Trump outrage of the day

[partgypsy]

I guess I should call it nativist, or nationalistic (as long as we disregard the fact immigration and melting pot-ness is a big part of what made the US a powerhouse.)

[scottish]

Now I'm really confused.   What is the Republican's vision for the US?   Roll everything back to 1950 during the post-war recovery?

[nereo]

Now I'm really confused.   What is the Republican's vision for the US?   Roll everything back to 1950 during the post-war recovery?

Good question. Absent and after Trump, I’m not sure there is a cohesive platform anymore.

[Psychstache]

Now I'm really confused.   What is the Republican's vision for the US?   Roll everything back to 1950 during the post-war recovery?

Apartheid?

[Glenstache]

Now I'm really confused.   What is the Republican's vision for the US?   Roll everything back to 1950 during the post-war recovery?

Good question. Absent and after Trump, I’m not sure there is a cohesive platform anymore.

Honestly, the only thing they have really been consistent about is hamstringing government and tax, financial, and liability policy that benefits corporations and very affluent individuals. The social issues have largely been window dressing to mobilize the masses, though they have done an effective job of stacking the judicial system with people who are unqualified, but have the right mindset to rule in favor of conservative principles where allowed to do so. There are enough single issue religion/abortion voters out there that I wonder what would happen to the electoral map if the GOP were to succeed in overturning Roe v Wade. If that base was untethered, would they stay GOP for other reasons or realize that the social programs of the Dems are both better for them as individuals and more consistent with the Bible? I suspect that social group identity would keep many with the GOP for at least a generation.

But on Trump outrages:
yeah, the MN tweets have been pretty galling.
On the social media regulation front. There is an interesting issue of regulation of content and what regulations apply to social media. If social media are transitioned to being regulated as news outlets  in order to prevent them from flagging Trump tweets, it seems like this is  a dumb as move. If the regulations are put in place vindictively, as opposed to proactively, pretty much every social media platform will be placed in legal jeopardy. While he might get a moment of joy out of vengeance, it would also shut down all of the internet dark holes of hate at the same time (and nice little patches of the internet like teh MMM forums). Does anyone with better legal knowledge have anything to add?
Also, the Hong Kong situation seems pretty volatile. While the trade status change seems like the responsible and measured response, it is a scary escalation all around. I wonder if China sees a long game in which the Yen becomes a reserve currency and the special trade status change will just expedite that?

Side note: thanks for the clarification on terms relating to bundles of sticks. I did a deeper dive and reading and learned a bit.

[ixtap]

Now I'm really confused.   What is the Republican's vision for the US?   Roll everything back to 1950 during the post-war recovery?

Apartheid?

Well, maybe everything except the taxes. Republicans do not want 1950's taxes.

And not before 1954, because "under God..."

But, hey we are good to go on the race riots!

[sherr]

But on Trump outrages:
yeah, the MN tweets have been pretty galling.
On the social media regulation front. There is an interesting issue of regulation of content and what regulations apply to social media. If social media are transitioned to being regulated as news outlets  in order to prevent them from flagging Trump tweets, it seems like this is  a dumb as move. If the regulations are put in place vindictively, as opposed to proactively, pretty much every social media platform will be placed in legal jeopardy. While he might get a moment of joy out of vengeance, it would also shut down all of the internet dark holes of hate at the same time (and nice little patches of the internet like teh MMM forums). Does anyone with better legal knowledge have anything to add?

Depends on how incompetently they did it (and whether the US is still able to extend legal influence to other countries after this), but in the worst case the internet as we know it would literally cease to exist. No comments, no forums, no user-generated content of any kind. No Facebook, no YouTube, no Wikipedia, no anything. Corporate websites would continue to exist, and maybe a few hobbyists, but that's it. No ability to discuss things with people online, no citizen-reporter content, nothing.

What really infuriates me is how blatantly obviously this is truly the SUPPRESSION of REAL free speech. "How dare you call me out on my lies! I'll use the GOVERNMENT to SILENCE YOU!"

[Fish Sweet]

Really just a perfect, ideal time to pull out of the WHO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-united-states-terminating-relationship-world-health-organization/

[talltexan]

Between the executive order against Social Media and the Who announcement, it feels as though Trump is flailing, unable to take any action that can actually address this crisis.

[OtherJen]

Between the executive order against Social Media and the Who announcement, it feels as though Trump is flailing, unable to take any action that can actually address this crisis.

He's deflecting and projecting. Possibly the only honest statement he has made while in the White House was "I don't take responsibility at all." Yeah, dude, we know. That's been your MO for your entire life.

[MasterStache]

By pulling out of the WHO he can keep claiming it was their fault. The "it is Obama's fault" isn't working. I'm just surprised he didn't blame Hillary and start demanding to lock her up again.

[GuitarStv]

By pulling out of the WHO he can keep claiming it was their fault. The "it is Obama's fault" isn't working. I'm just surprised he didn't blame Hillary and start demanding to lock her up again.

No worries.  If there's a cost associated with this, I have it on good authority (the best really,) that Mexico will pay for it.

[Glenstache]

There is a lot going on in the US and the world right now, so it would be easy for this, released on a Friday evening filled with riots, to slip through the cracks. The Flynn transcripts have been released.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-chief-declassifies-transcripts-of-calls-between-michael-flynn-and-then-russian-ambassador-11590785234

Remember, he was not found guilt of having talked to the Russians, he was found guilty of lying about the contents of those conversations to the FBI (and also to the Vice President). Honestly, the call transcripts make Flynn look like a novice diplomat in the most generous reading. It is a bit problematic that he was undermining the existing administration. THe factual basis of what he pled guilty to, and what he was headed towards sentencing for seems pretty clear cut. The counterintelligence investigation about someone lying about communications with foreign governments is legitimate. It still isn’t clear why Flynn would lie about the contents of the call. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

[Glenstache]

Trump is also calling on the US military police to be ready to be deployed to assist in riot suppression. This is to be distinguished from the national guard. Due to posse comitatus, the US military cannot be deployed on US soil except to repel an invasion or suppress an insurrection (ie, a group trying to overthrow the government).

Trump is also calling out, via tweet, for Trump supporters to come and be present as a countering force against protestors at the White House. I hardly see that as a Cumbaya situation.

The contrast between labeling as thugs and labeling as very fine people is striking and, quite frankly, outrageous.

[LWYRUP]

Not much to add, Trump has repeatedly fallen below the standards expected of his office and this is a new low. 

It seems like he's purposefully adding fuel to the fire in order to rally his base.  He really never loses an opportunity to "go low."

Hopefully we can turn a new chapter in November.

[LennStar]

Some of those thugs are very fine people! I know it, they were at my wedding!

I am always amazed that the cognitive dissonance on the Republican "Free Speech!!" crowd isn't making their head hurt. Or maybe it is, looking at the number of psychiatrist visists in the US...

I mean Trump announced to censor the most important platforms of Free Speech that exist today. Why aren't there groups of well-armed people in front of the White House protesting? Did they all catch a virus at the "No Masks!" protests?

[partgypsy]

Maybe the us will be a 3 party country. Essentially trump is bringing back the "Know Nothing" party, (an apt description).

[sixwings]

Not much to add, Trump has repeatedly fallen below the standards expected of his office and this is a new low. 

It seems like he's purposefully adding fuel to the fire in order to rally his base.  He really never loses an opportunity to "go low."

Hopefully we can turn a new chapter in November.

Is his base big enough to gain him re-election? I dont think so but i'm not in the US. His platform in 2016 was all about the economy, how we was going bring back jobs with tariffs, implement an amazing health care, reduce the price of pharmaceuticals, etc. The race stuff was there but he won over a lot of voters due to his economic message and the fact that he wasn't a Clinton tied to the legacy of NAFTA (which overall was probably good for the economy but of course it's complicated and there were winners and losers and he capitalized on getting the votes of the latter). Since election that stuff has largely fallen by the wayside and he's really delivered on none of it. He'll get the votes of the hardcore GOP voters but I don't think that's a big enough group spread across enough states? Like everything he has done since getting elected to make his base more enthusiastic while turning off everyone else, but that base can't be that big to begin with and he seems to too dumb to realize it.

He probably did convince himself that the vast majority of america loves him because of the map that shows the red vs blue counties across the US and he's too dumb to understand of how that map works.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Trump is also calling on the US military police to be ready to be deployed to assist in riot suppression. This is to be distinguished from the national guard. Due to posse comitatus, the US military cannot be deployed on US soil except to repel an invasion or suppress an insurrection (ie, a group trying to overthrow the government).

Trump is also calling out, via tweet, for Trump supporters to come and be present as a countering force against protestors at the White House. I hardly see that as a Cumbaya situation.

The contrast between labeling as thugs and labeling as very fine people is striking and, quite frankly, outrageous.

Wasn't the US army out during the LA riots? Pretty sure they can be hauled out home soil from time to time ..... because they have been

[scottish]

But on Trump outrages:
yeah, the MN tweets have been pretty galling.
On the social media regulation front. There is an interesting issue of regulation of content and what regulations apply to social media. If social media are transitioned to being regulated as news outlets  in order to prevent them from flagging Trump tweets, it seems like this is  a dumb as move. If the regulations are put in place vindictively, as opposed to proactively, pretty much every social media platform will be placed in legal jeopardy. While he might get a moment of joy out of vengeance, it would also shut down all of the internet dark holes of hate at the same time (and nice little patches of the internet like teh MMM forums). Does anyone with better legal knowledge have anything to add?

Depends on how incompetently they did it (and whether the US is still able to extend legal influence to other countries after this), but in the worst case the internet as we know it would literally cease to exist. No comments, no forums, no user-generated content of any kind. No Facebook, no YouTube, no Wikipedia, no anything. Corporate websites would continue to exist, and maybe a few hobbyists, but that's it. No ability to discuss things with people online, no citizen-reporter content, nothing.

What really infuriates me is how blatantly obviously this is truly the SUPPRESSION of REAL free speech. "How dare you call me out on my lies! I'll use the GOVERNMENT to SILENCE YOU!"

Pretty sure the r&d people at Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., would be motivated to move their "deep learning for forum policing" projects out of research and into production.

Right now they have little motivation to do any policing at all.    People post the content, good or bad, and youtube collects its ad revenue. 

The good thing about this is that policing standards would be more both more thorough and more likely to apply to everyone.     

[js82]

Is his base big enough to gain him re-election? I dont think so but i'm not in the US. His platform in 2016 was all about the economy, how we was going bring back jobs with tariffs, implement an amazing health care, reduce the price of pharmaceuticals, etc. The race stuff was there but he won over a lot of voters due to his economic message and the fact that he wasn't a Clinton tied to the legacy of NAFTA (which overall was probably good for the economy but of course it's complicated and there were winners and losers and he capitalized on getting the votes of the latter). Since election that stuff has largely fallen by the wayside and he's really delivered on none of it. He'll get the votes of the hardcore GOP voters but I don't think that's a big enough group spread across enough states? Like everything he has done since getting elected to make his base more enthusiastic while turning off everyone else, but that base can't be that big to begin with and he seems to too dumb to realize it.

I think there's a realistic chance he could win.  In fact, I'd consider him the most likely winner right now.

Remember, Biden probably needs to beat Trump by at least 3% in the popular vote to win the election based on the current way the electoral college is likely to fall.  And there are plenty of Democrats who aren't particularly enthused with Biden.  The number of Democrats who might stay home either because Biden isn't progressive enough for their tastes, or because they can't bring themselves to vote for him based on Tara Reade's allegations is definitely greater than zero, but it's unclear how many people this might be come November.

I still think the election is close enough that perceptions of the pandemic response and subsequent economic recovery will dictate the outcome.

[Wrenchturner]

I think there's a realistic chance he could win.  In fact, I'd consider him the most likely winner right now.

Remember, Biden probably needs to beat Trump by at least 3% in the popular vote to win the election based on the current way the electoral college is likely to fall.  And there are plenty of Democrats who aren't particularly enthused with Biden.  The number of Democrats who might stay home either because Biden isn't progressive enough for their tastes, or because they can't bring themselves to vote for him based on Tara Reade's allegations is definitely greater than zero, but it's unclear how many people this might be come November.

I still think the election is close enough that perceptions of the pandemic response and subsequent economic recovery will dictate the outcome.

Could COVID-related mail in ballots swing the election in Biden's favor?
------------
On Trump outrage more generally, Tim Dillon put it well again:

[PKFFW]

Wasn't the US army out during the LA riots? Pretty sure they can be hauled out home soil from time to time ..... because they have been

My understanding is the Army can not be deployed on US soil except to repel a foreign invasion or civil insurrection.

The National Guard can be deployed by the Governor of the State.  The National Guard is, in my opinion, somewhat of a misnomer as it is really a collection of State based militia.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Wasn't the US army out during the LA riots? Pretty sure they can be hauled out home soil from time to time ..... because they have been

My understanding is the Army can not be deployed on US soil except to repel a foreign invasion or civil insurrection.

The National Guard can be deployed by the Governor of the State.  The National Guard is, in my opinion, somewhat of a misnomer as it is really a collection of State based militia.

I'm not an american, but I think you have an Insurrection Act that allows the army to put down riots? I could well be wrong

[PKFFW]

I'm not an american, but I think you have an Insurrection Act that allows the army to put down riots? I could well be wrong

I don't live in the USA either.

However, I believe "Insurrection" is pretty clearly defined as an attempt by the civilian populous to overthrow the government.  It would be long bow to draw to make that argument with a straight face that this is what is taking place in the current situation.

[former player]

I'm not an american, but I think you have an Insurrection Act that allows the army to put down riots? I could well be wrong

I don't live in the USA either.

However, I believe "Insurrection" is pretty clearly defined as an attempt by the civilian populous to overthrow the government.  It would be long bow to draw to make that argument with a straight face that this is what is taking place in the current situation.

Right, so please don't let Trump know.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I'm not an american, but I think you have an Insurrection Act that allows the army to put down riots? I could well be wrong

I don't live in the USA either.

However, I believe "Insurrection" is pretty clearly defined as an attempt by the civilian populous to overthrow the government.  It would be long bow to draw to make that argument with a straight face that this is what is taking place in the current situation.

I'm basing this on a podcast I listened to ages ago, but I think there are many amendments to the Insurrection Act, and one of them is something about restoring public order and the enforcement of law. My understanding is the troops can be deployed by the president as a policing force if there no other way of enforcing the law and restoring public order in a State. But I think a state of insurrection has to be declared to get those powers or something. I also think insurrection is defined much more widely than you have stated.

[Travis]

I'm not an american, but I think you have an Insurrection Act that allows the army to put down riots? I could well be wrong

I don't live in the USA either.

However, I believe "Insurrection" is pretty clearly defined as an attempt by the civilian populous to overthrow the government.  It would be long bow to draw to make that argument with a straight face that this is what is taking place in the current situation.

I'm basing this on a podcast I listened to ages ago, but I think there are many amendments to the Insurrection Act, and one of them is something about restoring public order and the enforcement of law. My understanding is the troops can be deployed by the president as a policing force if there no other way of enforcing the law and restoring public order in a State. But I think a state of insurrection has to be declared to get those powers or something. I also think insurrection is defined much more widely than you have stated.

The loophole is that federal troops must be placed under the command of the National Guard. That's how active duty troops were on the streets in L.A. for the Rodney King riots and how I was sent to New Orleans immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit. 

[Kyle Schuant]

The madness of King George III and Victoria's excessive period of mourning were periods of development of British Cabinet and later parliamentary government, and were important in improving Britain's democracy.

"In reality, Donald Trump doesn’t run the government of the United States. He doesn’t manage anything. He doesn’t organize anyone. He doesn’t administer or oversee or supervise. He doesn’t read memos. He hates meetings. He has no patience for briefings. His White House is in perpetual chaos. "

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/31/donald-trump-coronavirus-pandemic-george-floyd-minneapolis-tweets

His uselessness is your chance to improve your democracy, to remove the powers of the office, as President after President from Roosevelt onwards have arrogated to themselves, and return those powers to your legislative branch. Or you could just elect another rich sleazy old white guy.

[MasterStache]

I think there's a realistic chance he could win.  In fact, I'd consider him the most likely winner right now.

Remember, Biden probably needs to beat Trump by at least 3% in the popular vote to win the election based on the current way the electoral college is likely to fall.  And there are plenty of Democrats who aren't particularly enthused with Biden.  The number of Democrats who might stay home either because Biden isn't progressive enough for their tastes, or because they can't bring themselves to vote for him based on Tara Reade's allegations is definitely greater than zero, but it's unclear how many people this might be come November.

I still think the election is close enough that perceptions of the pandemic response and subsequent economic recovery will dictate the outcome.

Could COVID-related mail in ballots swing the election in Biden's favor?
------------
On Trump outrage more generally, Tim Dillon put it well again:

Anytime more voters are able to vote, it does not work in the Republican's favor. Heck even Trump has admitted to such. Thus the gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I'm not an american, but I think you have an Insurrection Act that allows the army to put down riots? I could well be wrong

I don't live in the USA either.

However, I believe "Insurrection" is pretty clearly defined as an attempt by the civilian populous to overthrow the government.  It would be long bow to draw to make that argument with a straight face that this is what is taking place in the current situation.

I'm basing this on a podcast I listened to ages ago, but I think there are many amendments to the Insurrection Act, and one of them is something about restoring public order and the enforcement of law. My understanding is the troops can be deployed by the president as a policing force if there no other way of enforcing the law and restoring public order in a State. But I think a state of insurrection has to be declared to get those powers or something. I also think insurrection is defined much more widely than you have stated.

The loophole is that federal troops must be placed under the command of the National Guard. That's how active duty troops were on the streets in L.A. for the Rodney King riots and how I was sent to New Orleans immediately after Hurricane Katrina hit.

Aha, thanks for clarifying.

[former player]

Instead of a Trump outrage being something he has done/said, I'd just like to add that his not doing things is also an outrage.

OK, his actions over the last 3 and a half years mean that he has put himself way beyond being able to do anything about the current situations in the USA, and even if he could do something he doesn't have the personality or intellect to do anything.  But the vacuum in the Presidency in relation to both the pandemic and the response to George Floyd's death is as bad for the USA as any actions which have been taken by Trump.

[js82]

Instead of a Trump outrage being something he has done/said, I'd just like to add that his not doing things is also an outrage.

OK, his actions over the last 3 and a half years mean that he has put himself way beyond being able to do anything about the current situations in the USA, and even if he could do something he doesn't have the personality or intellect to do anything.  But the vacuum in the Presidency in relation to both the pandemic and the response to George Floyd's death is as bad for the USA as any actions which have been taken by Trump.

Given his personality, inaction is probably the best course of action we could expect Trump to take Re: George Floyd.  If a narcissist tries to defuse a tense situation, the end result will not be good.

[OtherJen]

Instead of a Trump outrage being something he has done/said, I'd just like to add that his not doing things is also an outrage.

OK, his actions over the last 3 and a half years mean that he has put himself way beyond being able to do anything about the current situations in the USA, and even if he could do something he doesn't have the personality or intellect to do anything.  But the vacuum in the Presidency in relation to both the pandemic and the response to George Floyd's death is as bad for the USA as any actions which have been taken by Trump.

Given his personality, inaction is probably the best course of action we could expect Trump to take Re: George Floyd.  If a narcissist tries to defuse a tense situation, the end result will not be good.

It's probably better that he shuts up rather than start channeling George Wallace again. He's useless as a leader.

Mike Pence should probably also pipe down right now: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/eric-reid-mike-pence-protest-tweets-nfl/qntol6b34h1p12sf70ntaemxy

[brandon1827]

I think there's a realistic chance he could win.  In fact, I'd consider him the most likely winner right now.

Remember, Biden probably needs to beat Trump by at least 3% in the popular vote to win the election based on the current way the electoral college is likely to fall.  And there are plenty of Democrats who aren't particularly enthused with Biden.  The number of Democrats who might stay home either because Biden isn't progressive enough for their tastes, or because they can't bring themselves to vote for him based on Tara Reade's allegations is definitely greater than zero, but it's unclear how many people this might be come November.

I still think the election is close enough that perceptions of the pandemic response and subsequent economic recovery will dictate the outcome.

Could COVID-related mail in ballots swing the election in Biden's favor?
------------
On Trump outrage more generally, Tim Dillon put it well again:

Anytime more voters are able to vote, it does not work in the Republican's favor. Heck even Trump has admitted to such. Thus the gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.

I think this is clearly why he's trying to lay the ground work for "banning" mail-in votes and crippling the US Postal Service. He keeps claiming that mail-in voting is rife with fraud; which is complete bullshit...but what it does is give him something to use as a rallying cry when he loses to claim that the election wasn't legitimate and attempt to push a case to the Supreme Court...which he now has stacked in his favor. If he retains the presidency...it will be due to something like that and not through the results of the election. I think he was in decent shape before Covid-19 and the economy tanking, but the economy was the one thing that he could point to as a reason people should reelect him. Now that's gone...unemployment is up massively, and I don't see things turning around fast enough to have a huge impact in his favor come November. Biden leads Trump by 10 points in a poll released this morning, and has held a steady 6 point lead over him since early 2019. Trump's base isn't nearly enough to win him reelection. Biden will get a large majority of swing voters who went for Trump in 2016, as well as the ever-growing segment of Republicans who cannot stand Trump. Biden leads in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states that voted Red in the last election, and he's in a statistical dead heat in reliably Republican strong holds like Texas and Florida. Then you throw the way he's responded to the protests in and to me it seems to be leading to a Biden landslide victory.

[talltexan]

Instead of a Trump outrage being something he has done/said, I'd just like to add that his not doing things is also an outrage.

OK, his actions over the last 3 and a half years mean that he has put himself way beyond being able to do anything about the current situations in the USA, and even if he could do something he doesn't have the personality or intellect to do anything.  But the vacuum in the Presidency in relation to both the pandemic and the response to George Floyd's death is as bad for the USA as any actions which have been taken by Trump.

Given his personality, inaction is probably the best course of action we could expect Trump to take Re: George Floyd.  If a narcissist tries to defuse a tense situation, the end result will not be good.

It's probably better that he shuts up rather than start channeling George Wallace again. He's useless as a leader.

Mike Pence should probably also pipe down right now: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/eric-reid-mike-pence-protest-tweets-nfl/qntol6b34h1p12sf70ntaemxy

It does feel like Trump is already a lame duck the way that George W. Bush was a lame duck in 2007. Unfortunately, Trump doesn't have statesman-like restraint the way Bush did. Instead of trying to solve immigration and economic problems, he will merely foster corruption and disunity with the time that remains to him.

I agree with people who say that--because he is a flawed messenger--he couldn't really give a speech that would correct this dangerous course we are on as a country right now. Nothing he is capable of saying would help.

[Freedom2016]

I think this is clearly why he's trying to lay the ground work for "banning" mail-in votes and crippling the US Postal Service. He keeps claiming that mail-in voting is rife with fraud; which is complete bullshit...but what it does is give him something to use as a rallying cry when he loses to claim that the election wasn't legitimate and attempt to push a case to the Supreme Court...which he now has stacked in his favor. If he retains the presidency...it will be due to something like that and not through the results of the election. I think he was in decent shape before Covid-19 and the economy tanking, but the economy was the one thing that he could point to as a reason people should reelect him. Now that's gone...unemployment is up massively, and I don't see things turning around fast enough to have a huge impact in his favor come November. Biden leads Trump by 10 points in a poll released this morning, and has held a steady 6 point lead over him since early 2019. Trump's base isn't nearly enough to win him reelection. Biden will get a large majority of swing voters who went for Trump in 2016, as well as the ever-growing segment of Republicans who cannot stand Trump. Biden leads in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states that voted Red in the last election, and he's in a statistical dead heat in reliably Republican strong holds like Texas and Florida. Then you throw the way he's responded to the protests in and to me it seems to be leading to a Biden landslide victory.

May it be so.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I really cannot even describe what it was like to live through Thursday, Oct. 17. But it's now been almost two weeks, and we're accumulating a fresh set of missteps from our overmatched Commander-and-Chief.

A little about me: I'm a registered Republican who voted in the 2016 primary, but saw immediately that Trump would be a bad President. I didn't think the modest progress on conservative causes would justify the corrosion of our discourse and foreign policy and brazen corruption that Trump and his immediate appointees...

Where is Trump now?  Golfing maybe?  America needs a Republican Party, so why do Republicans even associate themselves with this used car salesman?

[Glenstache]

I really cannot even describe what it was like to live through Thursday, Oct. 17. But it's now been almost two weeks, and we're accumulating a fresh set of missteps from our overmatched Commander-and-Chief.

A little about me: I'm a registered Republican who voted in the 2016 primary, but saw immediately that Trump would be a bad President. I didn't think the modest progress on conservative causes would justify the corrosion of our discourse and foreign policy and brazen corruption that Trump and his immediate appointees...

Where is Trump now?  Golfing maybe?  America needs a Republican Party, so why do Republicans even associate themselves with this used car salesman?

I don't think that we need a Republican Party any more than we need a Democratic, a Green, a Libertarian, or whatever party. What we need is representatives, or groups of representatives (aka a Party) that represents the diversity of actual viewpoint in our country. Whigs and Federalists are parties of the past and someday the Republicans and Democrats will be gone too and replaced by something else. The Republicans are associated with Trump because he weaponized his base against his own party in order to exert control over them. Anyone who stepped out of line was publicly shamed by Trump and he turned his base against them in the next election. Ask Jeff Sessions if Trump still holds a grudge. The Republicans are associated with Trump because otherwise he will destroy them individually. In the meantime, they are using him as cover to achieve Conservative goals of stacking the judiciary and pro-corporate goals of gutting oversight agencies and workign to privatize whatever they can. Trump is so outrageous that he provides cover such that the general populace can't respond to anything anymore before the next, equally outrageous shitstorm erupts. It is a Faustian bargain and deeply corrupt. I disagree with Mitt Romney on a lot, but he seems to be the only Republican I can think of who actually will publicly disagree with Trump. But, he has a safe electoral climate in his state, so his calculus appears to be different. If the conservative electorate really doesn't like what the GOP is doing, it is up to them to shift away from them and form a new party, reform the party, or otherwise take control of their votes. Same goes for the Democratic party (and we have seen versions of this with the last crop in congress). 

[OtherJen]

At least one recent US president is still working: Barack Obama: How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change

The sitting president is hiding in the White House in the dark.

[talltexan]

I read that piece by Obama. I think it's actually pretty good.

He also emphasizes how important it is to manage these issues on local levels. This was something Republicans used to say quite frequently.

[OtherJen]

I read that piece by Obama. I think it's actually pretty good.

He also emphasizes how important it is to manage these issues on local levels. This was something Republicans used to say quite frequently.

Yep. The Republican in chief apparently told governors via conference call the following:

"You have to dominate,” he told governors on the call. “If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time — they’re going to run over you, you’re going to look like a bunch of jerks.”

The president continued: “You have to arrest people, and you have to try people, and they have to go jail for long periods of time.”

Source: NY Times

[LennStar]

Of course he wants them to go to jail. They are Democrats. And also, in jail they can't vote, right?

[talltexan]

I cannot help but feel as though politics used to be about persuading people, but that seems out of style these days.

[nereo]

I cannot help but feel as though politics used to be about persuading people, but that seems out of style these days.

There was some quote (Churchill?) about how [paraphrased] “when you spend more time pandering to your base than trying to convert others to your side you have already lost the argument’”

[MDM]

Of course he wants them to go to jail. They are Democrats.

Are you assuming that all the destructive folks are Democrats?

[OtherJen]

Of course he wants them to go to jail. They are Democrats.

Are you assuming that all the destructive folks are Democrats?

Trump didn't specify that only the destructive protesters should be jailed. And the current protesters are much more likely to be Democrats, just like the militia protesters storming the state capitols with guns a few weeks ago were mostly Republican (of course, those were "good people" because those protests tended to be de facto Trump rallies).

[MDM]

Of course he wants them to go to jail. They are Democrats.

Are you assuming that all the destructive folks are Democrats?

Trump didn't specify that only the destructive protesters should be jailed. And the current protesters are much more likely to be Democrats, just like the militia protesters storming the state capitols with guns a few weeks ago were mostly Republican (of course, those were "good people" because those protests tended to be de facto Trump rallies).

I'll take what you quoted at face value: "The president continued: 'You have to arrest people, and you have to try people, and they have to go jail for long periods of time.'"  Seems reasonable that the intermediate trial step would prevent peaceful protesters (e.g., those in Flint) from prison, even in the unlikely event they were arrested in the first place.

That's different from the window smashers, car burners, etc. - in other words, the destructive protesters.

[nessness]

Of course he wants them to go to jail. They are Democrats.

Are you assuming that all the destructive folks are Democrats?

Trump didn't specify that only the destructive protesters should be jailed. And the current protesters are much more likely to be Democrats, just like the militia protesters storming the state capitols with guns a few weeks ago were mostly Republican (of course, those were "good people" because those protests tended to be de facto Trump rallies).

I'll take what you quoted at face value: "The president continued: 'You have to arrest people, and you have to try people, and they have to go jail for long periods of time.'"  Seems reasonable that the intermediate trial step would prevent peaceful protesters (e.g., those in Flint) from prison, even in the unlikely event they were arrested in the first place.

That's different from the window smashers, car burners, etc. - in other words, the destructive protesters.

You have a lot more faith in the justice system that I do.

There have been reports of cities all over the country announcing curfews five minutes before curfew begins, then arresting peaceful protesters who (understandably) can't get off the streets before the curfew starts.

[nereo]

Of course he wants them to go to jail. They are Democrats.

Are you assuming that all the destructive folks are Democrats?

Trump didn't specify that only the destructive protesters should be jailed. And the current protesters are much more likely to be Democrats, just like the militia protesters storming the state capitols with guns a few weeks ago were mostly Republican (of course, those were "good people" because those protests tended to be de facto Trump rallies).

I'll take what you quoted at face value: "The president continued: 'You have to arrest people, and you have to try people, and they have to go jail for long periods of time.'"  Seems reasonable that the intermediate trial step would prevent peaceful protesters (e.g., those in Flint) from prison, even in the unlikely event they were arrested in the first place.

That's different from the window smashers, car burners, etc. - in other words, the destructive protesters.

I won’t argue about whether the President meant Democrat protestors or not.  What I object to is this perception that a show of force coupled with extensive jail time is beneficial to society.

The “War on Drugs” in the 1980s also called for extensive arrests and prolonged incarcerations, and (I would argue) backfired spectacularly. The strong-arm tactics used by law enforcement during the early years of the civil rights movement also were ineffective - both at stopping future protests and with keeping them peaceful.

People feel a great injustice, and many feel personally threatened.  Countering that with yet more force won’t calm tensions, nor avoid future conflicts.  Rather than acknowledge the reasons why so many are protesting and asked for restraint on all sides Trump has instead encouraged a confrontational stance.