Trump outrage of the day

[LennStar]

Yes, always remember: although fascism and ethnic cleansing have happened in the past, we should never recognize the patterns that gave rise to them, learn from what happened, or draw parallels to modern developments in an effort to avoid them happening again.

Very little of Trump being a political boob is in the same political galaxy as Hitler's consolidation of power from 1925 to 1933 (using Nazi Germany as the reference since that's what was brought up by 2-3 posters above).  It's not even remotely close, and to insinuate the two are close based on hyperbolic rhetoric is completely ahistorical, not "drawing parallels."

As a history-interested German who at the time of Trumps election already warned that there are a lot of similarities, I strongly disagree with this statement.

I see this happen here too btw.
Since the AfD came into parliaments, "hate speech" (to use an overstretched term) has become way more normal. Self proclaiming "people from the middle" are using Nazi vocabulary again, which would have been political suicide a decade ago. AfD plays victim but attacks opponents with the same stuff they say is unbearable (no to mention psychological or physical attacks of their members and fans, including the first political murder since many years).
Or they say "the left" is ripping society apart, and the left is of course everyone who is not of their opinion. And so on. And of course their biggest enemy is the Antifa.
Sounds familiar?

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Yes, always remember: although fascism and ethnic cleansing have happened in the past, we should never recognize the patterns that gave rise to them, learn from what happened, or draw parallels to modern developments in an effort to avoid them happening again.

Very little of Trump being a political boob is in the same political galaxy as Hitler's consolidation of power from 1925 to 1933 (using Nazi Germany as the reference since that's what was brought up by 2-3 posters above).  It's not even remotely close, and to insinuate the two are close based on hyperbolic rhetoric is completely ahistorical, not "drawing parallels."

Please read a book.

Instead of trying to prove a negative, I will put the ball in your court.

Let’s compare now to about 1920 Germany. Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, and the Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935. There is very significant chronology of power grabs, suspension of free speech, murders of government officials, racist legislation, dissolving the German parliament after contested elections, consolidation of power, sole party media control, effectively destroying the executive’s position in the government by also making Hitler chancellor, burning down the Reichstag, passing legislation that criminalized opposition to the Nazi party for 20+ years, etc.

You can read about it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

Using Nazi Germany 1920-1935, where are we now? How close are we to Nazi Germany and why?

[Kyle Schuant]

Imagine a guy leading a party which rises up, attempts an armed takeover of, say, Georgia, is tried for treason and gets a token sentence of a year or two, while in prison he writes a book about it, his party secures a significant chunk of the vote in the next few federal elections, he undermines the elected government and then is invited to be part of the the federal Cabinet, then the elderly President dies and he tells the country they don't need another President he'll just make himself leader, and...

I do not think the US is in immediate danger of this.

[LennStar]

Imagine a guy leading a party which rises up, attempts an armed takeover of, say, Georgia, is tried for treason and gets a token sentence of a year or two, while in prison he writes a book about it, his party secures a significant chunk of the vote in the next few federal elections, he undermines the elected government and then is invited to be part of the the federal Cabinet, then the elderly President dies and he tells the country they don't need another President he'll just make himself leader, and...

I do not think the US is in immediate danger of this.

No. But that is because you look too much at details that are, for the unfolding of events, unimportant. Trump does not write a book. He has Twitter.
And he didn't even get a token sentence for his political crimes. His friends in the government were even more influential, so there is that, too.

[JLee]

Imagine a guy leading a party which rises up, attempts an armed takeover of, say, Georgia, is tried for treason and gets a token sentence of a year or two, while in prison he writes a book about it, his party secures a significant chunk of the vote in the next few federal elections, he undermines the elected government and then is invited to be part of the the federal Cabinet, then the elderly President dies and he tells the country they don't need another President he'll just make himself leader, and...

I do not think the US is in immediate danger of this.

Imagine a guy leading a party which rises up, neutralizes the two other branches of government, uses foreign governments to interfere with the election process, tells his followers to ignore what they see and hear and only listen to him, utilizes the Justice Department as his personal enforcer and protector, and says he'd like to be president for life.

[Glenstache]

The issue of whether or not 1920s Germany is a good analogy for the United States in 1920 is prone to finding details that don't line up and then just arguing those details. The issue is that a political group is willing to undermine constitutional and democratic (note the small D) norms and laws in order to extert greater control and consolidate power. This is clearly not the first time this has happened in a country, and the details unfold differently both in timespan and detail each time. However, the threads of casting an opposition group as the "other", intentional use of disinformation, erosion of social norms, plays to nationalist identity politics, and intentional placement of people in positions of power based on loyalty rather than qualification is simply the rough outline of the common playbook. Actions that play to the insticts of the base and disillusion the opposition are the best and most effective things that Team Trump can do to win another election. Purging voter rolls, sowing division among the other side (Bernie was robbed!, DNC is so crooked!) will be mainstays of the GOP organizations and proxy groups for the next year. It is outrageous and we, as citizens, should be outraged regardless of how well it fits the political template of some prior decade of Germany or wherever.

[scottish]

The real test will be when it's time for the prez to leave office.   Either end of this year or end of 2024.

Will the constitution be defended or ignored?

[Kris]

The real test will be when it's time for the prez to leave office.   Either end of this year or end of 2024.

Will the constitution be defended or ignored?

Republicans in Congress, I think, will allow Trump to do whatever he wants.

I’m pretty worried about that moment. I’m not sure our republic will recover from it.

[former player]

The real test will be when it's time for the prez to leave office.   Either end of this year or end of 2024.

Will the constitution be defended or ignored?

Republicans in Congress, I think, will allow Trump to do whatever he wants.

I’m pretty worried about that moment. I’m not sure our republic will recover from it.

I can't see Trump walking out of the White House at the end of his Presidency with anything other than a scorched earth attitude.   Good luck to the following administration finding any records of what's been done during his term of office.

[Kyle Schuant]

The real test will be when it's time for the prez to leave office.   Either end of this year or end of 2024.

Will the constitution be defended or ignored?

A question Republicans were asking in 2016.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-confirms-he-will-refuse-to-leave-office/

Hysterical over-reaction and speculation are the chief characteristics of American politics.

[JLee]

The real test will be when it's time for the prez to leave office.   Either end of this year or end of 2024.

Will the constitution be defended or ignored?

A question Republicans were asking in 2016.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-confirms-he-will-refuse-to-leave-office/

Hysterical over-reaction and speculation are the chief characteristics of American politics.

When was Obama talking about being president for life?

[Kris]

The real test will be when it's time for the prez to leave office.   Either end of this year or end of 2024.

Will the constitution be defended or ignored?

A question Republicans were asking in 2016.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-confirms-he-will-refuse-to-leave-office/

Hysterical over-reaction and speculation are the chief characteristics of American politics.

When was Obama talking about being president for life?

Exactly. Hysterical overreaction for political effect is not exactly the same thing as an actual sitting president floating the idea of not leaving. FFS, people.

[scottish]

The real test will be when it's time for the prez to leave office.   Either end of this year or end of 2024.

Will the constitution be defended or ignored?

A question Republicans were asking in 2016.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-confirms-he-will-refuse-to-leave-office/

Hysterical over-reaction and speculation are the chief characteristics of American politics.

Heh, I would have said the chief characteristics were general partisanship and divisive communications.   

[Kyle Schuant]

Heh, I would have said the chief characteristics were general partisanship and divisive communications.   

Same thing.

Old Drumpf joking about having a third term is like when Dubya said, "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." And yet somehow he left office.

Being unable to distinguish humour from reality, and being oblivious to irony, are also characteristic of American culture. Peoples who take themselves very very seriously tend to have higher rates of homicide and trying to blow up other countries. That's why Germans, Arabs and Americans have started so many wars.


Calm down.

[Davnasty]

Heh, I would have said the chief characteristics were general partisanship and divisive communications.   

Same thing.

Old Drumpf joking about having a third term is like when Dubya said, "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." And yet somehow he left office.

Being unable to distinguish humour from reality, and being oblivious to irony, are also characteristic of American culture. Peoples who take themselves very very seriously tend to have higher rates of homicide and trying to blow up other countries. That's why Germans, Arabs and Americans have started so many wars.


Calm down.

Joking about doing something as a way to float an idea and put it in people's heads has been Trumps M.O. for quite some time. The very idea of his candidacy was assumed to be a joke by most of us, including many of his eventual supporters.

Not to mention Trump doesn't understand humor. Calling people names with alliteration is about as deep as jokes go for him.

While I actually agree with the conclusion that it's not something to worry about right now, I think it's unfair to act like these scenarios are equivalent. Would you at least agree that it's far more plausible with Trump today than it was with Obama 4 years ago? Even if we're talking about a 1% chance instead of a .01% chance?

[scottish]

Heh, I would have said the chief characteristics were general partisanship and divisive communications.   

Same thing.

Old Drumpf joking about having a third term is like when Dubya said, "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." And yet somehow he left office.

Being unable to distinguish humour from reality, and being oblivious to irony, are also characteristic of American culture. Peoples who take themselves very very seriously tend to have higher rates of homicide and trying to blow up other countries. That's why Germans, Arabs and Americans have started so many wars.


Calm down.

:-)   Not to worry, I have my hysteria and anxiety under control!

[JLee]

Heh, I would have said the chief characteristics were general partisanship and divisive communications.   

Same thing.

Old Drumpf joking about having a third term is like when Dubya said, "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." And yet somehow he left office.

Being unable to distinguish humour from reality, and being oblivious to irony, are also characteristic of American culture. Peoples who take themselves very very seriously tend to have higher rates of homicide and trying to blow up other countries. That's why Germans, Arabs and Americans have started so many wars.


Calm down.

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

[ReadySetMillionaire]

The issue of whether or not 1920s Germany is a good analogy for the United States in 1920 is prone to finding details that don't line up and then just arguing those details. The issue is that a political group is willing to undermine constitutional and democratic (note the small D) norms and laws in order to extert greater control and consolidate power. This is clearly not the first time this has happened in a country, and the details unfold differently both in timespan and detail each time. However, the threads of casting an opposition group as the "other", intentional use of disinformation, erosion of social norms, plays to nationalist identity politics, and intentional placement of people in positions of power based on loyalty rather than qualification is simply the rough outline of the common playbook. Actions that play to the insticts of the base and disillusion the opposition are the best and most effective things that Team Trump can do to win another election. Purging voter rolls, sowing division among the other side (Bernie was robbed!, DNC is so crooked!) will be mainstays of the GOP organizations and proxy groups for the next year. It is outrageous and we, as citizens, should be outraged regardless of how well it fits the political template of some prior decade of Germany or wherever.

I think this analogy still fails, and keeping everything super vague is just an admission that the analogy does not apply.

For example, Trump has refused Congressional subpoenas based on executive privilege and is generally doing everything else a president without a House majority would do. Democrats are still issuing subpoenas, conducting investigations, and passing progressive legislation. Hitler dissolved the legislative branch (at one point), made himself Chancellor, burned down the Reichstag, and used minority rule to pass the Nuremberg Laws and other political crimes. See how they are different? 

Regarding “sewing discord,” I recall a decade ago Democrats talking nonstop about a divided Republican Party when the Tea Party was emerging. “They don’t have a platform,” “They aren’t united,” “They don’t represent their real constituents,” “Romney was chosen by the party, not the people,” etc. Republicans doing the same now to what is transparently a divided Democratic Party is no different.

There simply is no comparison, and making the comparison says a hell of a lot more about the accuser’s state of mind than it does the accused. It’s such a remarkable afront to actual history that it requires you to take the accuser’s overall veracity into question.

And honestly, if you are worried about Trump leaving office, you’re silly. Yes, he will probably pardon a bunch of people, and he will not have any sort of transition plan (because he’s pretty incompetent at this type of stuff), but he will leave. Calm down.

[talltexan]

Heh, I would have said the chief characteristics were general partisanship and divisive communications.   

Same thing.

Old Drumpf joking about having a third term is like when Dubya said, "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." And yet somehow he left office.

Being unable to distinguish humour from reality, and being oblivious to irony, are also characteristic of American culture. Peoples who take themselves very very seriously tend to have higher rates of homicide and trying to blow up other countries. That's why Germans, Arabs and Americans have started so many wars.


Calm down.

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

Sorry for the Germany history lesson, but it's a borderline crime against humanity to analogize boo-hooing about Trump to Nazi Germany.  It deserves to be called out for expressly the same reason that Trump should be called out when he says egregiously stupid things.

To answer your question, it's hard to put my finger on it.  But I would say it's 50% common sense and 50% not having a deep-seeded hatred for everything Trump says and does. 

[JLee]

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

Sorry for the Germany history lesson, but it's a borderline crime against humanity to analogize boo-hooing about Trump to Nazi Germany.  It deserves to be called out for expressly the same reason that Trump should be called out when he says egregiously stupid things.

To answer your question, it's hard to put my finger on it.  But I would say it's 50% common sense and 50% not having a deep-seeded hatred for everything Trump says and does.

Common sense says that the President of the United States shouldn't be harassing a teenager on Twitter.

Yet, here we are.

As an alternative to your claim of 50% common sense and 50% not-hatred, I would like to posit that it's more likely "if Trump says something indefensible, I will claim he's joking."

[LennStar]

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

Sorry for the Germany history lesson, but it's a borderline crime against humanity to analogize boo-hooing about Trump to Nazi Germany.  It deserves to be called out for expressly the same reason that Trump should be called out when he says egregiously stupid things.

To answer your question, it's hard to put my finger on it.  But I would say it's 50% common sense and 50% not having a deep-seeded hatred for everything Trump says and does.

Common sense says that the President of the United States shouldn't be harassing a teenager on Twitter.

Yet, here we are.

As an alternative to your claim of 50% common sense and 50% not-hatred, I would like to posit that it's more likely "if Trump says something indefensible, I will claim he's joking."

Like that Mexico will pay for the border wall?

That he did nothing wrong in $WhateverHeTriesToDivertFromToday?

[JLee]

Obviously not entirely serious, but there is a distinct pattern of expressing desire for more than two terms.  Things like this allow people like RSM to say "obviously he's joking, nobody can live to be thousands of years old" -- but also provides validation for anyone who wants Trump to have more than two terms. It can be interpreted in more than one way -- and given how many times Trump has made such references, it is highly unlikely that he's completely insincere.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1226531801042169856

[Glenstache]

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

Sorry for the Germany history lesson, but it's a borderline crime against humanity to analogize boo-hooing about Trump to Nazi Germany.  It deserves to be called out for expressly the same reason that Trump should be called out when he says egregiously stupid things.

To answer your question, it's hard to put my finger on it.  But I would say it's 50% common sense and 50% not having a deep-seeded hatred for everything Trump says and does.

As a purely practical matter, Trump's tweets are official communications. See: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements

Or this one:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1213919480574812160?lang=en

Foreign governments follow his twitter literally to stay up to date. Should we really rely on people interpreting if he is joking or not given the potential foreign response? Should a default be that we assume anything that (to our sensibilities) is outrageous be considered a joke? His in person language may be a different story, and he has clearly told jokes at various points. He has also done a lot of stuff that is deeply reprehensible like making fun of the disabled, etc. Not all of the outrage at Trump is because he is a republican or had different party affiliation. A lot of it is because he regularly demonstrates poor moral compass and undermines the rule of law. He has also broken much precedent for executive privilege. Yes the executive has been expanding power for some time, but this is a different level and to say that other political affiliations have done the same is a false equivalence.

[talltexan]

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

Sorry for the Germany history lesson, but it's a borderline crime against humanity to analogize boo-hooing about Trump to Nazi Germany.  It deserves to be called out for expressly the same reason that Trump should be called out when he says egregiously stupid things.

To answer your question, it's hard to put my finger on it.  But I would say it's 50% common sense and 50% not having a deep-seeded hatred for everything Trump says and does.

Is hating Trump the same as thinking he's a bad President who has many bad policies and appoints unqualified people to important positions?

Because I also see Trump attempt to perform humorous speaking at events like the WH correspondence dinner, and--frankly--he doesn't have the comedic talent that even Mitt Romney did.

[js82]

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

Sorry for the Germany history lesson, but it's a borderline crime against humanity to analogize boo-hooing about Trump to Nazi Germany.  It deserves to be called out for expressly the same reason that Trump should be called out when he says egregiously stupid things.

To answer your question, it's hard to put my finger on it.  But I would say it's 50% common sense and 50% not having a deep-seeded hatred for everything Trump says and does.

Is hating Trump the same as thinking he's a bad President who has many bad policies and appoints unqualified people to important positions?

Hating Trump means reflexively opposing everything Trump does because he's Trump.

As opposed to acknowledging that he's done certain things you agree with (for example, taking a harder line on trade with China, and signing the criminal justice reform bill), while maintaining that he's incapable of contemplating most policy issues with sufficient gravity and nuance to be a good leader, and whose role in degrading our public discourse and the institutional norms of our government will have long-term negative effects that most people significantly underestimate.

[Kris]

How do you distinguish humor from reality in what Trump says?

I wasn't expecting the thread to go so far afield into German history over the weekend, but I would indeed like an answer to this.

Sorry for the Germany history lesson, but it's a borderline crime against humanity to analogize boo-hooing about Trump to Nazi Germany.  It deserves to be called out for expressly the same reason that Trump should be called out when he says egregiously stupid things.

To answer your question, it's hard to put my finger on it.  But I would say it's 50% common sense and 50% not having a deep-seeded hatred for everything Trump says and does.

Is hating Trump the same as thinking he's a bad President who has many bad policies and appoints unqualified people to important positions?

Hating Trump means reflexively opposing everything Trump does because he's Trump.

As opposed to acknowledging that he's done certain things you agree with (for example, taking a harder line on trade with China, and signing the criminal justice reform bill), while maintaining that he's incapable of contemplating most policy issues with sufficient gravity and nuance to be a good leader, and whose role in degrading our public discourse and the institutional norms of our government will have long-term negative effects that most people significantly underestimate.

Thing is, I get accused of Trump hatred all the time. I think it’s the default accusation of anyone who reflexively wants to defend him.

But yeah, there’s a difference between seeing he is an overwhelmingly shitty person to have as president, and knee-jerk hatred of him. Because the thing is, he’s a shitty president in a ton of ways. Saying that out loud is not unreasonable.

[talltexan]

There's another tic I notice among Trump defenders:

Trump does XXXX.

TD: "Well, it's legal, he has that power"

Me: "Great, but it's a bad policy"

TD: "Well, Presidents can do that for any reason or no reason"

Me: "But it's bad policy"

[ministashy]

Jim Wright is an amazing essayist, and I think he really knocked it out of the park with this one: https://www.stonekettle.com/2020/02/those-who-forget-history.html

Edit:  oops, link is fixed now.  Thanks for the save, GuitarStv!

[Kris]

Jim Wright is an amazing essayist, and I think he really knocked it out of the park with this one: https://www.stonekettle.com/2020/02/those-who-forget-history.htmlg

The link doesn't work for me. "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

[GuitarStv]

Jim Wright is an amazing essayist, and I think he really knocked it out of the park with this one: https://www.stonekettle.com/2020/02/those-who-forget-history.htmlg

The link doesn't work for me. "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

http://www.stonekettle.com/2020/02/those-who-forget-history.html  <- There was an extra g in the first link

[partgypsy]

As far as I can tell, Trump keeps saying the market/economy will crash if not re-elected. Regardless of who is re-elected there is a pretty good chance for a downturn. 
According to Bannon if Trump is re-elected he will be "off the leash" and full "payback" mode, whatever that means

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/04/11/election-2020-steve-bannon-says-expect-payback-if-trump-re-elected/3433324002/

[GuitarStv]

I'm not entirely sure what Trump 'off the leash' would look like.  He certainly doesn't seem to have any inhibitions right now.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

I'm not entirely sure what Trump 'off the leash' would look like.  He certainly doesn't seem to have any inhibitions right now.

I'm afraid we probably don't want to know.

[Glenstache]

Back on the corruption beat, he commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/trump-pardon-debartolo.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Rod literally tried to sell a US Senate seat as governor of Illinois. Why pardon him? I guess it is a warmup lap for pardoning Stone.

[nereo]

There's another tic I notice among Trump defenders:

Trump does XXXX.

TD: "Well, it's legal, he has that power"

Me: "Great, but it's a bad policy"

TD: "Well, Presidents can do that for any reason or no reason"

Me: "But it's bad policy"

I’ve had many similar conversations.
TD: he can legally do that
Me: ok, butshould he do that?
TD: it’s legal!
Me: that wasn’t my question
TD: as long as it’s legal I don’t see why not
Me: oh really? So legality is the only standard for whether a president should do something?

[bacchi]

Back on the corruption beat, he commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/trump-pardon-debartolo.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Rod literally tried to sell a US Senate seat as governor of Illinois. Why pardon him? I guess it is a warmup lap for pardoning Stone.

He's also creating precedent in case he gets caught.

Jared supposedly pushed for it. Jared has a soft spot for white-collar criminals.

[Norioch]

Back on the corruption beat, he commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/trump-pardon-debartolo.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Rod literally tried to sell a US Senate seat as governor of Illinois. Why pardon him? I guess it is a warmup lap for pardoning Stone.

This one baffles me. I really just can't see the motivation here. Obviously Rod Blagojevich doesn't actually deserve to have his sentence commuted, and "good faith" isn't Trump's MO anyway, so it isn't that. But what's the actual motivation? Is Trump just trying to establish the new normal that political corruption isn't deserving of criminal punishment?

[Norioch]

Jared supposedly pushed for it. Jared has a soft spot for white-collar criminals.

Okay, so that explains Trump's motivation. But what's Jared's motivation? Why would Jared Kushner care about Rod Blagojevich?

[OtherJen]

Back on the corruption beat, he commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/trump-pardon-debartolo.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Rod literally tried to sell a US Senate seat as governor of Illinois. Why pardon him? I guess it is a warmup lap for pardoning Stone.

This one baffles me. I really just can't see the motivation here. Obviously Rod Blagojevich doesn't actually deserve to have his sentence commuted, and "good faith" isn't Trump MO anyway, say it isn't that. But what's the actual motivation? Is Trump just trying to establish the new normal that political corruption isn't deserving of criminal punishment?

Yes.

[nereo]

Back on the corruption beat, he commuted the sentence of Rod Blagojevich:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/politics/trump-pardon-debartolo.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Rod literally tried to sell a US Senate seat as governor of Illinois. Why pardon him? I guess it is a warmup lap for pardoning Stone.

This one baffles me. I really just can't see the motivation here. Obviously Rod Blagojevich doesn't actually deserve to have his sentence commuted, and "good faith" isn't Trump MO anyway, say it isn't that. But what's the actual motivation? Is Trump just trying to establish the new normal that political corruption isn't deserving of criminal punishment?

Yes.

Look at the kinds of crimes that Trump tweets are “no big deal”:  lying under oath, obstruction, accepting or soliciting bribes, bullying, sexual harassment.
In his mind these are just what you do to gain an edge, or what powerful men do all the time anyway (e.g. “locker room talk”).  He doesn’t think they are worthy of jail-time, even if that’s what the statue demands, and he has no qualms doing them himself.  He’s mused publicly how much of ‘shame’ it is that ‘great men’ are ‘HAVING THEIR CAREERS RUINED’ over something as trivial (in his mind) as some sexual comments.
He’s talked about you would need to “be stupid not to” take advantage of your office.

[GuitarStv]

That's what happens when you decide that the President is above the law.  He can decide that others are above the law too.

And to be fair, you would be stupid not to in Trump's position.  He has been given free reign.

[Norioch]

Trump appears to be on a pardoning spree with no clear rhyme or reason to how he's choosing who gets a pardon. Maybe he thinks a pardon of Roger Stone will look less conspicuous this way or will get lost in the shuffle.

[Glenstache]

And more keeps coming out. He also pardoned Miliken, the junk bond king who was convicted in the 80s of fraud. Will Bernie Madoff be next?

[Glenstache]

Trump appears to be on a pardoning spree with no clear rhyme or reason to how he's choosing who gets a pardon. Maybe he thinks a pardon of Roger Stone will look less conspicuous this way or will get lost in the shuffle.

It is also far enough out from November that the electorate will have forgotten about it by then.

[OtherJen]

And more keeps coming out. He also pardoned Miliken, the junk bond king who was convicted in the 80s of fraud. Will Bernie Madoff be next?

Will it benefit Trump in some way? If so, then yes. That's pretty much always been his compass for decision-making, as far as I can tell (after watching his career in the news for the last several decades).

[Davnasty]

Trump appears to be on a pardoning spree with no clear rhyme or reason to how he's choosing who gets a pardon. Maybe he thinks a pardon of Roger Stone will look less conspicuous this way or will get lost in the shuffle.

A plausible explanation.

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were conversations involving the phrase "I would like you to do us a favor though"

[Just Joe]

Imagine a guy leading a party which rises up, attempts an armed takeover of, say, Georgia, is tried for treason and gets a token sentence of a year or two, while in prison he writes a book about it, his party secures a significant chunk of the vote in the next few federal elections, he undermines the elected government and then is invited to be part of the the federal Cabinet, then the elderly President dies and he tells the country they don't need another President he'll just make himself leader, and...

I do not think the US is in immediate danger of this.

No. But that is because you look too much at details that are, for the unfolding of events, unimportant. Trump does not write a book. He has Twitter.
And he didn't even get a token sentence for his political crimes. His friends in the government were even more influential, so there is that, too.

Don't forget to read up on the far right in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate

Dig a little deeper if you like. You'll start seeing some overlap with the publicly well-to-do and politically well connected which gives them more than a single vote like the rest of us has. What I haven't established is their numbers. Are there a few hundred of these characters or tens of thousands?

I'm still not understanding why these Americans are looking for a fight. Get an education, get a job and enjoy your time with your family. Quit worrying about other religions, other races and politics so much.

[OtherJen]

Imagine a guy leading a party which rises up, attempts an armed takeover of, say, Georgia, is tried for treason and gets a token sentence of a year or two, while in prison he writes a book about it, his party secures a significant chunk of the vote in the next few federal elections, he undermines the elected government and then is invited to be part of the the federal Cabinet, then the elderly President dies and he tells the country they don't need another President he'll just make himself leader, and...

I do not think the US is in immediate danger of this.

No. But that is because you look too much at details that are, for the unfolding of events, unimportant. Trump does not write a book. He has Twitter.
And he didn't even get a token sentence for his political crimes. His friends in the government were even more influential, so there is that, too.

Don't forget to read up on the far right in the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate

Dig a little deeper if you like. You'll start seeing some overlap with the publicly well-to-do and politically well connected which gives them more than a single vote like the rest of us has. What I haven't established is their numbers. Are there a few hundred of these characters or tens of thousands?

I'm still not understanding why these Americans are looking for a fight. Get an education, get a job and enjoy your time with your family. Quit worrying about other religions, other races and politics so much.

But that requires personal action and responsibility! Much easier to blame others and project one's own shortcomings onto them.

[the_gastropod]

Heh, I would have said the chief characteristics were general partisanship and divisive communications.   

Same thing.

Old Drumpf joking about having a third term is like when Dubya said, "If this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." And yet somehow he left office.

Being unable to distinguish humour from reality, and being oblivious to irony, are also characteristic of American culture. Peoples who take themselves very very seriously tend to have higher rates of homicide and trying to blow up other countries. That's why Germans, Arabs and Americans have started so many wars.


Calm down.

Come on. Do you truly believe, assuming Trump loses the election, he’ll accept the results and admit defeat? The same guy who claimed millions of votes in 2016 were fake, and were the only reason he lost the popular vote? The same guy who then opened a federal investigation over that ridiculous claim. Of course you don’t. No sensible human thinks Trump will behave this way. “Both sides”ism is plain nihilism at this point. Be better.