Geoff > Status Update

Manny wrote: "this is just plain loopy. His lawyers were arguing in court only a few weeks ago, against Jill Stein, that there was absolutely no evidence of significant voter fraud."

It's simple, Manny. There was no voter fraud in the states where he won. The states where he lost, though, all those votes were cast by very bad, very illegal people who were doing all kinds of fraud bigly. Because it's impossible for Trump to have lost the popular vote, especially against a, a, a, a girl!

Matt wrote: "If it turns out the election was rigged (in favor or against him doesn't matter) there has to be a rerun. At least that would be the case in Germany."

Well exactly. If the massive election fraud that Trump alleges has taken place, the election result cannot possibly be valid given the close result. Why would a sane person want to get into this argument?

Jacob wrote: "It's simple, Manny. There was no voter fraud in the states where he won. The states where he lost, though, all those votes were cast by very bad, very illegal people who were doing all kinds of fraud bigly. Because it's impossible for Trump to have lost the popular vote, especially against a, a, a, a girl!"

Well, I presume that similar thoughts must be going through his mind. But would any court even listen to an argument along those lines?

I guess the GOP are trying to walk it back. Virtually everyone else will be able to see what they might get into here.

Manny wrote: "Why would a sane person want to get into this argument? "

This leaves only one conclusion: The person isn't sane. I already see how Trump is led by two strong men into the nuthouse - in an outauguration-ceremony.

I'm trying to find some interpretation where he's crazy like a fox and this is some kind of clever scam, and so far I don't see it. Either his claims are such complete nonsense that they aren't even worth investigating, or the result of the election is invalid. Is there some creative third alternative I'm missing?

I don't believe, regardless of whatever Trump says, that there is any way the election can be "done over" due to "fraud". Any attempt at something like that would either be squashed immediately, or produce the greatest Constitutional crisis in the history of the U.S.

It is however possible to constitutionally and legally remove the man from office, in more ways than one actually. Not only is there impeachment, but there is also the 25th Amendment. And of course he could resign any time he wants, if he just gets too bored, or his brain hurts too much.

Ted wrote: "I don't believe, regardless of whatever Trump says, that there is any way the election can be "done over" due to "fraud". Any attempt at something like that would either be squashed immediately, or..."

Well, I think Trump is just talking complete nonsense. No one else has suggested serious reasons to believe there was voter fraud worth mentioning, let alone fraud involving millions of ballots.

But if such evidence were to appear, how could the results of the election be allowed to stand? It would indeed produce a massive Constitutional crisis, but I don't see how that would be avoidable. Ignoring the evidence would also be unacceptable. A President who lost the popular vote by three million votes in an election where at least that many votes were fraudulent would have no mandate at all. It's bad enough as it is.

I think you are all trying to see more there than just the visual, and the narrative it permits - he will drop it I am sure, but it allows the point to be brought up should there be suggestions of illegitimacy etc . It is also a good distraction from all the horrible crap he is up to right now - however I do think he is obsessed with ratings and therefore simply is constitutionally (ha!) incapable of accepting "poor" ratings in the states he lost.

But surely it's obvious that this scenario would make him less legitimate? Or is the reasoning that Trump supporters are too dumb to spot the obvious hole in the argument, i.e. that if there has been massive election fraud, it could just as easily have worked to his advantage. If so, it's not very flattering to them, but I suppose that treating them as morons has worked well so far...

Manny wrote: "crazy like a fox"

make that "crazy like a fox news viewer"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...

Sorry if this is old news, but I like to share this article by Swiss magazine DAS MAGAZIN about how psychological targeting by a company called Cambridge Analytica helped Trump to win the election (and Brexit too btw).
English Translations (there's two of them) of the article here:
https://antidotezine.com/2017/01/22/t...

Let's rec some HEROs here ::

Park Services -- First to disobey the Mad Man
NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand -- voted no on (almost) every Rump appointment
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...

I'm veryvery interested in rec'ing some upstanding Repubo's ;; above all the Repubo's should know that The People have their back when they finally stand up to Rump's insanity.

Jonathan wrote: "I think you are all trying to see more there than just the visual, and the narrative it permits - he will drop it I am sure, but it allows the point to be brought up should there be suggestions of ..."

Exactly. This is absolutely sound from Trump on every level.

In terms of message, he want to hammer home the view that the US is controlled by a cartel of corrupt oligarchs who are desparate to prevent him from making America great again. Naturally, the Protocols would be conspiring to rig the election against him. He said before the election that it would be rigged and now, look, he was right!

In terms of his ability to govern, his power comes almost entirely from his democratic legitimacy. Legitimacy is the cornerstone of power, both in the sense of staying in power at all and in the sense of persuading people to work with him from day to day. The fact that he lost the popular vote is a massive, massive blow against his legitimacy. It makes it much easier for bureaucrats and legislators to rebel against him, it makes it easier to remove him from office, and it makes it less likely that he'll be re-elected. So naturally he feels he needs to plug that hole, as it were, by insisting that he didn't lose the popular vote.

This is particularly a problem for Trump as a demagogue. Other politicians derive more of their authority from the institutions around them, which can allow them to survive personal unpopularity. But Trump's entire power flows from demagoguery, from the demands of the silent majority. If people think the silent majority is not in fact the majority, that undermines everything. "If you're the Voice of the People, why did the People vote against you?" is going to be a huge nagging question hanging over the head of the President for 4 years, and in the minds even of many of his supporters. Getting out immediately and supplying an acceptable answer ("they didn't, it's just more evidence of how evil the Democrats are") is essential to maintaining his authority.

Strategically, meanwhile, raising the question of voter fraud enables Republicans around the country to raise the bar for voting, which everyone knows will even further bias elections toward the Republicans. Voter fraud is one of those security issues that, once the question is raised, gets harder and harder to reverse course on.

And of course tactically the whole mess serves as a distraction.

So it's a genius move. How much is Trump salving his own ego, how much is politics, and how much is somewhere in between is debateable. But it's still a really good move.
[My sense is that Trump is somewhere between the idiot and the devil. I don't think he plans things much, but I do think he's developed an excellent political sense.]

Wastrel wrote: " somewhere between the idiot and the devil"

I think that should be what we carve on his tombstone...

Look, Trump has just now reiterated that he feels "torture absolutely works." The Republicans need to find their dignity and humanity, step up, and remove this lunatic from office now.

Honestly, I haven't been this pessimistic or empty of hope for the future of humanity in my entire life.

He just tweeted essentially: "If Mexico won't do what I want then I wont play with them anymore"

Anyway - his tactic is to isolate and overpower on an individual basis, like all bullies. Hopefully the rest of the world (US is, what, like 20% of world economy?) will realise this and start ganging together and telling him to get fucked.

Jonathan wrote: "He just tweeted essentially: "If Mexico won't do what I want then I wont play with them anymore"

Anyway - his tactic is to isolate and overpower on an individual basis, like all bullies. Hopefull..."

Sane adults don't act like this

They act like this:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefin...

Jonathan wrote: "They act like this:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefin..."

Hell yes!

Friends: I have been going through the comments here, and following Trump's actions, over the past two days. We have been trying to analyse his actions as that of a reasonable human being - and I think we are mistaken. The guy's absolute bonkers.

America, even though I have differences with its foreign policies many a time, is a country I respect as a fellow democracy. For the sake of its continued existence, I sincerely hope this homicidal clown is removed from office before he can do irreversible damage.

Nandakishore wrote: "Friends: I have been going through the comments here, and following Trump's actions, over the past two days. We have been trying to analyse his actions as that of a reasonable human being - and I t..."

Me too, friend.

So, all studies and data released by the EPA now have to be approved by the administration before they are published - and somehow the Left are the ones politicizing science? Is pointing out blatant hypocrisy even useful anymore?

Wastrel wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I think you are all trying to see more there than just the visual, and the narrative it permits - he will drop it I am sure, but it allows the point to be brought up should there b..."

Losing the popular vote has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's legal and Constitutional legitimacy to wield the proscribed powers of the Presidency. That question is over and done with, once the electoral college has cast its votes.

However, everything about the man, and his shockingly low approval ratings at the start of his term, indicates that he has no moral authority to speak for those who voted against him, and in this sense it can be said that regarding such "extra legal powers" of the office he is sadly lacking. He could win these powers over time, if he stopped being an asshole. Unlikely.

Democratic legitimacy as a political concept is much broader than mere legal authority. The apartheid regime, for instance, had legal authority, but it was not democratically legitimate.

I don't think it's right to say that Trump is outright illegitimate, but losing the popular vote, and by such a large margin, and to such an unpopular rival, does damage his legitimacy considerably.

Short version: people do what the President tells them even if they don't like it because they think he has legitimacy. If he's seen as having less legitimacy, people become much more likely to resist him - whether that's congressmen not showing him as much deference (congress is traditionally much more deferential immediately after an election or re-election, because the election reinforced the legitimacy of the president), state and local leaders being more willing to disobey him (mayors of various cities have basically told Trump to fuck off over immigration law, and it could trigger a prolonged legal battle), or his own bureaucrats being more willing to follow his lead. [There might not be an ongoing rebellion by his agencies if he'd one with 60% and had a 75% approval rating]

shorter version: constitutionally you're the president or you're not. But in practice people see you more on a continuum, with varying degrees of "well yeah, but..." attached. Trump has a lot of "yeah but" attached, and if he can persuade more people that there's at least a chance that he won fair and square, that'll help him in that regard.

To address Manny's point, though: no, this won't really backfire. Everyone knows that the Illegals are controlled by the Protocols of the Elder Democrats, so naturally they all voted against Trump. Plus, if there was any rigging of vote reporting it would have been by the Establishment (anti-Trump) or by the Big Business manufacturers of the machines (Democrats), so again it's clear that all the rigging would be against Trump.

Of course, some Democrats might not see it that way, but those Democrats aren't going to listen to Trump've view on whether it was rigged anyway!

Oh shit
http://thehill.com/policy/national-se...

Wastrel wrote: "To address Manny's point, though: no, this won't really backfire. Everyone knows that the Illegals are controlled by the Protocols of the Elder Democrats, so naturally they all voted against Trump...."

I guess I'm behind in tracking the speed with which the US is transforming itself into a fascist dictatorship. My bad.

Geoff wrote: "Oh shit
http://thehill.com/policy/national-se..."

Yes, it's both aesthetically and politically alarming to see Democrat politicians actually named "Gentry". Seriously, people?


On the topic: where's the news? First, that's not the entire senior management team, it's four people out of about 14. Their own union pointed out that this is entirely normal. And of the four people who just left... well, I can't easily find data for the most junior of the four. But of the other three:
- AS for SCA: Bush kept Clinton's guy on for a while, but Obama replaced Bush's woman as soon as he had a replacement (beginning of April);
- AS for SA: Bush kept Clinton's guy on for a few months, but Obama sacked Bush's guy on inauguration day
- US of SM: Bush sacked Clinton's woman on inauguration day; Obama kept Bush's guy, but under unusual circumstances: he had previously been Clinton's guy, and Bush had only installed him a year before the election

Before that, Clinton sacked all three of those roles on inauguration day. Reagan sacked one on inauguration day, and one a few months later, keeping one. Even in the intraparty Reagan-Bush transition, none of these three roles lasted the year.


This sort of turnover is perfectly normal. Yes, Trump's at the more abrupt end of the continuum, but by no means outside normal parameters.

Trump is alarming enough - we don't need to go around finding non-stories to frighten ourselves with!

It's actually not perfectly normal to have a complete vacuum of leadership in the State Department during presidential transitions - but your level-headed contrarianism can't be stopped!

lol... ah, Wastrel. It's well past time for Nate Silver to resign in disgrace and appoint you his successor.

(I'm actually with Geoff here)

You think he'll give one of those posts to James Dobson?

Anyone pretending that the current situation in USA is perfectly normal is deluding themselves. What we are seeing here is the collapse of an unsustainable system, propped up by both Democrats and Republicans over the years.

Why Trump-Sanders Phenomenon Signals an Oligarchy on the Brink of a Civilization-Threatening Collapse

The writing on the wall is clear.

The US is seeing a collapse into some form of fascism. The parallels are close to Weimar in 1933. The Trump administration implementing a fascist takeover straight out of the playbook Hitler and the nazis used.

You have got Republicans thinking they are playing Trump to get their program shoved through in congress having Trump rubber stamp it and then dispose of Trump when he is no longer useful. This is what Conservative politicians tried to do with Hitler only it turned out that Hitler ultimately played the conservative politicians. Steve Bannon is a sharp character and I am sure he knows history.

Geoff wrote: "Oh shit
http://thehill.com/policy/national-se..."

My browser (Firefox) told me that that link is a known fraudulent web page and took me off it.

I missed this after the election but this is a very good piece

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/...

Geoff wrote: "I missed this after the election but this is a very good piece

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/..."

yes it was. Here's another IMHO

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-c...

I am stunned at the extent of the "Muslim ban", and its effects already. Feel sick to my stomach. Friends of mine from Iran who are US green card holders are deeply worried and frightened. This is just horrific l.

Jonathan wrote: "I am stunned at the extent of the "Muslim ban", and its effects already. Feel sick to my stomach. Friends of mine from Iran who are US green card holders are deeply worried and frightened. This is ..."

No no Jonathan, you're being hyperbolic, this is perfectly normal. One thing we don't need to do in these times is overreact. That might be the worst thing we can do. Let's just give the guy a fair shake and see how his religious test for entering our country works out in the long run. Also, he's just looking out for all of us good, correct Americans. It's altruistic. Just don't put too much thought into the fact that the predominantly Muslim countries that happen to not be on his "banned" list are ones where his companies have business interests. That's a coincidence that needs no further thinking through. If the president does it, it is legal.

Ah yes, my fault for letting all that liberal education I had get in the way of my unquestioning obedience. All those Syrian kids were totally sleeper terrorists

Jonathan wrote: "Ah yes, my fault for letting all that liberal education I had get in the way of my unquestioning obedience. All those Syrian kids were totally sleeper terrorists"

All irony aside - at least for four years, "the American Dream", at least how I conceive it, as a thing of opportunities, is decidedly over. That shit about his business interests in those Muslim countries is true. It's still just all about his own profit.

'sides. Protecting our borders is totally Biblical Morality.

Take for instance, that most reactionary of Priestly books, Leviticus (19: 33-34) :: "When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

Yup to both - and yes particularly to how unchristian, how unamercian, how immoral and, yes, plain mean these actions are.

I cannot help thinking about the "non-oil Muslim ban" in terms of terrorism - if not killing, this is ruining people's lives on a mass scale.

At SFO right now.

If you get the chance, please visit your local International Airport.

'It is the mercy of God that unites us' - Pope Francis

(In keeping with Nathan's religious theme : )

so this is what fascism feels like.

David wrote: "'It is the mercy of God that unites us' - Pope Francis

(In keeping with Nathan's religious theme : ) "

Exactly. I'm going full on religious in the face of this onslaught. The vocabulary feels so much richer at the moment.

Airports look like God's country right now.

As a British passport-holder, I am very disappointed with Theresa May's reaction. I thought we'd tried appeasement once and found it wasn't the right strategy.