Congratulations America - you got the president you deserve

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's TWO of them? Has NATO been notified?

 

[billvon]

with RFK Jr advising no longer adding flouride to drinking water, he won't even have those.

RFK Jr will no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!

 

[(Q)]

That's the way your hard core commie works!

 

[parmalee]

He doesn't need to advance measures, just keep promoting vaccine hesitancy from his new health pulpit. By couching his rhetoric as "I'm not stopping vaccines just promoting personal choice" he can cast a shadow on vaccine use and stop millions from vaccinating. And vaccines, as any real doctor will tell you, only create herd immunity when almost everyone takes them.

Yeah, that's true. There's a lot of blame to go around, but the mainstream media's role in giving these people a platform, along with their sane-washing, both-sides nonsense, and according them legitimacy which they would not be given in any other context, is undeniable and unforgivable. The reality is that the Trump administration is comprised of rapists, pedophiles, grifters, dog murderers, nazis, Nazis, other "flavors" of white supremacists, lunatics and idiots--entirely. None of this is hyperbole or exaggeration, it is all well documented and established. And their very presence, at the forefront, is in itself sufficiently dangerous.

I'm gonna repeat that for those who, either out of ignorance or "good heartedness" or whatever, are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here:

The Trump administration is comprised of rapists, pedophiles, grifters, dog murderers, nazis, Nazis, other "flavors" of white supremacists, lunatics and idiots--entirely.

Fuck every single one of them and--I have to frame my words carefully here for the dishonest idiot apologists like sculptor, et al, who are wont to accuse others of advocating violence whilst embracing those who actually advocate and even perpetrate violence--we would all be better off were they to disappear entirely from this plane of existence.

 

[TheVat]

The reality is that the Trump administration is comprised of rapists, pedophiles, grifters, dog murderers, nazis, Nazis, other "flavors" of white supremacists, lunatics and idiots--entirely.

The formal title is Madam Secretary of Homeland Security and Dog Murder, I believe. Silver lining: in two months she is no longer my governor. It's notable how many of your descriptors apply to Trump himself. Which also points to one of his main vulnerabilities: he cannot have anyone around who might think they are better than him. So he can only get the scrapings from the bottom of the barrel. He made the serious mistake of occasionally appointing people of good character and integrity, e.g. Mark Milley, in his first administration, and has evidently learned from that searing experience.

 

[parmalee]

The formal title is Madam Secretary of Homeland Security and Dog Murder, I believe. Silver lining: in two months she is no longer my governor. It's notable how many of your descriptors apply to Trump himself. Which also points to one of his main vulnerabilities: he cannot have anyone around who might think they are better than him. So he can only get the scrapings from the bottom of the barrel. He made the serious mistake of occasionally appointing people of good character and integrity, e.g. Mark Milley, in his first administration, and has evidently learned from that searing experience.

I'm not really a fan of either Michael Cohen or Anthony Scaramucci, but I commend them for recognizing the errors in their ways and for demonstrating something at least akin to atonement. (Conversely, I'll never listen to any new Louis CK material ever again. At the other extreme, the late Scott Walker (not that one--the musician, I mean) once even acknowledged in an interview the cringe factor of his having visited a Playboy club in the 60s (where he met a woman who introduced him to the work of Jacques Brel).)

This "quality" of Trump and his cadre is eventually going to lead us to a government wherein there are no stopgaps, nor accountability, leaving us with virtually no avenues for legal recourse.

 

[Seattle]

This "quality" of Trump and his cadre is eventually going to lead us to a government wherein there are no stopgaps, nor accountability, leaving us with virtually no avenues for legal recourse.

This I agree with. Much of the rest of what you generally post is just hate speech, angry or not well thought out, IMO.

For example, further up above you mention "both sides arguments" as being a joke. IMO, that mindset is just as dangerous as what you rightly point out just above.

I get it in that when people attack "both sides" they are referring to Trump's comment about there are good people on both sides. If the subject is Nazis and regular people, sure, there aren't good people on both sides.

However as is often the case these days if someone wants to inject some nuance to a subject and try to look at a subject from the other sides point of view, it's shouted down as "both sides" nonsense. When in fact, until recently, it has always been common sense, a biblical reference, the basis of diplomacy, the basis of the civil rights movement, etc.

It can be true or at least a reasonable viewpoint to have only negative thoughts regarding Trump and his administration but many of the subject matters they will be dealing with will have two sides to those approaches.

It is legitimate to both lower taxes and to raise them. Two people can have a legitimate argument on that subject. Just because Trump (Nazi, Hitler, etc) argues that side doesn't mean there is no merit. Otherwise, you are arguing that there is only one party and every position they are for is the only one. That's not a good outcome for society either.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This too shall pass.

 

[Sarkus]

It's not just who he has appointed but the underhanded way in which he is trying to get positions filled without any scrutiny or vetting or Senate confirmation. Now, I'm not entirely sure which positions need Senate confirmation, but he seems to be trying to persuade the Senate to go on at least a 10-day recess almost as soon as they come back into session on 20 Jan. This would then allow him to make "recess appointments" which would allow him to fill positions for 2 years without any oversight / scrutiny / ratification etc.
He's also skipped FBI checks for some, meaning that, other than being loyal to him, they could be actual security threats to the US. And this is in addition to what we already know of them.
Hopefully there are sufficient GOP members in the Senate with a backbone that will not side with those planning this recess manoeuvre.

 

[geordief]

It's not just who he has appointed but the underhanded way in which he is trying to get positions filled without any scrutiny or vetting or Senate confirmation. Now, I'm not entirely sure which positions need Senate confirmation, but he seems to be trying to persuade the Senate to go on at least a 10-day recess almost as soon as they come back into session on 20 Jan. This would then allow him to make "recess appointments" which would allow him to fill positions for 2 years without any oversight / scrutiny / ratification etc.
He's also skipped FBI checks for some, meaning that, other than being loyal to him, they could be actual security threats to the US. And this is in addition to what we already know of them.
Hopefully there are sufficient GOP members in the Senate with a backbone that will not side with those planning this recess manoeuvre.

I thought the recess move was in the gift of the leader of the Senate.

A happy circumstance if it can be voted down even if ,no doubt such a vote (if allowed) would be public ,unlike that recent one which was to choose John Thune as leader of Senate.

I wonder what the public would think of him railroading his appointments with no public vetting?

Cultists r us?

 

[parmalee]

This I agree with. Much of the rest of what you generally post is just hate speech, angry or not well thought out, IMO.

Where have I ever posted "hate speech"?

For example, further up above you mention "both sides arguments" as being a joke. IMO, that mindset is just as dangerous as what you rightly point out just above.

I get it in that when people attack "both sides" they are referring to Trump's comment about there are good people on both sides. If the subject is Nazis and regular people, sure, there aren't good people on both sides.

This is not what is meant by bothsidesism and that is not at all what people are alluding to when referencing such:

False balance, known colloquially as bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a cause of misinformation.[2][3][4]

False balance is a bias which usually stems from an attempt to avoid bias and gives unsupported or dubious positions an illusion of respectability. It creates a public perception that some issues are scientifically contentious, though in reality they are not, therefore creating doubt about the scientific state of research. This can be exploited by interest groups such as corporations like the fossil fuel industry or the tobacco industry, or ideologically motivated activists such as vaccination opponents or creationists.[5]
...
False balance emerges from the ideal of journalistic objectivity, where factual news is presented in a way that allows the reader to make determinations about how to interpret the facts, and interpretations or arguments around those facts are left to the opinion pages. Because many newsworthy events have two or more opposing camps making competing claims, news media are responsible for reporting all (credible or reasonable) opposing positions, along with verified facts that may support one or the other side of an issue. At one time, when false balance was prevalent, news media sometimes reported all positions as though they were equally credible, even though the facts clearly contradicted a position, or there was a substantial consensus on one side of an issue, and only a fringe or nascent theory supporting the other side.

False balance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(Emphasis mine.)

What is, in fact, dangerous is to give credibility to climate change denialists or to act as though Donald Trump's claims of "election fraud" in the 2020 election have any merit whatsoever--and that is what is intended by bothsidesism.

When in fact, until recently, it (bothsidesism) has always been common sense, a biblical reference, the basis of diplomacy, the basis of the civil rights movement, etc.

Please do tell how bothsidesism was "the basis of the civil rights movement."

 

[(Q)]

Hopefully there are sufficient GOP members in the Senate with a backbone ...

Happens every time, doesn't matter who you are, if you say no to Trump, you get barraged with death threats. It's now which Senator has the backbone to receive death threats.

 

[billvon]

I wonder what the public would think of him railroading his appointments with no public vetting?

The public doesn't do much thinking. Trump will say he got the best people, Musk will laud the efficiency of these appointments, and the people will cheer.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Not THE PEOPLE, just the people who like it. There no more sweeping generalization than characterizing an entire nation as being of one mind.

 

[exchemist]

It's not just who he has appointed but the underhanded way in which he is trying to get positions filled without any scrutiny or vetting or Senate confirmation. Now, I'm not entirely sure which positions need Senate confirmation, but he seems to be trying to persuade the Senate to go on at least a 10-day recess almost as soon as they come back into session on 20 Jan. This would then allow him to make "recess appointments" which would allow him to fill positions for 2 years without any oversight / scrutiny / ratification etc.
He's also skipped FBI checks for some, meaning that, other than being loyal to him, they could be actual security threats to the US. And this is in addition to what we already know of them.
Hopefully there are sufficient GOP members in the Senate with a backbone that will not side with those planning this recess manoeuvre.

I doubt it very much. The recess trick gets the more squeamish Republican senators off the hook, allowing them to wash their hands of confirming these unsuitable henchmen, but without opposing Trump directly.

It seems to me that with his constant talk of retribution Trump has already created a climate of fear, such that very few indeed will dare to challenge him. The caving of the Washington Post is one recent example on the media front: Jeff "Bellend" Bezos decided Trump would probably freeze his company out of government contracts if his newspaper backed Harris. As for members of Congress, Trumpies control the party at state level and can ensure members who challenge Trump are deselected when their term comes up for renewal, cf. Liz Cheney. I expect some high profile sackings in the military and intelligence community pour encourager les autres.

After that, most people will just keep their heads down and try to do their jobs without making waves, as happened in Germany in the 1930s.

Over the weekend I read a piece by Mark Mazower (history prof at Columbia and a Brit, of partly Russian Jewish heritage) in which he contrasts the historical experience of Europeans and Americans. His thesis seemed to be that Americans don't have the same collective memories of fascism and nazism that Europeans do and this makes them oblivious to attitudes, statements and actions that set off alarm bells in many Europeans.

I personally find the Trump phenomenon both almost inexplicable and frightening for the future of Europe and the world. I find myself wondering if Orwell's vision in "Nineteen Eighty Four" could yet come to pass: three totalitarian blocs. Once you get an autocrat with the legislature in his pocket and control of the justice system, the military and the intelligence services and who can make the media compliant, it can become self-sustaining one-party rule. It is very hard to go back. (You can see this in Poland today, where Donald Tusk is still struggling to get the PiS placemen out of the judiciary, the media and the civil service.)

I think it is really serious - and yet in the US, the prospect of another Trump term seems only to be discussed in terms of what his economic and foreign policies may be, as if he's a normal president-elect. He is not.

 

[parmalee]

Over the weekend I read a piece by Mark Mazower (history prof at Columbia and a Brit, of partly Russian Jewish heritage) in which he contrasts the historical experience of Europeans and Americans. His thesis seemed to be that Americans don't have the same collective memories of fascism and nazism that Europeans do and this makes them oblivious to attitudes, statements and actions that set off alarm bells in many Europeans.

I personally find the Trump phenomenon both almost inexplicable and frightening for the future of Europe and the world. I find myself wondering if Orwell's vision in "Nineteen Eighty Four" could yet come to pass: three totalitarian blocs. Once you get an autocrat with the legislature in his pocket and control of the justice system, the military and the intelligence services and who can make the media compliant, it can become self-sustaining one-party rule. It is very hard to go back. (You can see this in Poland today, where Donald Tusk is still struggling to get the PiS placemen out of the judiciary, the media and the civil service.)

I think it is really serious - and yet in the US, the prospect of another Trump term seems only to be discussed in terms of what his economic and foreign policies may be, as if he's a normal president-elect. He is not.

Well, Franco only ruled over Spain for 36 years--and Americans adored that guy. In fact, the recently published Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) features a glowing portrayal of Franco, with a forward by Steve Bannon and some high praise on the cover from JD Vance.

Our ignorance of and indifference towards--or maybe even longing for--fascism is willful. It's the natural enemy of communism, or "communism", and appeals particularly towards the adolescent male mindset dominant in the US, which is what you get when you stop teaching history and civics properly and herald empty fuckwits like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos as "visionaries" and "innovators"--the pillars of the "free market".

"We cannot trust computers."
-- Elon Musk

I guess he has "innovated" a new variety of doublespeak.

Edit: Not unlike a poster here branding my intolerance of bigotry and lying as "hate speech" perhaps.

 

[billvon]

There no more sweeping generalization than characterizing an entire nation as being of one mind.

More of a lack of a mind. Yes, generalizations gloss over details. But they work for a reason.

 

[exchemist]

Well, Franco only ruled over Spain for 36 years--and Americans adored that guy. In fact, the recently published Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them) features a glowing portrayal of Franco, with a forward by Steve Bannon and some high praise on the cover from JD Vance.

Our ignorance of and indifference towards--or maybe even longing for--fascism is willful. It's the natural enemy of communism, or "communism", and appeals particularly towards the adolescent male mindset dominant in the US, which is what you get when you stop teaching history and civics properly and herald empty fuckwits like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos as "visionaries" and "innovators"--the pillars of the "free market".

"We cannot trust computers."
-- Elon Musk

I guess he has "innovated" a new variety of doublespeak.

Edit: Not unlike a poster here branding my intolerance of bigotry and lying as "hate speech" perhaps.

To be historically fair about Franco, there was a big fear of communism in the 1930s, and a lot of respectable people even supported Hitler initially on the basis that the alternative seemed to be communism. The Spanish Civil War seemed to crystallise people's opinions one way or the other. (I was intrigued to read, in the biography of Oppenheimer that inspired the recent film, that it was his support for the Republican side that got him on the commie-paranoid J Edgar Hoover's radar.

I agree there was little justification for continuing to support these autocrats right through to the 1960s. One of my fellow chemists even thought Spain might turn communist as late as the mid 70s! ("Eurocommunism" was a thing back then.) As for trying to raise up the bogeyman of communism today, as if that is the alternative to the Republican party, that's simply preposterous - and probably done cynically. It seems unbelievable that any educated person really thinks anyone serious is advocating communism nowadays.

 

[parmalee]

To be historically fair about Franco, there was a big fear of communism in the 1930s, and a lot of respectable people even supported Hitler initially on the basis that the alternative seemed to be communism. The Spanish Civil War seemed to crystallise people's opinions one way or the other. (I was intrigued to read, in the biography of Oppenheimer that inspired the recent film, that it was his support for the Republican side that got him on the commie-paranoid J Edgar Hoover's radar.

I think some of the fears were legitimate, but misdirected--they were targeting communism, when really they shoudl have been targeting Stalinism. Of course, there were also plenty who supported Stalin at the time, presumably without full knowledge of what was going on in the Soviet Union.

That's interesting about Oppenheimer. Another facet of inadequate civics and history education in the US: a lot of people seem wholly unfamiliar with the radical transformations both the Republican party and the Democratic party have undergone over the decades. I've always found it fascinating that Fred Rogers (Mr Rogers--a long-running and actually quite good children's television program) was a Republican til the day he died--through Reagan and Bush 1 and 2.

 

[TheVat]

I've always found it fascinating that Fred Rogers (Mr Rogers--a long-running and actually quite good children's television program) was a Republican til the day he died--through Reagan and Bush 1 and 2.

It was Rogers who testified in Congress and basically saved PBS from Nixon's plans to cut its funding drastically. He was also an ethical vegetarian, something that now seems to be rather uncommon among Republicans. I've wondered if he kept the Republican registration more out of habit and deference to his conservative family background, and was at heart an Independent with liberal leanings. Bush Jr. used to talk about "compassionate conservatism" - Rogers was the real thing. He is missed.

I doubt it very much. The recess trick gets the more squeamish Republican senators off the hook, allowing them to wash their hands of confirming these unsuitable henchmen, but without opposing Trump directly.

It seems to me that with his constant talk of retribution Trump has already created a climate of fear, such that very few indeed will dare to challenge him.

I had assumed this was the play. However, designates like Gaetz et al, are so awful, some of the more sober GOP congress are covertly signaling concerns that two years of such hideous appointments will sour their party brand. I think the trick will be to gently discourage the worst picks without directly making eye contact with the Baboon In Chief. I'm making popcorn.