[Discussion] The Donald Trump Administration

Let's follow and discuss what our newest presidential administration gets up to, the good, the bad, the lawsuits.

gore wrote:

I'll also note that I don't have any idea what Bannon's long game is yet. He obviously captured the imagination of white nationalists and Internet trolls in his role as media mogul, but now that he has them, what does he want to do with them as a bureaucrat? Are they a means to an end? What is the end?

Bannon's long game? He's already told us:

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

I give Reince Priebus six months on the outside.

Gremlin wrote:
gore wrote:

I'll also note that I don't have any idea what Bannon's long game is yet. He obviously captured the imagination of white nationalists and Internet trolls in his role as media mogul, but now that he has them, what does he want to do with them as a bureaucrat? Are they a means to an end? What is the end?

Bannon's long game? He's already told us:

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

That's terrifying.

(copied from my "Winter of discontent" post)
I just can't wrap my head around the "trump's an outsider, he'll fix corruption, and "make America great" idea...

Outsider?
He's a white guy that came from money. How "outside" is that?

Anti-corruption/crime?
He's not just accused of, but bragged about sexual assault (apparently entitled to because he's celebrity). He's (alleged, but seems pretty likely) a tax-cheat. He will have (probably) the LARGEST conflict of interest, EVER (blindtrustthatisntinthesameareacodeasarealblindtrust) - as president (and egoist) how could he not try his hardest to set up as many rules to benefit himself, for when he's no longer president? Every "business deal" is set up for one thing only - benefit the trump - forget the employees, forget the investors, forget the contractors... he's the ultimate pyramid scheme.

He really cares about (rural) America - "make America great, again"?
trump cares about trump. Period. He's boosted his brand, and that's all that matters.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Trump is also overwhelmed right now, and looking for anyone to throw him a lifeline. If we don't give him a chance, we give his ear entirely over to the basket of deplorables. If we can make it so that he spends more time listening to people like Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and less time listening to Pepe the Frog or whomever, we have a chance to save some lives.

Trump fired two campaign managers--one of them just a few months before the election--because he didn't like what they were telling him. He's proven that he's not going to listen to anyone who doesn't tell him exactly what he wants to hear.

And it's not the job of Obama or Schumer to moderate Trump. Every member of the RNC and everyone with an (R) after their names should be doing whatever it takes to make sure Trump doesn't burn the White House down. He's their candidate, he's the de facto leader of the Republican Party now, and all of America will be judging the GOP by what he does.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Trump is also overwhelmed right now, and looking for anyone to throw him a lifeline. If we don't give him a chance, we give his ear entirely over to the basket of deplorables. If we can make it so that he spends more time listening to people like Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer and less time listening to Pepe the Frog or whomever, we have a chance to save some lives.

Trump fired two campaign managers--one of them just a few months before the election--because he didn't like what they were telling him. He's proven that he's not going to listen to anyone who doesn't tell him exactly what he wants to hear.

And it's not the job of Obama or Schumer to moderate Trump. Every member of the RNC and everyone with an (R) after their names should be doing whatever it takes to make sure Trump doesn't burn the White House down. He's their candidate, he's the de facto leader of the Republican Party now, and all of America will be judging the GOP by what he does.

Like I said in the second part of that post of mine:

Yeah, we dress it up in the rhetoric of 'the spirit of the Constitution and the ideals of Democracy' but I think every liberal saying we should give him a chance is lying, and what they're really doing is trying to keep him from being entirely captured by the people around him, because they think this is the best chance to save some lives.

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

absurddoctor wrote:
Chaz wrote:

But in order for that to happen, he'd have to be listening to someone other than the people he's surrounded himself with. He doesn't seem to be doing that. I'd love him to moderate, but based on who he's putting into advisory positions, I don't see that happening. He could look to the number of protests going and try to find out what they're on about, but based on his past statements, it seems more likely that he'll just see them as whiny crybabies mad that they lost, and ignore them. I'm honestly not sure how people outside of the echo chamber he's built will be able to get him to listen.

Not just his past statements, he's already complained about them being 'unfair' on twitter. In his 60 Minutes interview he said that there was a media double standard and that if "my people were out there ..." the media would be demonizing them. His prepared remarks about being a president for everyone are given the lie by his unprepared remarks stating that the protestors are not 'his people'.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but you're doing exactly what Trump is saying the media does by taking everything he says in the most negative way possible.

To me it seems just as reasonable his choice of words are because those who are protesting are not "his people" in that they're protesting him. "My people" in that way are the people who support him.

I actually agree with him and don't find it at all controversial to say that if it were his supporters in the streets the media would be crucifying him and the protesters over it.

That said, his statements about being a President for everyone is clearly lip service, but I'm still somewhat surprised he's even giving that lip service. I really thought he'd stand up there and be like "Democrats, you're fired!" with a giant middle finger. We've all been underestimating him the whole time, it's probably not in our best interests to do so again.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

Being an enabler just continues to perpetuate the problem rather than offering long-term solutions.

Paleocon wrote:

I give Reince Priebus six months on the outside.

I'm inclined to agree. They threw a massive bone to the establishment here, but it's not a real bone. Priebus will likely be marginalized and his political career chewed up and spit out. Then again, Priebus has been a supporter of Trump since he realized he'd get the nomination, so he made his own bed.

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

Being an enabler just continues to perpetuate the problem rather than offering long-term solutions.

There's a difference between "I spent all my money on weed, can I have some money for some snacks" and "I owe money to people who are going to do some really bad things to me if I don't pay up."

That logic is valid, but it's not some universal truth. Sometimes you have to put short-term survival ahead of long-term solutions.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

Let's be clear, cheeze. Whether or not Obama or Schumer or whoever tries to tell Donald how things really are isn't going to stop some 40-year-old white moron in Wisconsin or Florida or wherever from feeling emboldened enough by Trump's election to attack someone he thinks is different from him (and therefore not American). That ship officially sailed when Trump became the GOP nominee.

No Democrat should be doing anything outside of the minimum required for a smooth transition of power. The GOP owns every last bit of Trump.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

Being an enabler just continues to perpetuate the problem rather than offering long-term solutions.

There's a difference between "I spent all my money on weed, can I have some money for some snacks" and "I owe money to people who are going to do some really bad things to me if I don't pay up."

That logic is valid, but it's not some universal truth. Sometimes you have to put short-term survival ahead of long-term solutions.

And sometimes you have to come to the realization that a life lived entirely in survival mode isn't living.

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

Being an enabler just continues to perpetuate the problem rather than offering long-term solutions.

There's a difference between "I spent all my money on weed, can I have some money for some snacks" and "I owe money to people who are going to do some really bad things to me if I don't pay up."

That logic is valid, but it's not some universal truth. Sometimes you have to put short-term survival ahead of long-term solutions.

And sometimes you have to come to the realization that a life lived entirely in survival mode isn't living.

I think you've discovered common ground with Trump supporters. This is the sentiment I've found when casting around the internet to understand how he achieved the support he did.

A lot of people appear to understand that there's a high risk he'll betray them and they'll end up worse off than today or under a Hillary administration, but they're tired of living with crappy jobs in ghost towns that the big lumber/steel/whatever mill has left. They're willing to put all their (and our) money on black and roll the dice because they're tired of living in survival mode.

I think this is where Hillary made a strategic error. She spent too much time pointing out Trump's flaws, which are far too easily countered by pointing out hers. It doesn't matter the relative scale, because people won't think about that. If she'd spent time explaining how her policies would benefit those people left behind, she'd have been more successful. Instead, all they heard was deplorable.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

Let's be clear, cheeze. Whether or not Obama or Schumer or whoever tries to tell Donald how things really are isn't going to stop some 40-year-old white moron in Wisconsin or Florida or wherever from feeling emboldened enough by Trump's election to attack someone he thinks is different from him (and therefore not American). That ship officially sailed when Trump became the GOP nominee.

No Democrat should be doing anything outside of the minimum required for a smooth transition of power. The GOP owns every last bit of Trump.

bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I agree it's not their job, but the Republicans sure aren't going to do it. So the question is whether you let people die because it's not your job, or do you do their job for them even though that helps them avoid being fired.

Being an enabler just continues to perpetuate the problem rather than offering long-term solutions.

There's a difference between "I spent all my money on weed, can I have some money for some snacks" and "I owe money to people who are going to do some really bad things to me if I don't pay up."

That logic is valid, but it's not some universal truth. Sometimes you have to put short-term survival ahead of long-term solutions.

And sometimes you have to come to the realization that a life lived entirely in survival mode isn't living.

When the conversation gets this disingenuous-slash-ridiculous, and I keep arguing, this is where the thread gets locked and I get blamed for it so...

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

I think this right here is a big part of where we disagree. I don't believe Trump is looking for a lifeline. I believe Trump knows exactly what he's doing and is fully prepared to do the job he prepared to do. Which of course may not be the job that *we* think he should be doing, which probably *won't* be the job we think he should be doing, but he's more than prepared. Frighteningly more than prepared, and he's in full and utter control of it. You are assuming a rationality that just doesn't exist.

I would agree that this is the point where we disagree.

We are also still facing a choice we cannot avoid here. We try and get his ear, or we don't. We weigh the risks of legitimizing him by being seen trying to work with him against the risks that there is an opportunity there to prevent his complete capture by the deplorables. We weigh the risks of helping him win in four years or his party win in two years against the number of lives we can save in those years. We obviously come out differently on those calculations.

Who the f*ck is the "we" you are talking about? Call him up and tell him whatever the hell you want.

The reality is, what he needs to do, and who he should be trusting is being discussed daily in the media, which he is obsessed with. Hell yes, he needs intervention and real training. So which progressives do you suppose are going to get that job?

The only "disingenuous-slash-ridiculous" person arguing right now is you.

We have all kinds of idea about what Trump should do. But it would be disingenuous-slash-ridiculous to assume this is anything more than discussion about current events as opposed to a call for a solution.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/nJvE8xd.gif)

Carson not interested in serving in Trump administration

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has told President-elect Donald Trump that he isn't interested in serving as secretary of Health and Human Services, a Carson ally confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

Business manager and close friend Armstrong Williams said Carson won't join the incoming Trump administration and would only serve as an unofficial adviser.

farley3k wrote:

Carson not interested in serving in Trump administration

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has told President-elect Donald Trump that he isn't interested in serving as secretary of Health and Human Services, a Carson ally confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

Business manager and close friend Armstrong Williams said Carson won't join the incoming Trump administration and would only serve as an unofficial adviser.

Of course not. He's making $40K+ a speech now.

farley3k wrote:

Carson not interested in serving in Trump administration

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has told President-elect Donald Trump that he isn't interested in serving as secretary of Health and Human Services, a Carson ally confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday.

Business manager and close friend Armstrong Williams said Carson won't join the incoming Trump administration and would only serve as an unofficial adviser.

Heh, they all know they will have more influence as advisers instead of having to actually do stuff. And take no responsibility if it all explodes.

So why did Carson even run for President? Did anyone on that f*cking stage actually take the job of running the country seriously?

Why would they want to be President when they can use the publicity to travel and get rich?

Spoiler:

To be fair, I wouldn't take a position if I were him.

DSGamer wrote:

So why did Carson even run for President? Did anyone on that f*cking stage actually take the job of running the country seriously?

They thought it was Clinton's turn too and that the primary campaign would either boost their status and gain them supporters or allow them to raise their speaking fees.

DSGamer wrote:

So why did Carson even run for President? Did anyone on that f*cking stage actually take the job of running the country seriously?

Through the looking glass...

The Hill wrote:

Circa on Tuesday reported that Carson had been offered the position, citing Williams. But Williams told The Hill that no specific offer had been made.

"Dr. Carson was never offered a specific position, but everything was open to him," Williams told The Hill in a phone call.

"Dr. Carson feels he has no government experience, he's never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency."

But the motherf*cker felt comfortable running for president, and taking donations to do so.

Right, just like Trump he'd surround himself with experienced individuals.

Is it possible he was unwilling to work with Bannon?

DSGamer wrote:

So why did Carson even run for President? Did anyone on that f*cking stage actually take the job of running the country seriously?

Jeb! did!

Please clap.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Jeb! did!

Please clap.

How depressing that I would relish another Bush presidency right now.

Come back, Jeb!

IMAGE(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6gb36N0a66kt1fNu/giphy.gif)

I'll be shocked if anyone in the cabinet isn't a white male. I wonder how much (aka: just how bad) of a shift will actually occur in cabinet positions as well as committees. 1950s here we come!!!!

/sob