Trump - Clown Genius

[Kriegsspiel]

BRUTE... how thoughtful.

[BRUTE]

brute is just the voice of reason.. the boy next door.

[m741]

Latest news - Bannon added to National Security council. Joint Chiefs will attend 'as needed.' Start with the immigration order and wall, then do the fun stuff while people are distracted.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241

I'm guessing there's some terror attack in the US within the next 6 months that's used as a Reichstag Fire incident.

[Chad]

@Chad
The mood will be dependent on job and wealth creation and national security. Two areas Trump is heavily focusing on and if he is even mildly successful in these areas than it would be hard to beat him if he ran again. I don't believe anybody will be losing any fundamental rights.

Yes, there will be more things to judge him on.

If he does what he says he is going to do concerning economic policies, and based on everything so far those that said not to take him literally are wrong, he will prop up the economy/market a little for about 1-2 years, probably closer to 2. But, his policies are short-term and late in the cycle, so it's unlikely they will have a big long-term impact.

The White House is now suggesting late 2017 to 2018 for tax reform. This may change my mind on when a pullback occurs. I'm starting to think it's sooner rather than later, as the current market needs those new tax laws to maintain this level.

I don't normally agree with Krugman, as he is very biased. However, he gets how it's rather impossible to save manufacturing jobs:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/o ... 0&referer=

There are also issues with his infrastructure plan if he does what he says he is going to do:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver ... pay-you-go

Concerning national security, I don't see his policies making the US safer/stronger. Some may think so, but those are the same people that cower from nothing and always want to start a war with someone (Everyone who supported starting the Iraq War should have that entered in their permanent record.).

His ridiculous ban on Friday created a great recruiting tool for Muslim extremists. Makes it much easier to say there is a war on Islam, while banning people from countries that have proven to present a very minor threat. Trump could have made this order a lot better if he had just acted like a President instead of a dictator. His word is not law (I'm giving to the ACLU for the first time, because of this.).
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... 1-countri/

Then his unbelievable idiotic move of removing the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and then he added in the most questionable guy in the White House, his propaganda master Bannon. It would be like taking Bill Belichick and Tom Brady off the Patriots before the season began. Why would anyone do that unless you are a moron or a child?

And, the wall won't stop anyone. There is already a wall along a little more than a 1/3rd of the border and natural barriers along other parts. It doesn't really stop anyone who really wants to get in and based on recent studies roughly the same number are leaving as coming over the last 4-5 years. So, billions for no gain, whatsoever. Though, the wall will probably appease the egos of many of his supporters.

[Chad]

Do you really think it'll be so short-lived? If Congressional Republicans do manage to lower corporate taxes, I could see the boost of capital repatriation making them and Trump look good for a few years (through 2020 at least).

I do. The two big variables in determining a country's growth rate are population growth and productivity increases. Population growth will probably fall slightly with the new policies and just bringing that money back isn't necessarily a long-term positive unless those companies invest it in productivity. If they just do dividends or share buybacks it will definitely be short term.

Also, a lot of them might not bring as much back as they once would have considering the current environment with Trump's White House. At least 1/5th of the total is from tech companies and they might be scared they won't be able to recruit enough engineers to the US after last Friday and probable future foolishness. This uncertainty will be an economic negative if allowed to go too long.

[Dragline]

@Chad -- I agree with everything you said. But did you mean 2017/2018 for tax reform?

With today's vague EO about "reducing regulations", its become abundantly clear that he's literally taking his campaign checklist/promise list and writing up a series of orders that he can then use for photo-ops, whether or not these ideas are legal and/or make any sense. Some of them will be contradictory if he keeps going.

There is a site here (I think by the y-combinator guy) that is trying to keep track: http://www.track-trump.com/

What he doesn't seem to understand, or maybe does and doesn't care, is that executive orders are limited by statutes and the Constitution. So what you are going to end up with it a bunch of lawsuits as they try to implement them like what we saw over the weekend. In fact, in the best-case scenario, the entire government may become bogged down -- judges just don't work that quickly. In the worst case scenario, we'll end up with a Constitutional crises and a potential for a lot of civil unrest.

[Chad]

@Dragline

I'm going with what I heard on Bloomberg, which said the source was a White House official. I missed who. They were saying the tax reform bill would be created in late 2017 or into 2018, and one would assume passed with a Republican Congress. They were not entirely clear on the year the bill would institute the reform. 2017? 2018? 2019? I was assuming, given the time frame, they would implement it at earliest for 2017, but who knows with the way they are doing things. They don't seem to care about uncertainty, so changing the tax law for 2016 on New Year's eve seems plausible. Though, I don't know if there are laws preventing something like that.

They definitely seem to be doing the list thing, which probably plays out like you noted.

[Dragline]

But 2016 is over and its already 2017. Did they really say it was going to happen last year?

[Chad]

No. Sorry I might be unclear. They didn't mention anything about the year it would apply to. Just when they would introduce the bill. My 2016 mention is still the leftover muscle memory from 2016. I will correct my statement.

[slowtraveler]

Considering that the US stock market makes up near half of the global stock market, I don't think people are distressed enough for another Reichstag Fire incident. There's already huge resistance movements to his actions that seem more dictator like than president like.

That said, how do we stop a Reichstag Fire type event from turning into full on fascism?

[Campitor]

That said, how do we stop a Reichstag Fire type event from turning into full on fascism?

I think he would be impeached before he goes full blown Stalin. I'm hoping there are still constitutional patriots in government who would push impeachment and removal or refuse to carry out an unconstitutional order. After all doesn't everyone take an oath to defend The Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, when they are sworn into office, join the military, or become US Citizens? Oddly, as far as I know, the only people who don't need to swear an oath to The Constitution are natural born citizens who remain civilians and don't hold any public office.

[Dragline]

You have a faulty memory, I'm afraid -- the situation in 2011 was different and was done in response to Congress, where this was actually discussed between Senators and administration officials.

"So what's the difference with Trump's action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat -- the discovery that two Iraqi refugees has been implicated in bomb-making in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. Under congressional pressure, officials decided to re-examine all previous refugees and also impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat.

Second, Obama did not announce there was a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano's answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had been slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it was their policy to halt all applications. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.

Third, Obama's policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green card holders, from traveling the United States. Trump's policy is much more sweeping."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

There was no threat and no purpose to Trump's order other than a glaring dictatorial -- yes, a highly accurate word -- power grab and placating irrational supporters who probably have never even spoken to a Muslim, are in more danger from their neighbors and coworkers, and should be more concerned with people like Dylan Roof, the nazi guy in Quebec and whomever just burned down the two mosques in Texas.

[RealPerson]

I suspect that building the wall, leaving the free trade agreement and now the travel ban on the citizens of 7 countries are mostly theater. It is showing that "we haven't forgotten our election promises and are standing up for the little guy". If the courts strike down his executive orders, that makes it even better. "See...I tried but these out of control judges are just loose canons". Trump is no dummy and he knows television well. Most voters don't care about advice from DOJ lawyers etc. That is stuff lawyers care about (sorry Dragline). The voters who elected Trump will just see activist judges hell bent on pursuing a liberal agenda. It think it is the first stage in setting up the reelection campaign for Trump and force cooperation from vulnerable Democratic senators having to run in 2018, so he can get his agenda passed without 60 votes.

People always underestimate Trump (see the election for exhibit A).

It is interesting that Saudi Arabia, where a lot of the 9/11 guys came from, is NOT on the list. I don't believe that was an oversight.

[m741]

Since this thread is mostly theorizing at this point, I think this article describing how the current situation is getting ducks in a row for a coup is interesting. IMO it's overall accurate with respect to intent, but that the actual consolidation of power will be a bit slower and more subtle (using noisy executive orders to distract in the meantime). Curious to hear other's thoughts.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial ... .fh2jxk9o5

[Chad]

That article on medium is scarily logical. At the very least, he is correct on them consolidating power into that select group and trying to avoid the natural checks and balances put in place within the various government departments.

If you want some more scary insight follow Timur Kuran on Twitter (@timurkuran). He is a Duke professor from Turkey who has followed Erdogan's rise from positive reformist President to dictator. So many of the moves between the two leaders are eerily similar.

[Chad]

@Chad
We'll have to wait and see about the economy and the rust belt and the like. Some of this stuff is going to have to be played out before an honest assessment can be had.

You can wait, but the money will be made and lost by then.

I would say a greater recruiting tool for extremist Muslims would be the bombing campaigns by our government that occur in those countries. Watch this and ask yourself why suddenly it is a huge issue for you now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls

Absolutely, I have said in the past how the bombing's are a very poor short-term solution for a long-term problem. It's my whole soft power argument. Definitely one of my complaints with Obama.

Also, be wary of those video talk shows. It's much easier to hide BS in those than in the written word.

If you think this is a Muslim ban then you aren't really being honest with yourself, and all of this talk by Schumer and others is capitulation.

I don't believe I have ever said this was a muslim ban or mentioned a famous person. Not sure why you brought this up in a conversation with me. My whole point is the miss assessment of risk.

We should as a nation never have to apologize for taking steps to protect this country. We can argue the effectiveness of these measures, but the day we ask permission from other countries to protect ourselves is hopefully over.

No we shouldn't, but this doesn't protect us at all. In fact, it hurts us long-term, which I have explained ad nauseam on here. Same as I did before the Iraq War started. Though, obviously not here, as it didn't exist.

Also, this is like my grandma who is scared to go into the city because she sees a murder on the local news. She doesn't judge risk properly.

Also, dictator is a strong word. The question should be whether he is violating the Constitution and denying citizens their constitutional rights. Even though he is being challenged by a couple of courts, I'm pretty sure everything he has done has been within the law and within his purview. I don't remember anyone having a problem with Obama in 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA-QfhirlRg

It is a strong word, I used it on purpose, and it's over the top. He isn't a dictator, but his actions are not promising. The State Department purge, his isolation of the intelligence agencies and military, him weirdly befriending Comey and almost no other current senior official, etc. The list is Yuge.

It's not the use of executive orders as it is the complete disregard for even trying to keep them within the Constitution and the bad policies. That's the difference between the two.

Also, I'm not watching anymore videos. If you want to support your point that's very welcome, but I'm only reading articles from now on. Videos take forever and, as I noted earlier, are easier to BS than the written word.

[Gilberto de Piento]

If you want some more scary insight follow Timur Kuran on Twitter (@timurkuran). He is a Duke professor from Turkey who has followed Erdogan's rise from positive reformist President to dictator. So many of the moves between the two leaders are eerily similar.

Trump and Chavez also have been described as using the same tactics: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... milarities

[Papers of Indenture]

Since this thread is mostly theorizing at this point, I think this article describing how the current situation is getting ducks in a row for a coup is interesting. IMO it's overall accurate with respect to intent, but that the actual consolidation of power will be a bit slower and more subtle (using noisy executive orders to distract in the meantime). Curious to hear other's thoughts.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial ... .fh2jxk9o5

Uh. So you think a discussion of a coup might have covered...you know...the military. I'm sure Mattis (the establishment agent in the admin and arguably the most popular figure among rank and file officers in decades) and every O-6+ would have no impact on this.

I'm as wary of Bannon and his goon crew as anyone but this article is no better than the masturbatory Kek magic of the alt right.

[Papers of Indenture]

I need to re-iterate that I do not trust Bannon and Miller. I'm well aware that Bannon is essentially a self styled chaos magician with access to the levers of global politics. I think this is basically correct:

First, the decision to first block, and then allow, green card holders was meant to create chaos and pull out opposition; they never intended to hold it for too long. It wouldn’t surprise me if the goal is to create “resistance fatigue,” to get Americans to the point where they’re more likely to say “Oh, another protest? Don’t you guys ever stop?” relatively quickly.

and this:

That is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government.

But to go from there to this is a coup is only playing into the hands of their strategy in my opinion

[George the original one]

Uh. So you think a discussion of a coup might have covered...you know...the military.

DHS not following court orders? They're not exactly military, but they do have guns and authority and 45k employees.