FWIS3

Listen to this, from The Atlantic. It is not only scarily on point, but ominous. It's long (one hour), but I think required listening for all Americans who aren't in thrall of the Mango Mussolini.

https://soundcloud.com/user-154380542/h ... march-2017

(you can also read the text if the computer voice bothers you)

Yeah, I read it when it came out a week or so ago.

That article sums up some of what I've been thinking. Without a resistance, his prediction at the beginning may be accurate. With resistance, there may be a risk of a war as distraction and cracking down on protesters.

However, with the proper resistance, this may be an opportunity to fix a lot of problems with this country. I don't just mean appealing to Trumps self-interest, although that would be part of it. But, a comprehensive and targeted campaign to get Trump to distrust his allies might allow him to support reforms that benefit one group's ideals. This might be the long-game the GOP and Dems are playing... or trying to play.

But other groups could do it. A new centrist party might give him moderate cover for these reforms. That new party would seem like an honest, trustworthy, outside organization, as opposed to established parties. He'll think he could co-opt that group, and that might be true... unless they have a plan.

It’s going to be interesting. That much is for sure. Are there enough people who are willing to keep resisting and putting up such a stink that the congress and every other politician from there on down will start acting like they really understand what the real issue is?

Right now all the Republicans seem to be seeing is they get to push through all the nice things they have in mind for the next 4 years. Without seeming to appreciate what kind of shit storm they are creating. Or thinking they can control the shit storm.

That's the real question, isn't it? Not 'what is Trump going to do', but 'how will the Republican party respond?'

The country is in the hands of the Republicans. If enough rebel and force the administration and the Trump supporters in Congress to respect constitutional principles such as separation of powers and individual liberties, we will weather the Trump storm well enough to recover. If not, well, as I've said, we're fucked. Doesn't matter how much protesting and calling of Congresscritters the Democrats do (although Democrats should still do that), until we break the grip of gerrymandering and the electoral college, only moderate Republicans can save us.

That's what I'm worried about.

I do say though I hope the courts lead this, particularly as conservative judges who are strict constitutionalists are often the ones Republicans favored previously. Both judgements this week and comments from Gorsuch will probably be the sort of things that set the tone for opposition, and give moderate Republicans an excuse to speak up if they want one.

geonuc wrote:...... until we break the grip of gerrymandering and the electoral college, only moderate Republicans can save us.

The article is well thought off. I do disagree with some stuff though.

I think this article by politico describes Trump voters pretty well

What this piece calls the Nationalists will stick to Trump no matter what

The "Exasperated" however, are another matter altogether. I presume that a lot of them are these folks in the Rust Belt that tipped the Electoral College in Trump's favor

Right now, despite that almost all the Republicans are simply following Trump's lead, (with the pathetic inclusion of McCain and Rubio) some (as seen in the DeVos vote) are not so eager. Apparently because of public pressure in their respective states ( Which is actually understandable in Maine, but in ALASKA? that's about as red as it can get). I suspect that Trump's erratic behavior will sooner or later piss off enough Republicans in the Senate (and helped by the fact that the Koch Brothers don't care much for Trump, if by now they haven't been able to work out any "deal" with him, tells me it won't happen in the near future, Of course the Dems can't rely much on them. but maybe they can negotiate a temporary arrangement).

My point is that Mr. Frum used my country (among others) as an example of how Trump could undermine institutions in the US. And I have often compared Trump to Chavez, but there ARE some differences:

A) I think that "The Exasperated" will not be content with symbolic gestures like that of the Carrier deal. And you gringos have a much lower bar for incompetence than, say, US.

B) Institutions here in Venezuela have ALWAYS been rather weak. Politician and Institution Credibility has been very low for much longer here than in the US.

C) Although the House of Representatives has plenty of members who rely on gerrymandered districts. The Senate is not subject to that. So, despite that according to what I've read the 2018 elections do not favor the Dems. A lot can happen in two years.

D) Trump's team is understaffed, unskilled and demoralized. If not why are so many leaks from the White House?

E) There's an obvious power struggle between Steve Bannon and Rince Priebus. THAT is going to gum up the works a lot on anything Trump will be able to do effectively. As I have said several times. I HAVE worked in environments like that and while they can last for a long time, they seldom get anything worthwhile (from their objectives point of view) done. Trump's management style works with stuff that goes around Marketing, but not with stuff that is concrete. And I strongly suspect that the "Exasperated" will demand concrete results. I am not talking about the ambiguous, ill thought Executive Orders Trump issued (and I am talking about the process, not about how crazy or dangerous those EOs can be). I'm talking about actually getting things through Congress that will conflict with the Pubs' position (entitlements, the ACA, Infrastructure Spending). Already the Pubs are in a bind with the ACA, and by confirming Trump's Secretary of Health, Trump and the Pubs tightened the noose around their necks. The ACA had some issues since they could not be attended to at the time (due to Pubs blocking anything to do with it) that could bring it down. Hell just all the talk about repealing scares insurers away. The Pubs have been boxed in by Trump's promises of replacing it with something much much better and in a couple of months pressure is going to mount. Then we'll see how far the Pubs will be willing to cave in. Right now, it's the easy stuff, confirming the nominees to Trump's Cabinet. But when it comes to raising the money to build Trump's fabled Wall or infrastructure or replacing the ACA We'll see.

F) At one point (particularly in the early days) Chavez's government was seen as less corrupt than past government. There was a particularly good litmus test on that for ordinary people like me. Getting any government service (National ID Cards, Passports, Driver's Licenses, Vehicle permits, old age pensions, hell even when he put the exchange controls in place it was easy to get a permit to get foreign currency for traveling or internet commerce) was a nightmare before Chavez. After he came to power that worked considerably better (till recently that it has become just as bad or worse than in the Pre-Chavez days). I don't think Trump will get that advantage easily.

G) All the examples he used (including us) are of countries where populations HAVE been subject to autocratic governments before.

H) The opposition here shot itself in the foot MANY MANY TIMES, to the point that they actually made the Chavez Government seem reasonable in comparison. PARTICULARLY at the international level.

Now if an incident of the Terrorist kind, particularly if the terrorists are proven to be foreign nationals from mid-east countries THAT could counter much of the above. I think it's reasonable to assume that George W. Bush lasted more than one term precisely because of 9/11.

Barring that. I'd say that there are two litmus tests to see if Trump will be able to undermine US institutions and normalize his "caudillo" status:

A) the Republicans (particularly in the House) cave in regarding all the spending Trump pretends to do and his erratic foreign policy, So far I think that the Pubs think they can handle Trump, his ego and his erratic behavior and get their dear entitlement cuts. That should become clear within the year.

B) Rince Priebus gets booted out of the White House, in which case Steve Bannon and his clique have sole access to handle Trump (whom despite it all WILL be difficult to steer, the man's ego and erratic behavior will always get in the way).

Finally, IF Trump's foreign policy gaffes become so difficult to hide (and if the White House leaks are correct, Republicans are having to routinely scramble to reassure foreign leaders about their relationship with the US) that enough Republicans in the Senate (including those two invertebrates McCain and Rubio) turn on him (remember. the edge the Republicans have in the Senate is only 2 votes) You could end up in another pretty gridlock like the one you had during most of the Obama years. And the Pubs won't have anyone to shift the blame to.

Public pressure on "moderate republicans" could help do that.

I wonder, Sigma, what would happen if an" incident of terrorist kind" was of domestic origin.

Of course, Trump may use the recent North Korean missile test.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:I'd say that there are two litmus tests to see if Trump will be able to undermine US institutions and normalize his "caudillo" status: ...

The courts will be important, perhaps most important. Before Trump, the judicial branch in this country remained a solid check on executive and legislative over-reach. Whatever the courts said was the law was taken to be the law (mostly - there's always the fringe sheriff who says federal law doesn't apply to him). If Trump can find a way to reduce the legitimacy of the courts, he wins.

For example, he (and by 'he' I mean the US Justice Department headed by Atty Gen Sessions) may find a tenable argument that the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, letting stand a lower court's hold on his travel ban, to be applicable only to that jurisdiction and that until the Supreme Court rules, he can have travelers barred from entry into all other ports. That's not the way it works, but if Congress goes along with it, it becomes the new paradigm.

The main issue of the last election was and remains the makeup of the US Supreme Court. Those nine people will decide if we have an autocracy. Which is why Senator Mitch McConnell should be at the top of every American's hate list. He stole our democracy from us.

Tarragon wrote:I wonder, Sigma, what would happen if an" incident of terrorist kind" was of domestic origin.

Of course, Trump may use the recent North Korean missile test.

Funny you should mention that. Just a couple of days ago at social site whose name I don't want to remember, someone who is very much a right winger used the San Bernardino attack as justification for Trump's Travel Restriction from those seven countries in the middle east and DimSum tartly answered that the perpetrator was a US Born Citizen. Our Right Winger promptly shut up.

I think that if it's a Domestic Incident, It will be a much harder sell than one where the perpetrators are from abroad.

geonuc wrote:The main issue of the last election was and remains the makeup of the US Supreme Court. Those nine people will decide if we have an autocracy. Which is why Senator Mitch McConnell should be at the top of every American's hate list. He stole our democracy from us.

As a greasy furriner, I suggest you add House Speaker Paul Ryan to that list

geonuc wrote:For example, he (and by 'he' I mean the US Justice Department headed by Atty Gen Sessions) may find a tenable argument that the recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, letting stand a lower court's hold on his travel ban, to be applicable only to that jurisdiction and that until the Supreme Court rules, he can have travelers barred from entry into all other ports. That's not the way it works, but if Congress goes along with it, it becomes the new paradigm.

I was thinking about that too. If they succeeded in that argument, then they could reroute all immigration from those countries to other districts. Of course, Congress has the constitutional authority to simply take away the courts' jurisdiction on this issue, which would keep them from ruling on it. This includes the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, although the court might decide this falls under their original jurisdiction.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

Tarragon wrote:I wonder, Sigma, what would happen if an" incident of terrorist kind" was of domestic origin.

Of course, Trump may use the recent North Korean missile test.

Funny you should mention that. Just a couple of days ago at social site whose name I don't want to remember, someone who is very much a right winger used the San Bernardino attack as justification for Trump's Travel Restriction from those seven countries in the middle east and DimSum tartly answered that the perpetrator was a US Born Citizen. Our Right Winger promptly shut up.

I think that if it's a Domestic Incident, It will be a much harder sell than one where the perpetrators are from abroad.

Sorry, I meant to refer to a domestic white terrorist attack - such as against minorities or even whites, such as liberals or conservatives who are not as supportive of Trump as the attackers might desire.

Tarragon wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

Tarragon wrote:I wonder, Sigma, what would happen if an" incident of terrorist kind" was of domestic origin.

Of course, Trump may use the recent North Korean missile test.

Funny you should mention that. Just a couple of days ago at social site whose name I don't want to remember, someone who is very much a right winger used the San Bernardino attack as justification for Trump's Travel Restriction from those seven countries in the middle east and DimSum tartly answered that the perpetrator was a US Born Citizen. Our Right Winger promptly shut up.

I think that if it's a Domestic Incident, It will be a much harder sell than one where the perpetrators are from abroad.

Sorry, I meant to refer to a domestic white terrorist attack - such as against minorities or even whites, such as liberals or conservatives who are not as supportive of Trump as the attackers might desire.

I think it will galvanize the left. By the looks of it I'm seeing a movement similar to what the "Tea Party" claimed to be but it wasn't. Take a look at this

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

geonuc wrote:The main issue of the last election was and remains the makeup of the US Supreme Court. Those nine people will decide if we have an autocracy. Which is why Senator Mitch McConnell should be at the top of every American's hate list. He stole our democracy from us.

As a greasy furriner, I suggest you add House Speaker Paul Ryan to that list

He's on the list, but had no role in denying President Obama's constitutional right to appoint a justice to fill a vacancy.

geonuc wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

geonuc wrote:The main issue of the last election was and remains the makeup of the US Supreme Court. Those nine people will decide if we have an autocracy. Which is why Senator Mitch McConnell should be at the top of every American's hate list. He stole our democracy from us.

As a greasy furriner, I suggest you add House Speaker Paul Ryan to that list

He's on the list, but had no role in denying President Obama's constitutional right to appoint a justice to fill a vacancy.

True

I predict he will be 74 years old.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

geonuc wrote:The main issue of the last election was and remains the makeup of the US Supreme Court. Those nine people will decide if we have an autocracy. Which is why Senator Mitch McConnell should be at the top of every American's hate list. He stole our democracy from us.

As a greasy furriner, I suggest you add House Speaker Paul Ryan to that list

suggest all you like. paul ryan, awful as he is, isn't a patch on that miserable creep mitch McConnell.

This might be relevant.