, existing conditions, the weak Berlin government and the Versailles treaty." Positively, he stands only for a strong united Germany under a strong government."

... The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. ... But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch messes of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism, saying; "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. You must feed the masses with cruder morsels like anti-Semitism. It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."

And so ends this thread

[Beebs52]

Every thread and every fb post should have ceased awhile back. Godwin's Law is toothless.

[Bob78164]

One of the fears that many conservatives expressed was that Trump, who had expressed a more liberal point of view at times in the past, was a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and did not believe his more recent hard-right statements.

Well, so far just based on the 60 Minutes interview, The Wall may consist of fencing; Obamacare's going to be changed, not repealed; and while he will load the Supreme Court with conservative pro-life justices, he doesn't seem eager to come after Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges.

On the last point, if he appoints those Justices, his intent with respect to Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges is irrelevant. The Court won't ask his permission to overrule both. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

One of the fears that many conservatives expressed was that Trump, who had expressed a more liberal point of view at times in the past, was a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and did not believe his more recent hard-right statements.

Well, so far just based on the 60 Minutes interview, The Wall may consist of fencing; Obamacare's going to be changed, not repealed; and while he will load the Supreme Court with conservative pro-life justices, he doesn't seem eager to come after Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges.

On the last point, if he appoints those Justices, his intent with respect to Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges is irrelevant. The Court won't ask his permission to overrule both. --Bob

So what you are saying is that Roe v. Wade, Obergfell v. Hodges and any decision made by the Supreme Court is only as constitutional or unconstitutional as the political leanings of the Justices sitting at the time.

That is what is scary to me. These 9 people have way too much power given to them. I don't think the Supreme Court operates today in the way it was originally intended.

[Bob78164]

So what you are saying is that Roe v. Wade, Obergfell v. Hodges and any decision made by the Supreme Court is only as constitutional or unconstitutional as the political leanings of the Justices sitting at the time.

That is what is scary to me. These 9 people have way too much power given to them. I don't think the Supreme Court operates today in the way it was originally intended.

What I am saying is that I think the strong activist tendency of recent conservative appointments will override what should be their sense of institutional caution. It started in a major way with Bush v. Gore and it's only been getting worse since. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

So what you are saying is that Roe v. Wade, Obergfell v. Hodges and any decision made by the Supreme Court is only as constitutional or unconstitutional as the political leanings of the Justices sitting at the time.

That is what is scary to me. These 9 people have way too much power given to them. I don't think the Supreme Court operates today in the way it was originally intended.

What I am saying is that I think the strong activist tendency of recent conservative appointments will override what should be their sense of institutional caution. It started in a major way with Bush v. Gore and it's only been getting worse since. --Bob

Maybe it's just me, but I would think a Supreme Court Justice should be neither conservative nor liberal. They should interpret what the Constitution says, period, all political issues aside. Hasn't happened much recently, but all things are now political.
That's one of the many things concerned me about Clinton. She had all kinds of litmus tests lined up for her nominees. Not very many pundits commented on that, and the MSM, of course, just let it slide. Just a few short years ago, litmus tests were anathema.

[Bob Juch]

So what you are saying is that Roe v. Wade, Obergfell v. Hodges and any decision made by the Supreme Court is only as constitutional or unconstitutional as the political leanings of the Justices sitting at the time.

That is what is scary to me. These 9 people have way too much power given to them. I don't think the Supreme Court operates today in the way it was originally intended.

What I am saying is that I think the strong activist tendency of recent conservative appointments will override what should be their sense of institutional caution. It started in a major way with Bush v. Gore and it's only been getting worse since. --Bob

Maybe it's just me, but I would think a Supreme Court Justice should be neither conservative nor liberal. They should interpret what the Constitution says, period, all political issues aside. Hasn't happened much recently, but all things are now political.
That's one of the many things concerned me about Clinton. She had all kinds of litmus tests lined up for her nominees. Not very many pundits commented on that, and the MSM, of course, just let it slide. Just a few short years ago, litmus tests were anathema.

Who were Hillary's potential nominees and what were the litmus tests?

[Bob78164]

So what you are saying is that Roe v. Wade, Obergfell v. Hodges and any decision made by the Supreme Court is only as constitutional or unconstitutional as the political leanings of the Justices sitting at the time.

That is what is scary to me. These 9 people have way too much power given to them. I don't think the Supreme Court operates today in the way it was originally intended.

What I am saying is that I think the strong activist tendency of recent conservative appointments will override what should be their sense of institutional caution. It started in a major way with Bush v. Gore and it's only been getting worse since. --Bob

Maybe it's just me, but I would think a Supreme Court Justice should be neither conservative nor liberal. They should interpret what the Constitution says, period, all political issues aside. Hasn't happened much recently, but all things are now political.
That's one of the many things concerned me about Clinton. She had all kinds of litmus tests lined up for her nominees. Not very many pundits commented on that, and the MSM, of course, just let it slide. Just a few short years ago, litmus tests were anathema.

It is distressing to me that it has become increasingly possible to predict the votes of federal judges based on the political party of the President who appointed them. I believe most Republican office holders, whatever lip service they may give to principles of neutrality, consider this a feature, not a bug.

I am quite confident that tendency will increase with Trump's appointments. I believe Judge Garland, had he been given the opportunity to serve, would have moved things in the other direction. --Bob

[BackInTex]

I believe most Republican office holders, whatever lip service they may give to principles of neutrality, consider this a feature, not a bug.

Fixed it for you.

[Jeemie]

I am one of the last people y'all would expect to say these things, but here they are:

I told someone to see it as how we elected a cartoon character, and that made it easier and a little bit funny …. but these past few days, I’ve been pleasantly surprised that he seems to have dropped the act, now that he’s in.

He was respectful about both Clintons’ calls to concede.

He already said the Wall is not going to happen.

He said there are things about the ACA he likes.

I don’t think he has actually bullied anyone since Monday.

Pleasantly surprised.

Then they gave him back access to his Twitter account, and all that stopped.

The New York Times is his favorite target at the moment...

[Vandal]

Seems like a good time to bring this thread forward.

[Vandal]

[silverscreenselect]

One promise kept: he has stopped the "American carnage" before it ever got to me. I will forever be grateful. Those who are actually in the grip of carnage will have to wait a while, because in Trump's case, the carnage stopping "right here and right now" means at best when he gets back from partying this weekend.

Another true statement: "I will never ever let you down." He won't let me down, but his followers might think differently when they hear that phrase thrown back at them over the next four years.

And my favorite:

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment.

I fully expect that his first order of business will be to replace all those establishment insiders who prospered that he somehow inadvertently appointed to his Cabinet with real representatives of the struggling families all across the land.