Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[OA] Kakkar H, Sivanathan N. When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader

Across the globe we witness the rise of populist authoritarian leaders who are overbearing in their narrative, aggressive in behavior, and often exhibit questionable moral character.

Drawing on evolutionary theory of leadership emergence, in which dominance and prestige are seen as dual routes to leadership, we provide a situational and psychological account for when and why dominant leaders are preferred over other respected and admired candidates.

We test our hypothesis using three studies, encompassing more than 140,000 participants, across 69 countries and spanning the past two decades.

We find robust support for our hypothesis that under a situational threat of economic uncertainty (as exemplified by the poverty rate, the housing vacancy rate, and the unemployment rate) people escalate their support for dominant leaders.

Further, we find that this phenomenon is mediated by participants’ psychological sense of a lack of personal control.

Together, these results provide large-scale, globally representative evidence for the structural and psychological antecedents that increase the preference for dominant leaders over their prestigious counterparts.
 


(CNN)Leave it to Donald Trump to reinvent the Cabinet meeting.

The public portion of these gatherings of all of the president's top advisers are usually staid affairs. Photographers are let in to take pictures. The president makes a very brief statement. A reporter shouts a question, unanswered. The end.

Donald Trump did something very different in his Cabinet meeting Monday.
First, he reviewed the various alleged successes of his first 143 days and made this remarkable claim: "Never has there been a president....with few exceptions...who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than I have."

Um, ok. While Trump has signed a number of executive orders and actions -- the most high profile of which, the so-called "travel ban" was, again, blocked by a court on Monday -- what he hasn't really done is pass actual legislation through Congress. The health care bill is tied up in Senate machinations. Tax reform hasn't moved an inch. Funding for the border wall hasn't happened. And so on.

(Nota bene: You can't say "never has" something happened and then say "with few exceptions." Either it's never happened or it, well, has.)

But, that wasn't even close to the weirdest part of the Cabinet meeting!
Once Trump finished touting his administration's accomplishments, he turned to several of his newly-minted Cabinet secretaries like Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue. Each of those Cabinet secretaries lavished praise on Trump, which he accepted without comment but with a broad smile.

At first, I thought Trump was just going to have the new members of the Cabinet spend a few minutes praising him. NOPE! It soon became clear that Trump planned to have every Cabinet member speak. And when I say "speak" what I really mean is "praise Trump for his accomplishments, his foresight, his just being awesome."

You think I am exaggerating. I am not. Here's what White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said about Trump: "We thank you for the opportunity and blessing to serve your agenda."

I mean, WHAT?!?

The whole thing reminded me of a scene directly from the boardroom of "The Apprentice." A group of supplicants all desperately trying to hold on to their spots on the show by effusively praising Trump -- each one trying to take it a step further than the last. And Trump in the middle of it all, totally and completely pleased with himself. (Reminder: Around that Cabinet table are hugely accomplished generals, billionaires and political people with long track records of success.)


 


IN A LAWSUIT http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/dc-and-maryland-v-trump/2467/ (filed today), the attorneys general of the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia claim that by accepting millions of dollars and countless more perks from foreign governments, President Trump is at the center of an “unprecedented constitutional violation.”

The attorneys general claim that “President Trump’s personal fortune is at stake,” whenever he makes a policy decision, whether it be about taxes, climate change, or foreign relations — a troubling notion, to say the least. According to the lawsuit, Trump’s continued entanglement in his business violates the constitutional emolument clause that, in theory, prevents the president from taking payments from foreign governments. The lawsuit is damning, saying, “never before has a President acted with such disregard for this constitutional prescription.”

Trump, of course, still profits directly from his business dealings, since he has not divested from his business holdings in any way.

I’ve spent the last five months researching the Trump family’s global brand-based empire and the various ways that the president has turned the U.S. government into the ultimate extension of his for-profit brand, so far without any repercussion. So it’s good to see the law starting to catch up. But the lawsuit touches on a fraction of the ways in which Trump is actively profiting from the presidency.
 


On Monday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/06/12/17-15589.pdf a district court’s injunction against President Donald Trump’s second travel ban. In March, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson blocked two key portions of the executive order, the first suspending the entry of individuals from six Muslim-majority countries and the second suspending the refugee program, then halving the number of refugees allowed in the country.

Watson enjoined the order on constitutional grounds, ruling it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by disfavoring Islam.

The 9th Circuit, however, has now blocked the ban on statutory grounds, holding that Trump “exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress.”

This alternative reasoning does not change the outcome of the case, but it does give the Supreme Court a narrower basis on which to rule if the justices decide to weigh in. The statutory argument is straightforward. Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority to promulgate immigration law, but it can delegate some of that power to the president. The Immigration and Nationality Act does exactly that, allowing the president to suspend a class of aliens from entering the country if he determines they would be detrimental to the United States’ interests. Trump therefore insists that the INA empowers him to exclude all refugees in addition to citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

The 9th Circuit noted a problem with this logic: The INA requires that the President “find”—not speculate or hypothesize, but rationally determine—that a certain class of aliens poses a threat. “This section,” the court explained, “requires that the President’s findings support the conclusion that entry of all nationals from the six designated countries, all refugees, and refugees in excess of 50,000 would be harmful to the national interest.” If the president did not “meet [this] essential precondition to exercising his delegated authority,” then his order was unlawful.

The court examined a great deal of evidence to determine whether Trump had, indeed, satisfied the INA’s requirements. It easily concluded that he had not.
 
What i mean is that at the moment that trump asked Comey, he wasn't

We do not know if they started investigating after that... Comey got fired...
So your speculating that the fbi may have started an investigation in the 2 weeks between those hearing and comey being fired. Anything to base this off of? Or just another desperate reach to try and delegitimize trump as our President?
 
So your speculating that the fbi may have started an investigation in the 2 weeks between those hearing and comey being fired. Anything to base this off of? Or just another desperate reach to try and delegitimize trump as our President?

No I am not speculating

I am simply stating that you can only say he was not under investigation at the time trump asked Comey.

Those are the only known facts

But I forget "you" have "alternative facts" on which you base "your" opinions ... [emoji849]
 
No I am not speculating

I am simply stating that you can only say he was not under investigation at the time trump asked Comey.

Those are the only known facts

But I forget "you" have "alternative facts" on which you base "your" opinions ... [emoji849]
Man, you guys are too much, lol.
 
Back
Top