Cont: The Trump Presidency VI

[Upchurch]

That would seem to be mutually contradictory.

Bornstein appears to talk in word salad much like Trump does. Reading the whole thing, I take it that it was a collaboration between the two with Trump pushing the hyperbole to the limit and Bornstein walking it back.

Of course, that could just be Bornstein's self-serving version of what happened or I didn't parse what Bornstein said correctly.

 

[Arcade22]

As an aside, the latter fits a pattern for Trump - taking on the role of another, as he did in those phone interviews, in that case extolling his virtues while pretending to be someone else.

Or in how he had the whitehouse physician praise his good genes and claim that he might live for up to two-hundred years (!!) only if his diet was better. He's just saying what Trump wants him to say or what he think Trump wants to hear. It's either that or he's really just a quack who makes up a whole lot of nonsense as he goes along, much like Trump himself.

 

[Mumbles]

Or in how he had the whitehouse physician praise his good genes and claim that he might live for up to two-hundred years (!!) only if his diet was better. He's just saying what Trump wants him to say or what he think Trump wants to hear. It's either that or he's really just a quack who makes up a whole lot of nonsense as he goes along, much like Trump himself.

And to tie both together, Dolt 45 has a long history of blather about his genes - which has lead many to conclude that he's a eugenicist.

 

[Mumbles]

No. No, he has not been explicitly so.

Pretty damned plausible he's a racist, but he is not explicitly[1] a white supremacist.

[1] Words like "explicitly" have meanings.

Are we pretending that Dolt 45 did not spend his entire campaign constantly calling black, Arab, and Hispanic people dangerous and violent who "we" must use state force to constrain? Because the love for Joe Arpaio, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, and the like were always based on those openly stated claims.

Or did you simply not pay attention to anything that was said until yesterday at all?

 

[Segnosaur]

Trump's latest claim: "You can't stop me from being corrupt because it would distract from my work as president".

From: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-to-toss-foreign-payments-suit-idUSKBN1I31Y6
President Donald Trump has again asked a U.S. court to dismiss a suit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by refusing to separate himself from his business empire while in office, claiming “absolute immunity.” The lawsuit...accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clause that bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other payments from foreign governments...
...
“The Supreme Court has concluded that the costs to the Nation of allowing such suits to distract the President from his official duties outweigh any countervailing interests. That choice must be respected,” Consovoy added.

 

[beren]

No. No, he has not been explicitly so.

Pretty damned plausible he's a racist, but he is not explicitly[1] a white supremacist.

[1] Words like "explicitly" have meanings.

Are we pretending that Dolt 45 did not spend his entire campaign constantly calling black, Arab, and Hispanic people dangerous and violent who "we" must use state force to constrain? Because the love for Joe Arpaio, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Jeff Sessions, and the like were always based on those openly stated claims.

Or did you simply not pay attention to anything that was said until yesterday at all?

Which of those examples if "explicitly" being a white supremacist?
For the record, I believe that he likely is, but I agree with phiwum that he has not made it "explicit" as per my understanding of the definition of explicit.

I may be wrong about what the word means, or it may be that your points do in fact match the meaning and I simply missed it. In either case I will admit my error, but at the moment I am not seeing it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which of those examples if "explicitly" being a white supremacist?
For the record, I believe that he likely is, but I agree with phiwum that he has not made it "explicit" as per my understanding of the definition of explicit.

I may be wrong about what the word means, or it may be that your points do in fact match the meaning and I simply missed it. In either case I will admit my error, but at the moment I am not seeing it.

Exactly it is why it is wrong to call Richard Spencer a white supremacist. You have to make lots of public statements like the famous cornerstone speech

" Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

Anything less totally fails to be white supremacy and calling mere ethnonationalist white supremacists is wrong.

 

[beren]

Exactly it is why it is wrong to call Richard Spencer a white supremacist. You have to make lots of public statements like the famous cornerstone speech

" Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

Anything less totally fails to be white supremacy and calling mere ethnonationalist white supremacists is wrong.

Not sure why I was quoted here since this, in no way that I can see, refers to, responds to or adds to what I said.

 

[ddt]

I rarely endorse 'judging a book by its cover' but the doc even looks bonkers. Like the photographers just caught him smoking banana peels or something.

He doesn't look any more bonkers now than two years ago, and I think he can afford the real deal instead of fake narcotics.

But worst case, with all he's said, he's looking at four malpractice charges:
1) signing a statement about Trump's health that Trump had made up, during the campaign;
2) last year, divulging what drugs Trump takes without his prior consent;
3) giving Trump's records in an unsafe manner to unauthorized persons during the "raid";
4) not keeping a copy of Trump's records;
5) not adequately safeguarding the privacy of his other patients' records during the "raid".

How do all these tools around Trump manage to incriminate themselves with what they say to the press?

 

[pgwenthold]

Exactly it is why it is wrong to call Richard Spencer a white supremacist. You have to make lots of public statements like the famous cornerstone speech

" Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

Anything less totally fails to be white supremacy and calling mere ethnonationalist white supremacists is wrong.

What does a statement about states' rights have to do with anything?

</s>

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Ty Cobb retiring means he is no longer part of Trump's legal team. Trump has hired Clinton's impeachment lawyer Emmett Flood

In a phone interview, Mr. Cobb said he informed the president weeks ago that he wanted to retire.

New York Times story from 10th March

President Trump is in discussions with a veteran Washington lawyer who represented Bill Clinton during the impeachment process about joining the White House to help deal with the special counsel inquiry, according to four people familiar with the matter.

The lawyer, Emmet T. Flood, met with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office this past week to discuss the possibility, according to the people. No final decision has been made, according to two of the people.

[...]

Mr. Flood would not replace Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer who since the summer has taken the lead role in dealing with the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. But Mr. Cobb has told friends for weeks that he views his position as temporary and does not expect to remain in the job for much longer.

I can't access the tweet directly myself, but here is a story from the next day

The Failing New York Times purposely wrote a false story stating that I am unhappy with my legal team on the Russia case and am going to add another lawyer to help out. Wrong. I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow. They are doing a great job and.....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 11, 2018

...have shown conclusively that there was no Collusion with Russia..just excuse for losing. The only Collusion was that done by the DNC, the Democrats and Crooked Hillary. The writer of the story, Maggie Haberman, a Hillary flunky, knows nothing about me and is not given access.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 11, 2018

Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied, eh?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's not often I'm praising those on Trump's side for their public statements or actions in this mess, but I've got to hand it to this one.

Politico story pondering on why Mueller has not yet interviewed Ivanka Trump. The bit that got my attention was the following:

Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Abbe Lowell, Ivanka Trump’s ethics attorney and Kushner’s lawyer, said in a statement: “That POLITICO is now doing an article on why Ms. Trump has not done anything to merit an article is the definition of making up the news. Media outlets should know and act better than doing that and becoming a vehicle for those with an axe to grind.”

That's admirable sass.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 49% of likely U.S. voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-nine percent (49%) disapprove.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may02 (May 2, 2018)

Look for those numbers to change significantly when President Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Look for those numbers to change significantly when President Trump receives the Nobel Peace Prize.

Also look skywards to admire the pigs.

 

[The_Animus]

Trump's latest claim: "You can't stop me from being corrupt because it would distract from my work as president".

From: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-to-toss-foreign-payments-suit-idUSKBN1I31Y6
President Donald Trump has again asked a U.S. court to dismiss a suit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by refusing to separate himself from his business empire while in office, claiming “absolute immunity.” The lawsuit...accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clause that bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other payments from foreign governments...
...
“The Supreme Court has concluded that the costs to the Nation of allowing such suits to distract the President from his official duties outweigh any countervailing interests. That choice must be respected,” Consovoy added.

Lawsuits are a distraction to the president.

Rather than comply with the law so there are no lawsuits, the Supreme Court instead concluded the president doesn't need to follow the law and suits can't be brought against him for it.

Unbelievable

 

[pgwenthold]

Quoting a Trump tweet was Squeegee.....

The Failing New York Times purposely wrote a false story stating that I am unhappy with my legal team on the Russia case and am going to add another lawyer to help out. Wrong. I am VERY happy with my lawyers, John Dowd, Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow. They are doing a great job

That was March 11, I think. As far as I know, both Dowd and Cobb are now gone.

He was so happy with them that they lasted maybe a month or two!

 

[Mumbles]

Which of those examples if "explicitly" being a white supremacist?
For the record, I believe that he likely is, but I agree with phiwum that he has not made it "explicit" as per my understanding of the definition of explicit.

I may be wrong about what the word means, or it may be that your points do in fact match the meaning and I simply missed it. In either case I will admit my error, but at the moment I am not seeing it.

I'd consider "Joe Arpaio represents law and order" to be downright subtle (and outright dog-whistling in the true, Nixon/Reagan sense - and in fact a term that Nixon publicly used), compared to "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists." Or claiming that "Muslims" were outside celebrating 9/11 in the US. Or endorsing the explicitly racist Stop and Frisk NYC policies - in that Bloomberg outright stated that yes, the NYPD was targeting black and brown people, and should do it even more.

Anything past that and pondering is correct, you're basically at Confederate /
Nazi fetishist level. But really, "superiority" is the justification for US white supremacism - the *reason* for it was to create wealth for a particular group of white people. Thus the fear mongering: "Vote for me for president - I'm laughably corrupt, but I'll keep the darkies from hurting you and in jail providing free labor for my pals".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/991746488844914688

If Trump would orchestrate a plot to falsify (and then steal) his medical records in order to hide his *cholesterol*, what would he do to hide a months-long course of felonious treachery against the United States?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not sure why I was quoted here since this, in no way that I can see, refers to, responds to or adds to what I said.

Because how can you say Richard spencer is a white supremacist just for wanting a white ethnostate? The two are clearly different, how can you say you know his mind that he believes white people are superior just because he wants them to be seperate?

What level of proof do you demand to classify someone as a white supremacist?

 

[jnelso99]

Lawsuits are a distraction to the president.

Yeah - all that golf ain't gonna play itself.