President Trump

[Fast Eddie B]

Did Obama really say that? Or did he refer to the deficit Bush created?

You'll forgive me for not relying on your recollection for that, I'm sure.

He really said that. YouTube immortalized it. I'll look for a link later.

 

[Spindrift]

He really said that. YouTube immortalized it. I'll look for a link later.

Yes, but under the Trump Dictum Corollary, videos of someone saying something are no longer acceptable proof that someone actually said that something.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, that's that's what the slogans say, anyway. I disagree... much of the armed populace are EXACTLY the people who would back a fascist regime, if it let them keep their guns and outlawed abortion. They'd enthusiastically support it.

Just out of curiosity, do you actually *know* any of these people, or are you just basing your opinion on what you've been told about them?

 

[Minoosh]

Thanks for posting this link. It's a great read.

Bob001's link on Bannon doesn't get into white nationalism (although there is a comment about "take back our culture," which may be code). There is also no mention of Trump. What I found most revealing was the emphasis on uncovering and peddling obscure facts. Instead of feeding the facts to political reporters, it sends them to investigative reporters. This makes sense, because political reporters have ongoing relationships with politicians and can't afford to burn bridges. Investigative reporters are driven by a lust to bring new information to light. They may also be liberal, but ultimately what drives them is scoops.

But Bannon realizes that politics is sometimes more effective when it’s subtle. So he’s nurtured a Dr. Jekyll side: In 2012 he became founding chairman of GAI, a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) research organization staffed with lawyers, data scientists, and forensic investigators. “What Peter (Schweizer) and I noticed is that it’s facts, not rumors, that resonate with the best investigative reporters,” Bannon says, referring to GAI’s president. Established in Tallahassee to study crony capitalism and governmental malfeasance, GAI has collaborated with such mainstream news outlets as Newsweek, ABC News, and CBS’s 60 Minutes on stories ranging from insider trading in Congress to credit card fraud among presidential campaigns. It's essentially a mining operation for political scoops that now churns out books like Clinton Cash and Bush Bucks...

Just before the book’s [Clinton Cash] release, the New York Times ran a front-page story about a Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra, who gave tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and then flew Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan aboard his private jet to dine with the country’s autocratic president, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Giustra subsequently won lucrative uranium-mining rights in the country. (Giustra denies that the Clinton dinner influenced his Kazakh mining decision.) The Times piece cited Schweizer’s still-unpublished book as a source of its reporting, puzzling many Times readers ...

So: Bannon is feeding info to The New York Times, which is confirming it and putting it on Page One. If Trump's detractors want to face fire with fire, they really need to be doing their own digging, such as reviewing every page of every lawsuit Trump has filed. Don't get met wrong, some are already doing it, but CNN is leading right now with Trump's tweets against the NYT. None of this is new information (except that Trump's tweeting again, with possible implications for national security). That last bit is important. I'm as bad as anyone, clicking on CNN to look for his latest gaffes, but most of them are not big news. He ditches the press pool, which complains about being ditched and talks about how important they are. OK, report those things. But if anyone wants the dirt on Trump, find it already. Not so much what Trump has said, but what he's done. Find the facts about Trump. Drag them kicking and screaming into the light. Hack his tax returns if necessary. Find all the million little ways Trump's company are connected to foreign leaders.* Covering the little squabbles about the Trump transition is not going to do it.

 

[Minoosh]

Trump promises rust belt "jobs", chases out Mexicans. Then?
Jobs go to Mexico, of course:
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13A2LK

They were going to Mexico anyway. Not connected to Trump. Ford claims no jobs will be lost in Michigan. This is the more important fact from that link:

The group that represents Ford and other major automakers in the U.S. has asked the Trump transition team to review and consider easing the Obama administration's fuel economy standards, which call for automakers to more than double the fuel efficiency of their fleets to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

That was reported 5 days ago, so it's not breaking either, but it's not very helpful to blame chasing out Mexicans for Ford's move to Mexico. Looking at money flowing from auto companies to D.C. to try to influence opinion might be a more fruitful avenue. Might. Would it pan out? Don't know. Financing that sort of reporting is crucial. Bloomberg, maybe.

I keep seeing three million. That is to say, Trump is up three million after you factor in all of the illegal immigrants who illegally voted for Crooked Hillary.

Yeah but when you factor in all the ex-KGB who voted for Trump it evens out.

ETA: So Hillary still wins!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Cat, THINK. When I ask about the efficacy of an armed resistance against the government (i.e. the military), what does belief have to do with it?

Really? Belief has nothing to do with the effectiveness of arms? I suppose it's high technology that has allowed several terrorists to successfully blow things up over the last few decades? It's their superior military force? Nothing at all to do with their belief?

You have a massive, massive, gaping flaw in your presumption here. You seem to think that it would be easy for Trump to become a dictator virtually no resistance.

First there's a question of whether or not there is likely to be resistance to Trump trying to become a dictator. To this I say Yes - there would be resistance. To achieve this end in the US he would need the approval of his supporters. The problem is that many of his supporters are gun owners... and a very great many of them are gun owners who firmly believe that it is their duty to oppose the tyranny of the government. It is my opinion that they would not support Trump's attempts to become a dictator. They would object on ideological grounds. You would end up with Trump having no support from the left (for obvious reasons) and extremely minimal support from the right (because they are ideologically opposed and armed).

Secondly, you seem to assume that Trump would be able to leverage the military to overcome the population, and that an armed citizenry would be easy for the military might of the US to overpower. The problem is that you're assuming that the military would go along with this. It's a blatant violation of the UCMJ, it's a blatant violation of the constitution (which those military personnel are sworn to defend). There is no logical reason to assume that the military would support this action by Trump. In all likelihood, they would also oppose Trump.

Your entire premise is flawed - the populace would not support him, nor would the military.

It's not my fault if you can't pick an answer and you keep getting back and forth.

Yeah, it's not my fault you can't seem to understand that they're connected.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm starting to see why he has so many post, he excels at the circular argument.

I really don't want your support on this. I'm not on your side, and you are not on mine. Heck, I don't even have a side on this.

 

[trustbutverify]

Just out of curiosity, do you actually *know* any of these people, or are you just basing your opinion on what you've been told about them?

Do family members count?

 

[Belz...]

Really? Belief has nothing to do with the effectiveness of arms?

I'll let that stew here for a while. You can tell me later how the power of belief will make a glock defeat a tank.

First there's a question of whether or not there is likely to be resistance to Trump trying to become a dictator. To this I say Yes - there would be resistance.

I agree but that wasn't my question.

Secondly, you seem to assume that Trump would be able to leverage the military to overcome the population, and that an armed citizenry would be easy for the military might of the US to overpower.

No, that's irrelevant: the only way to stop Trump under this scenario is if the military refuses to obey his orders, or if a part of it turns against him, effectively throwing the country into civil war. Armed population will only "count" under that scenario. If the military remains loyal to him, civilians with guns won't make a difference. In fact they may make it worse by giving the dictator an excuse to crack down on innocents in retaliation.

The problem is that you're assuming that the military would go along with this.

I'm not. I've already addressed this and apparently you didn't read it the first time around.

Your entire premise is flawed - the populace would not support him, nor would the military.

None of this has anything to do with my question or argument. My ONLY question, and my ONLY argument, is about the efficacy of armed resistance by civilians to a dictatorship.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good so we can now collectively blame the entirety of the states that voted trump and not just trump voters. You seem to be rather inconsistent on if you can hold people accountable for their actions or you can hold people accountable for the region they live in.

I'm defending myself against your repeated personal attacks and insinuations. You keep blaming me personally for this situation. You keep attacking me personally. You have heaped all sorts of scorn and derision on me - not because I actually contributed to this, but because I didn't vote for Clinton. FFS, it would have made no difference to the outcome of my state. I personally had no hand in this.

You have insinuated repeatedly that I'm either an outright bigot, or that I don't care about bigotry. You have repeatedly implied that I am a horrible person who supports the mistreatment of others. You seem to have taken the position that I deserve to be treated poorly by you. Me personally. It is misdirected and out of line.

Then when I attempt once more to get you to back off, because it made no difference whatsoever that I voted 3rd party, *now* you're going to attack me even more.. because I'm somehow being "inconsistent"?

Please, knock it off.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do family members count?

Sure.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm defending myself against your repeated personal attacks and insinuations. You keep blaming me personally for this situation. You keep attacking me personally. You have heaped all sorts of scorn and derision on me - not because I actually contributed to this, but because I didn't vote for Clinton. FFS, it would have made no difference to the outcome of my state. I personally had no hand in this.

You have insinuated repeatedly that I'm either an outright bigot, or that I don't care about bigotry. You have repeatedly implied that I am a horrible person who supports the mistreatment of others. You seem to have taken the position that I deserve to be treated poorly by you. Me personally. It is misdirected and out of line.

Then when I attempt once more to get you to back off, because it made no difference whatsoever that I voted 3rd party, *now* you're going to attack me even more.. because I'm somehow being "inconsistent"?

Please, knock it off.

And in how many states if the Stein voters voted for clinton trump wouldn't have won them? Michigan seems pretty sure.

Thank god your vote doesn't matter no matter how you vote.

 

[Emily's Cat]

None of this has anything to do with my question or argument. My ONLY question, and my ONLY argument, is about the efficacy of armed resistance by civilians to a dictatorship.

Let's break this down. Here is my chain of thought:

1) The currently armed populace would oppose Trump becoming a dictator
2) The military will refuse to support a clear violation of both the UCMJ and Constitution
3) Therefore, no military action against armed citizens
4) Therefore armed citizens have more power than Trump does all by himself

Do you imagine that Trump will be manning his own tanks?

 

[logger]

I really don't want your support on this. I'm not on your side, and you are not on mine. Heck, I don't even have a side on this.

I wasn't giving you my "support". The post was only an opinion to how he deals with posters. It usually starts with a simple question that ends with him putting words on the post the poster didn't type.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And in how many states if the Stein voters voted for clinton trump wouldn't have won them? Michigan seems pretty sure.

Thank god your vote doesn't matter no matter how you vote.

I see. The hypothetical actions of people who are not me, in states in which I don't live, who you believe *might* have made a difference to the results in those states (in which I don't live)... is a perfectly acceptable reason for you to heap scorn on me personally?

Does this actually make sense to you?

 

[trustbutverify]

Sure.

Then the answer is yes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wasn't giving you my "support". The post was only an opinion to how he deals with posters. It usually starts with a simple question that ends with him putting words on the post the poster didn't type.

I like Argumemnon. We've had some good arguments. We both are tenacious, we both will argue until we're blue in the face. Sometimes we speak different languages, but there doesn't seem to be any actual animosity there.

Beyond that, personal attacks don't get you very far... and personal attacks against a person that I'm interacting with don't aid my perspective in any fashion.

 

[Belz...]

Let's break this down. Here is my chain of thought:

1) The currently armed populace would oppose Trump becoming a dictator
2) The military will refuse to support a clear violation of both the UCMJ and Constitution
3) Therefore, no military action against armed citizens
4) Therefore armed citizens have more power than Trump does all by himself

Do you imagine that Trump will be manning his own tanks?

Again, this wasn't the question. You took the time, presumably, to read my whole post, picked the most important bit of it, quoted it, and responded with something entirely irrelevant and that I already know you believe, having already addressed it multiple times.

So let me narrow it down so you can't wiggle out of it: assuming a Trump dictatorship with full army support, do you really believe that armed citizens would have a net positive effect in the fight for freedom in America?

 

[Belz...]

I like Argumemnon.

Aww...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's break this down. Here is my chain of thought:

1) The currently armed populace would oppose Trump becoming a dictator
2) The military will refuse to support a clear violation of both the UCMJ and Constitution

Did they ever do any of that for the orders under Bush? The treatment of prisoners fell way below that and as long as troublesome pictures didn't get out it was all good. I have not heard of any orders ever being refused.

The trick is to move the scale slowly.