So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Dancin'Dog]

Didn't Rome fall because of crazy leaders?

[talltexan]

Rome actually did fine even with some crazy leaders. The greatest extent of its territory wasn't reached until CE 170, more than 100 years after the era of Nero and Caligula.

[Kyle Schuant]

Didn't Rome fall because of crazy leaders?

Rome fell because as it grew, the benefits accrued to the elites while the costs accrued to the common people. Eventually, the costs of the system to the common people exceeded the benefits, so they had no reason to support it when the barbarians came. Rome tried to deal with this by hiring the barbarians, but then the people realised they preferred the rule of the barbarians, since their rule didn't cost them as much, and they tended to be local warlords rather than distant emperors, and thus listen to the local people a bit better.

Crazy leaders don't help, but it's less that crazy leaders create a dysfunctional system, and more that a dysfunctional system allows crazy leaders to take power. And the system becomes dysfunctional because the elites game the system to gather a larger and larger share of its benefits, and pass on the costs the others.

Someone like Trump couldn't have been elected in 1960. But he didn't create the country that elected him.

[waltworks]

Yes, over many generations, the richest Roman citizens all got themselves and their estates immune from taxes. So the tax burden on everyone else got higher and higher until it all came apart.

If it sounds familiar...

-W

[Zamboni]

One of my biggest concerns is how the court is being skewed and corrupted by Trump appointments. For example, SCOTUS just ruled that immigrants can be detained indefinitely. In order words, non-citizens were not created equal and thus do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How does that make sense for anyone in the US? In addition to the human rights violation aspect of it, we are all paying, and paying handsomely, so these detentions can go on and on. Who benefits? It's not me, but someone benefits.

Meanwhile, for reasons that defy comprehension, all of the top news and twitter today is Trump rambling (again) about a man who has been dead for months. And some feud between an unimportant couple on his staff. I'm waaay more worried about detained, separated children at our Southern border, overarching criminal enterprises, and the further corruption of the judicial branch, than what the Prez spews about another dead politician.

Honestly, I'm starting to think the US may be beyond repair. 2018 was encouraging, so I'm still here, but 2020 may be our last chance, imho. Meanwhile, we are working on a route that we have to EU passports, just in case. I'm also traveling regularly to build on my network of contacts in Europe and Oceania.

I'm a relatively wealthy (but not super rich enough to protect myself) intellectual. The last 100+ years of history shows that my group will be the first to see the writing on the wall and leave. After many years of stasis, I've had 3 colleagues take positions outside the US in the past 6 months . . . It is the first wave of brain drain, and it is not a good sign. Things can happen rapidly (I just went to Cuba . . . ask anyone trapped in Cuba or Turkey, for example). Next thing you know, it is hard to get out.

[Poundwise]

One of my biggest concerns is how the court is being skewed and corrupted by Trump appointments. For example, SCOTUS just ruled that immigrants can be detained indefinitely. In order word, non-citizens were not created equal and thus do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How does that make sense for anyone in the US? In addition to the human rights violation aspect of it, we are all paying, and paying handsomely, so these detentions can go on and on. Who benefits? It's not me, but someone benefits.

Yes, this is very disturbing!  Very wrong!!

Indefinite detention is all OUT OF PROPORTION for the transgressions committed  by illegal immigrants. 

For those who are not so concerned about the human rights side, where did that $775 in tax dollars/detained child/night go?

Next thing you know, it is hard to get out.

Walls can keep citizens in as well as immigrants out. 

[FIPurpose]

Why is it that whenever people start talking about the fall of the Roman Empire, people just start making up whatever reasons they want? I was a classics major for a few years, took many history classes on Rome, and even I couldn't tell you what caused the end of the Roman empire.

Amazing how the reason Rome fell is always so relevant and easily allegorized to modern events...

[talltexan]

Didn't Rome fall because of crazy leaders?

Rome fell because as it grew, the benefits accrued to the elites while the costs accrued to the common people. Eventually, the costs of the system to the common people exceeded the benefits, so they had no reason to support it when the barbarians came. Rome tried to deal with this by hiring the barbarians, but then the people realised they preferred the rule of the barbarians, since their rule didn't cost them as much, and they tended to be local warlords rather than distant emperors, and thus listen to the local people a bit better.

Crazy leaders don't help, but it's less that crazy leaders create a dysfunctional system, and more that a dysfunctional system allows crazy leaders to take power. And the system becomes dysfunctional because the elites game the system to gather a larger and larger share of its benefits, and pass on the costs the others.

Someone like Trump couldn't have been elected in 1960. But he didn't create the country that elected him.

First of all, the wealthy scion of one of the richest families--one who shamelessly carried on sexual hijinx without the least bit of restraint--was indeed elected in 1960.

[LennStar]

Why is it that whenever people start talking about the fall of the Roman Empire, people just start making up whatever reasons they want? I was a classics major for a few years, took many history classes on Rome, and even I couldn't tell you what caused the end of the Roman empire.

Amazing how the reason Rome fell is always so relevant and easily allegorized to modern events...

Well, of course there was not just one reason, but if I remember right the unfair monetary burden and widespread corruption was thought to be a main reason for centuries.

[GuitarStv]

One of my biggest concerns is how the court is being skewed and corrupted by Trump appointments. For example, SCOTUS just ruled that immigrants can be detained indefinitely. In order word, non-citizens were not created equal and thus do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How does that make sense for anyone in the US? In addition to the human rights violation aspect of it, we are all paying, and paying handsomely, so these detentions can go on and on. Who benefits? It's not me, but someone benefits.

Yes, this is very disturbing!  Very wrong!!

Indefinite detention is all OUT OF PROPORTION for the transgressions committed  by illegal immigrants. 

For those who are not so concerned about the human rights side, where did that $775 in tax dollars/detained child/night go?

So, this is shitty . . . and did come up under Trump's watch.  That said, it isn't too different from the indefinite attention of foreign citizens without hope of a fair trial that the Bush administration started and the Obama administration failed to shut down.  Indefinite detention and denial of a fair trial has been going on for a long time under US watch.  This illegal torture facility is certainly not cheap to continue running.

Costs don't seem to matter to Americans for military/paramilitary operations and rights don't seem to matter when you're violating the rights of brown people (be they south or central american, or middle easterners).

[talltexan]

The rise and fall of these great institutions is indeed a pattern throughout history. India, China, Carthage, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Great Powers that were dissolved by WWI.

[Cool Friend]

One of my biggest concerns is how the court is being skewed and corrupted by Trump appointments. For example, SCOTUS just ruled that immigrants can be detained indefinitely. In order word, non-citizens were not created equal and thus do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How does that make sense for anyone in the US? In addition to the human rights violation aspect of it, we are all paying, and paying handsomely, so these detentions can go on and on. Who benefits? It's not me, but someone benefits.

Yes, this is very disturbing!  Very wrong!!

Indefinite detention is all OUT OF PROPORTION for the transgressions committed  by illegal immigrants. 

For those who are not so concerned about the human rights side, where did that $775 in tax dollars/detained child/night go?

So, this is shitty . . . and did come up under Trump's watch.  That said, it isn't too different from the indefinite attention of foreign citizens without hope of a fair trial that the Bush administration started and the Obama administration failed to shut down.  Indefinite detention and denial of a fair trial has been going on for a long time under US watch.  This illegal torture facility is certainly not cheap to continue running.

Costs don't seem to matter to Americans for military/paramilitary operations and rights don't seem to matter when you're violating the rights of brown people (be they south or central american, or middle easterners).

I promised people during the Bush years that if we allowed people to be indefinitely detained for terrorist conspiracy, eventually it would be employed on people who have committed lesser crimes.  Everyone rolled their eyes at me, but here we are, the highest court in our country ruling to detain indefinitely people who have committed misdemeanors.  There's no reason to believe they'll stop there.

[GuitarStv]

One of my biggest concerns is how the court is being skewed and corrupted by Trump appointments. For example, SCOTUS just ruled that immigrants can be detained indefinitely. In order word, non-citizens were not created equal and thus do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How does that make sense for anyone in the US? In addition to the human rights violation aspect of it, we are all paying, and paying handsomely, so these detentions can go on and on. Who benefits? It's not me, but someone benefits.

Yes, this is very disturbing!  Very wrong!!

Indefinite detention is all OUT OF PROPORTION for the transgressions committed  by illegal immigrants. 

For those who are not so concerned about the human rights side, where did that $775 in tax dollars/detained child/night go?

So, this is shitty . . . and did come up under Trump's watch.  That said, it isn't too different from the indefinite attention of foreign citizens without hope of a fair trial that the Bush administration started and the Obama administration failed to shut down.  Indefinite detention and denial of a fair trial has been going on for a long time under US watch.  This illegal torture facility is certainly not cheap to continue running.

Costs don't seem to matter to Americans for military/paramilitary operations and rights don't seem to matter when you're violating the rights of brown people (be they south or central american, or middle easterners).

I promised people during the Bush years that if we allowed people to be indefinitely detained for terrorist conspiracy, eventually it would be employed on people who have committed lesser crimes.  Everyone rolled their eyes at me, but here we are, the highest court in our country ruling to detain indefinitely people who have committed misdemeanors.  There's no reason to believe they'll stop there.

Agreed.

Justice is binary.  You either have it for all, or you have it for none.  When you get the majority of the country to just agree with injustice because it's only perpetrated against brown foreigners, there's no reason that the injustice shouldn't continue to creep to other areas.  I still see no political will from America to do the right thing on this issue, after decades of evidence showing how flawed the whole concept was from the beginning.

[JLee]

One of my biggest concerns is how the court is being skewed and corrupted by Trump appointments. For example, SCOTUS just ruled that immigrants can be detained indefinitely. In order word, non-citizens were not created equal and thus do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How does that make sense for anyone in the US? In addition to the human rights violation aspect of it, we are all paying, and paying handsomely, so these detentions can go on and on. Who benefits? It's not me, but someone benefits.

Yep.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/profiting-enforcement-role-private-prisons-us-immigration-detention

[nereo]

The rise and fall of these great institutions is indeed a pattern throughout history. India, China, Carthage, Egypt, Greece, Rome, the Great Powers that were dissolved by WWI.

While this may be a pattern throughout history, I caution everyone from looking only at the decline of great powers when making comparisons (a form of survivorship bias).

It's just as informative to look at countries which underwent and survived troubling periods, including our own.  We may be in a period of crisis, but it isn't our first, and I am of the opinion that we aren't necessarily doomed.

[Johnez]

So Mr. Trump decides the first amendment needs protecting now that a conservative gets punched or whatever happened to him at University. The first amendment was being practiced in Charlottesville when a Nazi decided to run over a counter protester and the most he could muster is "there are good people on both sides." Despicable.

[OtherJen]

So Mr. Trump decides the first amendment needs protecting now that a conservative gets punched or whatever happened to him at University. The first amendment was being practiced in Charlottesville when a Nazi decided to run over a counter protester and the most he could muster is "there are good people on both sides." Despicable.

And yet, I wonder if this nonsense and his ongoing feud with Sen. McCain are intended as distractions from 1) the current investigations of his potentially fraudulent dealings with Deutsche Bank by NY State and Congress and/or 2) his proposed cuts to Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.

This is a 3-ring circus. A minority of the voters wanted a reality TV huckster as president. They got what they wanted.

[sol]

The magabomber pled guilty today.  Any guesses on how long he'll have to wait for a pardon?

[MDM]

So Mr. Trump decides the first amendment needs protecting now that a conservative gets punched or whatever happened to him at University. The first amendment was being practiced in Charlottesville when a Nazi decided to run over a counter protester and the most he could muster is "there are good people on both sides." Despicable.

Perhaps the salient portion of https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662 quoted below.  One can form one's opinion on the actual language.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred and violence on both sides?

TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don't have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.

REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.

TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

REPORTER: George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

TRUMP: Oh no, George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down – excuse me. Are we going to take down, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him? Okay, good. Are we going to take down his statue? He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? You know what? It’s fine, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people – and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.

[ysette9]

I really dislike that false equivalency. Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

[MDM]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

[accolay]

Well, It's a good thing The Lord™ has sent Trump to save Israel:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pompeo-christian-broadcasting-network-interview-president-trump-present-day-queen-esther/

What the fuck are these guys playing at in the Middle East?

[Kyle Schuant]

First of all, the wealthy scion of one of the richest families--one who shamelessly carried on sexual hijinx without the least bit of restraint--was indeed elected in 1960.

I didn't say "wealthy sons who screwed around on their wives couldn't be elected in 1960." I said, "someone like Trump."


You really believe JFK was significantly like Trump?

[GuitarStv]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

If you're at a gathering of people, and you see folks holding large swastika flags and wearing klan paraphernalia would you show your solidarity in staying with that gathering?  I don't know a single 'very fine person' who would.

Trump is talking out both sides of his mouth on this.  He desperately wants to condone the Nazis, but knows that publicly doing so will bring too much condemnation . . . so instead he publicly condones the 'theoretically not nazis, but just marching in solidarity with nazi' crowd.  Because people like you can then say, hey, Trump isn't explicitly supportive of Nazis.

If this was a one off comment, maybe I could buy the argument . . . but Trump has a long history of racist comments.  Taken in that context, there can be no doubt whatsoever in the mind of a reasonable person regarding the intent of these comments.

[talltexan]

First of all, the wealthy scion of one of the richest families--one who shamelessly carried on sexual hijinx without the least bit of restraint--was indeed elected in 1960.

I didn't say "wealthy sons who screwed around on their wives couldn't be elected in 1960." I said, "someone like Trump."


You really believe JFK was significantly like Trump?

I don't know how to respond to this: if you're going by something like background--being raised in a wealthy family, having the kind of consequence-free private life that this implies--I think you can make a case for that.

Obviously, Trump is very different in some of his choices as President: he chooses rhetoric that is often divisive, or blatantly ignorant of many political norms in this country. JFK's rhetoric was often meant to be uniting and inspiring. So, yes, that's different.

But behind the scenes, JFK attempted to install family members into roles like Attorney General, and meddled in the affairs of the FBI. These seem...Trumpian.

His use of TV to win the 1960 election was ground-breaking; Trump's use of twitter and television to create the persona that ultimately won election was also ground-breaking.

Of course, look at policies. Trump's signature policies include a tax cut and the attempted expansion of our space mission. It's easy to find parallels if you really look for them.

[bacchi]

First of all, the wealthy scion of one of the richest families--one who shamelessly carried on sexual hijinx without the least bit of restraint--was indeed elected in 1960.

I didn't say "wealthy sons who screwed around on their wives couldn't be elected in 1960." I said, "someone like Trump."


You really believe JFK was significantly like Trump?

I don't know how to respond to this: if you're going by something like background--being raised in a wealthy family, having the kind of consequence-free private life that this implies--I think you can make a case for that.

Obviously, Trump is very different in some of his choices as President: he chooses rhetoric that is often divisive, or blatantly ignorant of many political norms in this country. JFK's rhetoric was often meant to be uniting and inspiring. So, yes, that's different.

But behind the scenes, JFK attempted to install family members into roles like Attorney General, and meddled in the affairs of the FBI. These seem...Trumpian.

His use of TV to win the 1960 election was ground-breaking; Trump's use of twitter and television to create the persona that ultimately won election was also ground-breaking.

Of course, look at policies. Trump's signature policies include a tax cut and the attempted expansion of our space mission. It's easy to find parallels if you really look for them.

You could do this with a lot of Presidents.

Take Reagan. His signature policies include a tax cut, with the accompanying deficit increase, and increased importance on the space program.

Like Trump, Reagan was also a TV actor. He was also really old -- past normal retirement age -- when he took office.

He didn't appoint family members, true, but there are allegations that his campaign (Casey) met with world leaders (an Iranian cleric involved with the hostages) before he took office.

Therefore, Trump is like Reagan.

[Glenstache]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

Let's be clear about Trump's communication on this. He did not say the quote above until after he had received a lot of heat for the "very fine people" comment. And, he even made shit up and lied while saying that racism and bigotry have no place. For example, he said that the mother of Heather Heyer (woman killed in Charlottesville) had said some nice things to Trump following his comments. See transcript:
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

In fact, the young woman who I hear is a fantastic young woman and it was on NBC, her mother wrote me and said through I guess Twitter, social media, the nicest things, and I very much appreciated that. I hear she was a fine, really actually an incredible young woman, but her mother on Twitter, thanked me for what I said. Honestly, if the press were not fake and if it was honest, the press would have said what I said was very nice. – excuse me – unlike you and unlike the media, before I make a statement, I like to know the facts.

The whole Q&A section of the transcript is worth a read. He even manages to bring John McCain into it and questions his assessment that the alt-right was involved in Charlottesville.

But, to the bolded part above, here's what Heather Heyer's mother had to report about her communication with Trump and the WH:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2018/12/12/heather-heyers-mother-has-message-trump-please-think-before-you-speak/?utm_term=.f7d55fe95ddb

She recalled not returning calls from the White House after her daughter’s death. She had turned her phone off to focus on the funeral Aug. 16, 2017, she said; by the time she turned it back on, she had three missed calls from the White House.

The messages were “increasingly frantic,” Bro said.

and

“I’m sorry, after what he said about my child . . . It’s not that I saw somebody else’s tweets about him. I saw an actual clip of him at a news conference equating the protesters . . . with the KKK and the white supremacists.”

As others have mentioned, Trump has a long (and documented) history of racism. This is a nice rundown of it compiled in 2016:
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history

Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s history, taken largely from Dara Lind’s list for Vox and an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times:

    1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to black tenants and lied to black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to discriminating before.
    1980s: Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, accused another one of Trump’s businesses of discrimination. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Brown said. “It was the eighties, I was a teenager, but I remember it: They put us all in the back.”
    1988: In a commencement speech at Lehigh University, Trump spent much of his speech accusing countries like Japan of “stripping the United States of economic dignity.” This matches much of his current rhetoric on China.
    1989: In a controversial case that’s been characterized as a modern-day lynching, four black teenagers and one Latino teenager — the “Central Park Five” — were accused of attacking and raping a jogger in New York City. Trump immediately took charge in the case, running an ad in local papers demanding, “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” The teens’ convictions were later vacated after they spent seven to 13 years in prison, and the city paid $41 million in a settlement to the teens. But Trump in October 2016 said he still believes they’re guilty, despite the DNA evidence to the contrary.
    1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”
    1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.
    1993: In congressional testimony, Trump said that some Native American reservations operating casinos shouldn’t be allowed because “they don’t look like Indians to me.”
    2000: In opposition to a casino proposed by the St. Regis Mohawk tribe, which he saw as a financial threat to his casinos in Atlantic City, Trump secretly ran a series of ads suggesting the tribe had a “record of criminal activity [that] is well documented.”
    2004: In season two of The Apprentice, Trump fired Kevin Allen, a black contestant, for being overeducated. “You’re an unbelievably talented guy in terms of education, and you haven’t done anything,” Trump said on the show. “At some point you have to say, ‘That’s enough.’”
    2005: Trump publicly pitched what was essentially The Apprentice: White People vs. Black People. He said he “wasn’t particularly happy” with the most recent season of his show, so he was considering “an idea that is fairly controversial — creating a team of successful African Americans versus a team of successful whites. Whether people like that idea or not, it is somewhat reflective of our very vicious world.”
    2010: In 2010, there was a huge national controversy over the “Ground Zero Mosque” — a proposal to build a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan, near the site of the 9/11 attacks. Trump opposed the project, calling it “insensitive,” and offered to buy out one of the investors in the project. On The Late Show With David Letterman, Trump argued, referring to Muslims, “Well, somebody’s blowing us up. Somebody’s blowing up buildings, and somebody’s doing lots of bad stuff.”
    2011: Trump played a big role in pushing false rumors that Obama — the country’s first black president — was not born in the US. He even sent investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama’s birth certificate. Obama later released his birth certificate, calling Trump a ”carnival barker.” (The research has found a strong correlation between “birtherism,” as this conspiracy theory is called, and racism.) Trump has reportedly continued pushing this conspiracy theory in private.
    2011: While Trump suggested that Obama wasn’t born in the US, he also argued that maybe Obama wasn’t a good enough student to have gotten into Columbia or Harvard Law School, and demanded Obama release his university transcripts. Trump claimed, “I heard he was a terrible student. Terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?”

[gentmach]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

If you're at a gathering of people, and you see folks holding large swastika flags and wearing klan paraphernalia would you show your solidarity in staying with that gathering?  I don't know a single 'very fine person' who would.

This seems like a straw man argument. In the vein of "You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler." Am I doing this correctly?

[bacchi]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

If you're at a gathering of people, and you see folks holding large swastika flags and wearing klan paraphernalia would you show your solidarity in staying with that gathering?  I don't know a single 'very fine person' who would.

This seems like a straw man argument. In the vein of "You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler." Am I doing this correctly?

I don't know. Were these same vegetarians associating with Hitler and attending his gatherings?

[gentmach]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

If you're at a gathering of people, and you see folks holding large swastika flags and wearing klan paraphernalia would you show your solidarity in staying with that gathering?  I don't know a single 'very fine person' who would.

This seems like a straw man argument. In the vein of "You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler." Am I doing this correctly?

I don't know. Were these same vegetarians associating with Hitler and attending his gatherings?

It seems guitarstv's argument was "if Nazi's support it, you would be against it."

[sol]

This seems like a straw man argument. In the vein of "You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler." Am I doing this correctly?

More like "You know who else loved swastika flags?  Hitler."  Are we really confusing anyone here?

This isn't complicated.  The kids who marched in Charlottesville were neo-Nazis, or at least got caught up with neo-Nazis.  They carried Nazi flags and chanted Nazi slogans.  There is no equivocating on this point.  They were not "very fine people".

There do appear to be some more run-of-the-mill racist folks who showed up to protest the removal of pro-slavery statues.  Most of those folks didn't march with the Nazis, though, and the media has not attacked those folks with anywhere near the vigor I think they deserve.  Your average southern racist feels a strong affinity for the confederate flag, likes to call black people "boy", and enjoys a certain inflated sense of self-worth due to their skin color.  They do not, however, drive vehicles at high speed into crowds of peaceful protestors.  Only the hood-wearing kind of vile racists do that sort of thing.  The same kind of hateful folks who march through the streets with torches chanting "Blut and Boden" and "Jews will not replace us."

[GuitarStv]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

If you're at a gathering of people, and you see folks holding large swastika flags and wearing klan paraphernalia would you show your solidarity in staying with that gathering?  I don't know a single 'very fine person' who would.

This seems like a straw man argument. In the vein of "You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler." Am I doing this correctly?

I don't know. Were these same vegetarians associating with Hitler and attending his gatherings?

It seems guitarstv's argument was "if Nazi's support it, you would be against it."

No.

As a reasonable person, if a bunch of Nazis showed up at a gathering that I went to I would do one of two things:
- Confront the Nazis and attempt to make them leave
- Leave myself

My argument was that anyone who would just chill with Nazis is not a very fine person, because implicit in that action is approval of what the Nazis are doing and what they stand for.  A bunch of violent Nazis are a more important problem to deal with than what happens with a statue, so as soon as they arrive the matter of the statue gets pushed to the back burner.

Generally though, yeah . . . if I find myself strongly supporting something that Nazis are really happy about, I certainly would give some pause and consider my position.

[nereo]

No.

As a reasonable person, if a bunch of Nazis showed up at a gathering that I went to I would do one of two things:
- Confront the Nazis and attempt to make them leave
- Leave myself

My argument was that anyone who would just chill with Nazis is not a very fine person, because implicit in that action is approval of what the Nazis are doing and what they stand for.  A bunch of violent Nazis are a more important problem to deal with than what happens with a statue, so as soon as they arrive the matter of the statue gets pushed to the back burner.

Generally though, yeah . . . if I find myself strongly supporting something that Nazis are really happy about, I certainly would give some pause and consider my position.

I'll summarize this the way my dad would:
You choose who you associate with, and if you choose to associate with racists, than you are complicit with their racism.  If you say nothing and do nothing you are supporting their racism.

[LennStar]

This seems like a straw man argument. In the vein of "You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler." Am I doing this correctly?

Fun fact: Hitler wasn't vegetarian. He just had a delicate stomach and would thus often eat what amounts to vegetarian meals. But I think he also liked Blutwurst.

[tralfamadorian]

So Mr. Trump decides the first amendment needs protecting now that a conservative gets punched or whatever happened to him at University. The first amendment was being practiced in Charlottesville when a Nazi decided to run over a counter protester and the most he could muster is "there are good people on both sides." Despicable.

The coddling of free/hate speech made by hate groups reminds me of this NPR episode from last year on this exact issue:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

[nereo]

So Mr. Trump decides the first amendment needs protecting now that a conservative gets punched or whatever happened to him at University. The first amendment was being practiced in Charlottesville when a Nazi decided to run over a counter protester and the most he could muster is "there are good people on both sides." Despicable.

The coddling of free/hate speech made by hate groups reminds me of this NPR episode from last year on this exact issue:
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

As SCOTUS has repeatedly confirmed, there is no 'right' granted in the US Constitution which is so absolute that governments cannot place restrictions on the most extreme manifestations.  You cannot scream "fire" in a crowded theatre (1st amendment), states can require background checks and ban howitzers (2nd), you and your home can be searched without a warrant if there is a perceived 'imminent threat'  (4th), traumatized victims can be segregated from the accused (6th), etc.

[OtherJen]

Yes, Trump is certainly an excellent judge of character. /s

If his administrative assignments over the past 2 years are insufficient evidence, his emerging bromance with Kim Jong-Un certainly is: Trump reverses first North Korea sanctions since failed summit after one day

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday reversed North Korea sanctions imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department just a day earlier and the White House said he was doing so because he “likes” North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and did not consider them necessary.

[MDM]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

Let's be clear about Trump's communication on this. He did not say the quote above until after he had received a lot of heat for the "very fine people" comment.
...
See transcript: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

Agree with being clear.

The "quote above" came one response after the (a?) "very fine people" comment in the transcript we have both linked.  Not sure that was enough time for him to receive a lot of heat...?

[gentmach]

Someone killing someone else is equivalent to someone else wearing black and holding a baseball bat.

Agreed that that would not be equivalent.

Based on the actual quotes (e.g., "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally") it doesn't appear Trump made that equivalence.

If you're at a gathering of people, and you see folks holding large swastika flags and wearing klan paraphernalia would you show your solidarity in staying with that gathering?  I don't know a single 'very fine person' who would.

This seems like a straw man argument. In the vein of "You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler." Am I doing this correctly?

I don't know. Were these same vegetarians associating with Hitler and attending his gatherings?

It seems guitarstv's argument was "if Nazi's support it, you would be against it."

No.

As a reasonable person, if a bunch of Nazis showed up at a gathering that I went to I would do one of two things:
- Confront the Nazis and attempt to make them leave
- Leave myself

My argument was that anyone who would just chill with Nazis is not a very fine person, because implicit in that action is approval of what the Nazis are doing and what they stand for.  A bunch of violent Nazis are a more important problem to deal with than what happens with a statue, so as soon as they arrive the matter of the statue gets pushed to the back burner.

Generally though, yeah . . . if I find myself strongly supporting something that Nazis are really happy about, I certainly would give some pause and consider my position.

"Everyone is the hero of their own story. Just makes them the monster in someone else's story."

As long as you put some thought into what's going on. I personally think if you are worried about a statue, you probably have too much time on your hands.

[MDM]

Trump is talking out both sides of his mouth on this.  He desperately wants to condone the Nazis....

I don't know that Trump is much interested in condoning anyone but himself.  You may choose to make the assumption stated, which of course leads to certain conclusions.

[sequoia]

President Donald Trump blasted George Conway, the husband of top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, as "a total loser" and the "husband from hell!" following the conservative attorney's tweets suggesting that the president is not mentally fit to serve.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-blasts-george-conway-husband-top-white-house-aide-kellyanne-n984771

Anybody following the Huawei saga unfolding between the US and the rest of Europe?  It appears the US might and clout have suffered a blow as notable allies Germany and the UK, plus other European countries are adopting Huawei's hardware for the 5G rollout.  In addition, we've pitted ourselves in an unwinnable situation by threatening to not share intel with these countries if they adopt the company's hardware.  OK, so now we're not going to share (and have intel shared with us) between our biggest allies???  This is kind of worrying.  Either we have proof Huawei is China's stooge, or we don't.  Do we have evidence and our allies simply aren't considering it?  Are we full of shit and on a witch hunt against China and Chinese companies?  Either way, our allies and other countries are not playing ball with us.

Wait... why are you surprised? Our allies now is Putin (Russia) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea). If you are not a dictator, you are not allies of the US President.

See what did I tell ya?

Pressed to expand on Trump's tweet, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders offered only a brief statement, saying: "President Trump likes Chairman Kim and he doesn't think these sanctions will be necessary."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/politics/donald-trump-north-korea-sanctions-china/index.html

[sol]

Mueller report is finished and submitted to the AG.  The future just got a whole lot closer.

[nereo]

Mueller report is finished and submitted to the AG.  The future just got a whole lot closer.

I predict several weeks (perhaps months) of fierce fighting on the release/confidentiality of said report.

Noteworthy that no additional criminal indictments were filed simultaneously.  And probably no coincidence that Mueller dropped it on Friday and then got out of Dodge.

[JLee]

Mueller report is finished and submitted to the AG.  The future just got a whole lot closer.

I predict several weeks (perhaps months) of fierce fighting on the release/confidentiality of said report.

Noteworthy that no additional criminal indictments were filed simultaneously.  And probably no coincidence that Mueller dropped it on Friday and then got out of Dodge.

How is that noteworthy? There was no indication (that I'm aware of) that Mueller was waiting for the report to be finished prior to issuing indictments, as were 34 indictments prior to the report's finalization.

[nereo]

Mueller report is finished and submitted to the AG.  The future just got a whole lot closer.

I predict several weeks (perhaps months) of fierce fighting on the release/confidentiality of said report.

Noteworthy that no additional criminal indictments were filed simultaneously.  And probably no coincidence that Mueller dropped it on Friday and then got out of Dodge.

How is that noteworthy? There was no indication (that I'm aware of) that Mueller was waiting for the report to be finished prior to issuing indictments, as were 34 indictments prior to the report's finalization.

There has been widespread speculation (including in this thread) that - if members very close to the president (e.g. Kushner, Don Jr) were to be charged - Mueller would do so concurrently with his final report. The logic being that any such indictment would trigger such a backlash from the WH and his supporters in congress that the investigation would essentially halt regardless.

[JLee]

Mueller report is finished and submitted to the AG.  The future just got a whole lot closer.

I predict several weeks (perhaps months) of fierce fighting on the release/confidentiality of said report.

Noteworthy that no additional criminal indictments were filed simultaneously.  And probably no coincidence that Mueller dropped it on Friday and then got out of Dodge.

How is that noteworthy? There was no indication (that I'm aware of) that Mueller was waiting for the report to be finished prior to issuing indictments, as were 34 indictments prior to the report's finalization.

There has been widespread speculation (including in this thread) that - if members very close to the president (e.g. Kushner, Don Jr) were to be charged - Mueller would do so concurrently with his final report. The logic being that any such indictment would trigger such a backlash from the WH and his supporters in congress that the investigation would essentially halt regardless.

Ah, I see.

Unrelated:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/text-of-the-letter-the-ag-sent-to-congress-on-mueller-report/2019/03/22/686b96ba-4ce9-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

I write to notify you pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3) that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has concluded his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. In addition to this notification, the Special Counsel regulations require that I provide you with “a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General” or acting Attorney General “concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.” 28 C.F.R. 600.9(a)(3). There were no such instances during the Special Counsel’s investigation.

The Special Counsel has submitted to me today a “confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions” he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). I am reviewing the report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel’s principal conclusions as soon as this weekend.

Separately, I intend to consult with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Special Counsel Mueller to determine what other information from the report can be released to Congress and the public consistent with the law, including the Special Counsel regulations, and the Department’s long-standing practices and policies. I remain committed to as much transparency as possible, and I will keep you informed as to the status of my review.

Finally, the Special Counsel regulations provide that “the Attorney General may determine that public release of” this notification “would be in the public interest.” 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c) I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr

Attorney General

[Glenstache]

I guess Mueller can take a well earned weekend off, now. I expect the coming month is going to be pretty spicy.

[sol]

I guess Mueller can take a well earned weekend off, now. I expect the coming month is going to be pretty spicy.

I think it will be pretty shocking if the Mueller Report causes anything in particular to happen.  Trump has spent two years not only discrediting the entire investigation, but also appointing people to positions of power who can minimize, alter, conceal, or distort Mueller's findings.  And he has not exactly appointed people who are known for being honest and fair.  Like always, he surrounds himself with toadies.  If those toadies are forced to prosecute, it will only be because the evidence is so overwhelming they have no other choice.

But the Mueller report is only about Russian collusion, right?  Not obstruction of justice, not tax fraud, not emoluments, not defrauding banks, not campaign finance violations, not sexual assaults.  Trump has committed a myriad of impeachable crimes, but "collusion" is unlikely to be one of them.  I mean he definitely colluded with Russia, by every possible definition, I just don't think congressional republicans care.  I think they're much more likely to impeach him for tax fraud than they are for colluding with Russia, even if he is equally guilty of both.

[nereo]

I guess Mueller can take a well earned weekend off, now. I expect the coming month is going to be pretty spicy.

I think it will be pretty shocking if the Mueller Report causes anything in particular to happen.  Trump has spent two years not only discrediting the entire investigation, but also appointing people to positions of power who can minimize, alter, conceal, or distort Mueller's findings.  And he has not exactly appointed people who are known for being honest and fair.  Like always, he surrounds himself with toadies.  If those toadies are forced to prosecute, it will only be because the evidence is so overwhelming they have no other choice.

I think the flip-side of this argument is that the people who Trump has installed are so ham-handed and incompetent that they often fail.  How many times has Giuliani gone out on the talk-show circuit just to botch the message and torpedo a potential legal defense?  By at least one count the Trump administration has lost in court at least 63 times, mostly because the people crafting his impulses into EOs didnt bother with even perfunctory legal due diligence.  Despite his claims to have 'only the best people' most of the truly competent ones have long fled for the hills, only to be replaced by sycophants that don't have the background or backbone to actually notch victories. He's got Mulvaney as the figurehead Chief of Staff after Kelly quit, even though he's also Director of Management and Budget.  He's got Kushner and Ivanka as his 'senior advisors' (and the former responsible for everything regarding hte Middle East plus VA and US Innovation), though neither have any governmental experience.
Everywhere you look DJT's got the wrong people or simply no people there to defend his actions.  Not surprising since getting the job literally involved being instructed to praise him while cameras were rolling.

[Kris]

They won’t release it to the public.

And then it will just die.