Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

Some have criticized the image on the cover of this week's DER SPIEGEL, but the symbol it depicts is a serious one: the very real threat that President Donald Trump poses to liberal democracy.

Ultimately, indifference is deadly. The apathy. The feeling of impotence. And the idle silence that follows. People, including journalists, start thinking they can't do anything anyway. That proved to be the case in Turkey and Hungary and it has long been the situation in Russia and China as well. Will it also happen in the United States?

When democracy begins to erode, it seldom happens very quickly. Looking back, one can often determine the moment in which it became serious -- usually it was an election. How could Turkey have elected Erdogan, Russia Putin, Hungary Orbán and how could America have chosen Donald Trump with a clear conscience? When political discourse leads to a situation in which the discourse itself is replaced by demagogy, and when that demagogue is brought to power through a democratic process, then it's possible that democracy itself will be replaced by autocracy.

Everything else then happens slowly. Meanwhile, some media continue day-dreaming and thus become even more obsessive about labeling any person warning against the threat as hysterical.

So there we have it: Donald Trump, a misogynist and a racist businessman who verifiably made 87 false statements in the course of only five days of the election campaign, is no longer a candidate. He's sitting in the White House. Here are three insights about this American president who has been in office since Jan. 20.

...

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

I D I O T

 

[Michael Scally MD]

I D I O T



In interviews, nearly two dozen people who’ve spent time with Trump in the three weeks since his inauguration said that his mood has careened between surprise and anger as he’s faced the predictable realities of governing, from congressional delays over his cabinet nominations and legal fights holding up his aggressive initiatives to staff in-fighting and leaks.

The administration’s rocky opening days have been a setback for a president who, as a billionaire businessman, sold himself to voters as being uniquely qualified to fix what ailed the nation. Yet it has become apparent, say those close to the president, most of whom requested anonymity to describe the inner workings of the White House, that the transition from overseeing a family business to running the country has been tough on him.

Trump often asks simple questions about policies, proposals and personnel. And, when discussions get bogged down in details, the president has been known to quickly change the subject — to "seem in control at all times," one senior government official said — or direct questions about details to his chief strategist Steve Bannon, his son-in-law Jared Kushner or House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump has privately expressed disbelief over the ability of judges, bureaucrats or lawmakers to delay — or even stop — him from filling positions and implementing policies.

...

The president and his allies believe career NSC staff assigned from other agencies are out to get them. In turn, some NSC staff believe Trump does not possess the capacity for detail and nuance required to handle the sensitive issues discussed on the calls, and that he has politicized their agency by appointing chief strategist Bannon to the council.

Last week, Trump told an associate he had become weary of in-fighting among — and leaks from — his White House staff “because it reflects on me,” and that he intended to sit down staffers to tell them “to cut this shit out.”

He also became aggravated after learning about complications surrounding his appointment of one of his top fundraisers, Anthony Scaramucci, to a plum White House job, which Trump blamed on internal jockeying between aides, according to one person with knowledge of the situation.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

I D I O T



Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.

...

The Ninth Circuit is correct to leave the TRO in place, in my view, for the simple reason that there is no cause to plunge the country into turmoil again while the courts address the merits of these matters over the next few weeks. Are there tea leaves to read in this opinion? There sure are, particularly with respect to the judges’ analysis of the government’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits and its blithe dismissal of the government’s claims of national security necessity on pages 26-27—a matter on which the per curiam spends only one sentence and one brief footnote.

But it’s worth emphasizing that the grounds on which this order was fought are not the grounds on which the merits fight will happen. Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.

How to Read (and How Not to Read) Today’s 9th Circuit Opinion

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

While co-bloggers https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/10/thoughts-on-the-appellate-court-ruling-against-trumps-refugee-order/?utm_term=.7da5198080e1 (Ilya Somin) and https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/02/09/quick-reactions-to-the-9th-circuits-decision-in-washington-v-trump/?utm_term=.a06b2e328507 (Will Baude)have covered a number of the important legal issues in the 9th Circuit’s decision in the immigration order case, one additional point should be stressed. As Derek Hawkins and Fred Barbash https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/10/travel-ban-ruling-in-court-as-on-twitter-trump-confronts-problem-of-no-evidence-for-claims/?hpid=hp_rhp-morning-mix_mm-court%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.06a8a8586ef6 (point out elsewhere in The Post), the court insisted — quite properly — that the government provide some justification for the specific actions it took in the executive order. Why these seven countries? Why not others? What evidence connects nationals of these seven countries to our national security?

The Government has not shown that a stay is necessary to avoid irreparable injury. Although we agree that “the Government’s interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective of the highest order,” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010), the Government has done little more than reiterate that fact. Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations to explain the urgent need for the Executive Order to be placed immediately into effect, the Government submitted no evidence to rebut the States’ argument that the district court’s order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years. The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree, as explained above.

Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.

In addition, the Government asserts that, “Unlike the President, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.” But the Government may provide a court with classified information. Courts regularly receive classified information under seal and maintain its confidentiality. Regulations and rules have long been in place for that.

This is, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/30/was-trumps-executive-order-an-impeachable-offense/ (as I’ve suggested before), going to be a persistent issue in the ongoing debates over Trump policies. It’s not enough — and it should not be enough — for the government to say “Well, Obama had this list of seven countries for which visa restrictions were put in place, so we’ll just use that list for our own, far more sweeping, ban.” Judicial review of the constitutionality of executive or legislative action always turns on the question: what evidence does the government have that justifies the burdens it has imposed on the constitutional rights of individuals in any specific case? Trump has shown, over and over and over, an unwillingness to recognize that there are “actual facts” out there in the world, and that his policies need to be tied, in some way, to those facts. That may work to fire up his supporters, but courts will demand much more than that – and thank goodness for that.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[MassTurk]

Iranians rally against Trump, but thanks to America

I knew Trump was good for something. He by himself just being Trump, cause Iranians to have compassion for the American people. No burning of American flag !!! Go trump

 

[Big_paul]

I D I O T



In interviews, nearly two dozen people who’ve spent time with Trump in the three weeks since his inauguration said that his mood has careened between surprise and anger as he’s faced the predictable realities of governing, from congressional delays over his cabinet nominations and legal fights holding up his aggressive initiatives to staff in-fighting and leaks.

The administration’s rocky opening days have been a setback for a president who, as a billionaire businessman, sold himself to voters as being uniquely qualified to fix what ailed the nation. Yet it has become apparent, say those close to the president, most of whom requested anonymity to describe the inner workings of the White House, that the transition from overseeing a family business to running the country has been tough on him.

Trump often asks simple questions about policies, proposals and personnel. And, when discussions get bogged down in details, the president has been known to quickly change the subject — to "seem in control at all times," one senior government official said — or direct questions about details to his chief strategist Steve Bannon, his son-in-law Jared Kushner or House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump has privately expressed disbelief over the ability of judges, bureaucrats or lawmakers to delay — or even stop — him from filling positions and implementing policies.

...

The president and his allies believe career NSC staff assigned from other agencies are out to get them. In turn, some NSC staff believe Trump does not possess the capacity for detail and nuance required to handle the sensitive issues discussed on the calls, and that he has politicized their agency by appointing chief strategist Bannon to the council.

Last week, Trump told an associate he had become weary of in-fighting among — and leaks from — his White House staff “because it reflects on me,” and that he intended to sit down staffers to tell them “to cut this shit out.”

He also became aggravated after learning about complications surrounding his appointment of one of his top fundraisers, Anthony Scaramucci, to a plum White House job, which Trump blamed on internal jockeying between aides, according to one person with knowledge of the situation.

I doubt he even felt he had a chance to win. He was making excuses why he would lose like the election was rigged. The cocksucker would've even conceded defeat which would have led to widespread protests from trump buffoons, and would have undermined our electoral process. JFC even when the megalomaniac won, he still lied about losing the popular vote.

Fuck trump he will NEVER be my president. I have no doubt that Democrats will win the 2018 mid terms and 2020 elections. He may be impeached by that time anyway. His ego is his worst enemy.

 

[Big_paul]

Iranians rally against Trump, but thanks to America

I knew Trump was good for something. He by himself just being Trump, cause Iranians to have compassion for the American people. No burning of American flag !!! Go trump

Over the years I have met many Iranian people and have had friends work in the country and they are not out to get Americans. They were righteously pissed for the US backing of the Shah, but recognize the difference between government policies and the American people. America gave Iran over to a radical government, buy interfering with the lives of the the Iranian people to preserve a steady supply of oil.

We now have a very hostile government in place that has destabilized the entire middle east.

 

[Jeremiahflex]

Bwhahaha

 

[Michael Scally MD]

If this is what “running government like a business” looks like, it’s no wonder President Trump’s companies https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.a4905bb84c33 (kept going bankrupt).

One week into the presidency, we’ve gotten a taste of Trump’s management style. And so far it’s been plagued by many of the bad habits common to poorly run businesses.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Apologies! Hard to unsee.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

People are being way too kind to Trump
TheMoneyIllusion » People are being way too kind to Trump

I am starting to see a disturbing pattern, people trying to defend Trump’s late night call to General Flynn, asking him whether its better to have a strong currency or a weak currency. The argument people are making is that economists can’t agree on whether a strong currency is good or a weak currency is good, so why shouldn’t Trump’s question be viewed as reasonable?

Because Trump’s already made up his mind on the issue! He campaigned on the claim that China was manipulating the yuan, and that this was hurting the US. But how can he assert that a change in the yuan/$ exchange rate hurts the US, when he doesn’t even know whether the US benefits from or is hurt by a strong yuan? Trump’s just admitted that his campaign promises on exchange rates were meaningless, he was just blathering on about something his protectionist buddies fed him. Trump himself doesn’t even understand this stuff, that’s why he latched onto Peter Navarro. Navarro uses all this hyperbolic rhetoric about the Chinese destroying America, and Trump laps it up because his instincts tell him the same thing. But if asked to explain how, he wouldn’t be able to tell you whether it was the weak yuan or the strong yuan that hurt us, just that he “knows” those “crafty Asians” must be stealing us blind. (OK, made up quotes, but that’s how his mind seems to work.)

I hear you say, “Yes, but Trump has advisors who do have a sophisticated understanding of international economics”.

Oh really? Peter Navarro? Wilbur Ross? Here is one of Trump’s top economic advisors, Gary Cohn:

At the start of 2015 there were three countries in the world that were willing to have a strong currency. The Swiss, the Chinese, and the U.S. The Swiss pulled the rip cord overnight. They just ripped it off and said, ‘We are done. We are done having a strong currency. It is too expensive to defend this.’

ROTFL

The Swiss move was a headline story. If Cohn doesn’t even know whether the SF went up or down, then he has no idea of what’s happening. He should not even be discussing exchange rates with the WSJ.

I’m telling you, we are being governed by people who know nothing. Who exactly is going to do these negotiations? I can just see them returning from Beijing with a Chinese promise to “raise” the value of the yuan from 7 to the dollar to 8 to the dollar.

PS. And BTW, Trump did not “keep his promise” to protect America from Muslims. His proposal is now dead. He failed to keep his promise, and he’ll keep failing. Think about it. A GOP that expected to succeed would be flying out of the gate, with a first 100 days of incredible energy and achievement. Instead we hear more and more talk that “Obamacare repeal will have to wait for 2018” or “tax reform will have to wait for 2018”. That’s a party that has no guts. Sad!

The GOP reminds me of this Monty Python routine.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[CdnGuy]

Just a thought.. if all the logical thinking people in seats resign. Who in Gods name is Trump gonna fill them with ?!?! Now that's a scary thought