The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Well, he is sure acting like he is.

1. Stacking the courts
2. Demanding unconditional loyalty
3. Ruling by edict
4. Gutting the justice department
5. Ignoring the advice of more experienced people
6. Surrounding himself only with people who agree with him
7. Circumventing the Constitution
8. Demonizing a groups of people based on their ethnicity and/or skin colour

There are probably further indicators that others will think of.
Click to expand...
Open nepotism and other corruption?
 
I think there is some confusion between common foundations of morality and how common foundations of morality are corrupted.

For example: Fairness is a common aspect of morality. That is not to say that in societies that value fairness there is not also corruption of that same value by members of that same society.
 
Trump is probably not striving to become Emperor. He surely knows he's out in 6 years at the latest. But he's exerting effort at stymying all investigations that will endanger him upon hitting the street. He wants his old life to continue, albeit with better financial prospects afforded by having been President.

Presuming he's planning that far ahead, at this juncture. He's consumed in a struggle for survival, just trying to keep the wolves at bay for another day. Risking the piling on ever more elements of obstruction because, in his mind, to not fight means calamity descends sooner. Just gotta get through the day. Connive. Distract. Bully. Flail. Fling poo. Whatever it takes.

For his first real existential threat, his life of never accepting responsibility and his escaping of meaningful consequences is manifesting itself in his petulant victimhood, his projection, and his ready resort to criminality.
 
smartcooky said:
Well, he is sure acting like he is.

1. Stacking the courts
2. Demanding unconditional loyalty
3. Ruling by edict
4. Gutting the justice department
5. Ignoring the advice of more experienced people
6. Surrounding himself only with people who agree with him
7. Circumventing the Constitution
8. Demonizing a groups of people based on their ethnicity and/or skin colour

There are probably further indicators that others will think of.
Click to expand...

Not the first one. Any Republican was going to do that.
 
Trump Tweets

I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!
 
acbytesla said:
WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

What is unambiguous is that there is no emergency. That the issues Trump says he is trying to solve are less problematic than they have been in a decade. And the declared emergency is based on a campaign promise. And Trump only declared the emergency as a strategy to circumvent the legislative and constitutional authority prescribed to Congress. Finally, the problem isn't the deference to him, but his lack of deference to Congress and the principles he swore to uphold.
Click to expand...

But, other than that, it's an emergency!
 
TragicMonkey said:
Can you explain how Iran's pursuit of nukes can only be countered by giving nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia? Unless you're hoping SA will destroy Iran in nuclear war before Iran can get them I'm not seeing how that could work.
Click to expand...

It may be through a false belief that mutually assured destruction is a good thing. If that is the theory then they are forgetting about other parties both within and outside the region. Also as suggested in your post the period during which neither country has nuclear weapons but is rushing to get them (with outside help) is highly dangerous. But..

For India and Pakistan their rivalry makes the region more unstable, but while both possess similar nuclear capabilities a full scale war remains very unlikely. The theory of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is what prevented nuclear escalation in the Cold War, and with India and Pakistan the same theory applies. Neither country will use their nuclear weapons first because it will lead to the destruction of both countries.*
 
smartcooky said:
Well, he is sure acting like he is.

1. Stacking the courts
2. Demanding unconditional loyalty
3. Ruling by edict
4. Gutting the justice department
5. Ignoring the advice of more experienced people
6. Surrounding himself only with people who agree with him
7. Circumventing the Constitution
8. Demonizing a groups of people based on their ethnicity and/or skin colour

There are probably further indicators that others will think of.
Click to expand...

Dictator chic interior decorating.
 
smartcooky said:
Well, he is sure acting like he is.

1. Stacking the courts
2. Demanding unconditional loyalty
3. Ruling by edict
4. Gutting the justice department
5. Ignoring the advice of more experienced people
6. Surrounding himself only with people who agree with him
7. Circumventing the Constitution
8. Demonizing a groups of people based on their ethnicity and/or skin colour

There are probably further indicators that others will think of.
Click to expand...
9. Declaring the press as the enemy of the people
10. Promoting the concept that political opponents belong in prison
11. Declaring his love for brutal dictators while shunning democratic allies
12. Threatening consequences for "rats"
13. Encouraging followers to beat-up protesters behaving lawfully
14. Working fervently to establish a fact-free public square in order to pull off above shenanigans
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
I'm not aware that ideology has anything to do with autocracy, necessarily.
Click to expand...

It's not a requirement, but it often helps in the process of converting from a non-dictatorial system to a dictatorial one. So the lack of any driving ideology doesn't strictly prohibit, but it does make it less likely.
 
Ziggurat said:
10. Promoting the concept that political opponents belong in prison
Click to expand...
Ahem.
Click to expand...
I think there's a difference between expressing a desire that people should go to jail when they've broken the law (as has been the situation with multiple Trump associates, and possibly in the future with Trump himself), and the idea of jailing someone for no other reason than they are your political opponents.

Hillary Clinton has never been convicted in a court of law. She has not been indicted for crimes related to her emails, Bengazi, Uranium 1 or the Clinton Foundation. No credible evidence has been provided that prosecution over any of these issues would actually be successful. Yet during various rallies and even a political debate Trump expressed a desire to see Clinton jailed.

On the other hand, Cohen, Flynn and Manafort have broken the law, as evidence by their guilty plea and/or a judgement in a court of law, based on evidence provided by the jury. Seeing any of these people locked up is not a case of just "jailing your opponents", but ensuring the law is actually applied.
 
Segnosaur said:
... Hillary Clinton has never been convicted in a court of law. She has not been indicted for crimes related to her emails, Bengazi, Uranium 1 or the Clinton Foundation...
Click to expand...
Tired though it may be, this prompts a "Yeah but..." response.

Fortunately(?) his proclivity to promote the concept that opponents belong in prison extend beyond Clinton. There's Obama, Mueller, and others. (Of course the hard core cultists will always excuse these deplorable anti-democratic concepts.)
 
I think “packing” or “stacking” the court usually refers to adding or subtracting the number of Justices on the court. Trump has not done that.

One would expect a Republican president to appoint conservative judges. Though one might be opposed to conservative judges, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom