Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[kenberg]

From what parts of the speech that I have read and heard it did sound like a poor speech. Winston's describing it as a call for America to become a fascist nation may have been unfair.

-----

 

I see Ken found the speech frightening.

 

Dionne is so full of hate and anger towards Trump one can predict and write the next 4 years of his columns today....:(

 

I didn't need Dionne to bring that sentence to my attention. I listened to the speech, and that sentence stood out bright and clear. I don't imagine Dionne and Trump are buddies, but that is hardly my point.

 

Trump resented his vision for the country. I am very uneasy about this vision. Many Republicans are very uneasy about this vision. You do not have to be E. J. Dionne to be uneasy about this vision.

[Al_U_Card]

Had Trump used the currently-in-vogue term, "consensus" would that have been better? Or just more politically correct?

 

Solidarity implies union of purpose and not necessarily lock-step obedience.

 

Unlike the CAGW debate, where dissenting views are anathema to the cogniscenti, he did say that debate was welcomed.

[mike777]

I didn't need Dionne to bring that sentence to my attention. I listened to the speech, and that sentence stood out bright and clear. I don't imagine Dionne and Trump are buddies, but that is hardly my point.

 

Trump resented his vision for the country. I am very uneasy about this vision. Many Republicans are very uneasy about this vision. You do not have to be E. J. Dionne to be uneasy about this vision.

 

Uneasy? :)

 

I think it is more than fair to say many Americans are frighten and anxious over Trump's vision and his being President.

[kenberg]

Had Trump used the currently-in-vogue term, "consensus" would that have been better? Or just more politically correct?

 

Solidarity implies union of purpose and not necessarily lock-step obedience.

 

Unlike the CAGW debate, where dissenting views are anathema to the cogniscenti, he did say that debate was welcomed.

 

Even without reviewing my posts, I am confident that I have never either endorsed or rejection what someone has said based on whether or not it is politically correct. I am not really sure just what the expression means, or if it means anything at all.

 

When anyone speaks if the necessity for debate, and then immediately limits this by speaking of the need for solidarity, this worries me. When the someone is the president, it creates very great concern.

 

I think that some of the concerns that I have about President Trump are broadly shared. For example, I cannot imagine John McCain saying such a thing.. Or former presidents Bush, either of then. Nixon might have thought it, actually I don't think so, but if so he would have been smart enough not to say it.

 

There seems to be general agreement that Trump is an agent of change. Not all change is for the better.

[barmar]

I also don't find the "pursue solidarity" clause to be the most troubling part of his speech. IMHO, "pursue" suggests that the purpose of the debate is to reach concensus, not that we will be blindly obedient. It also means that once a decision has been made, people will work together as a team to implement it. We can still have dissent, but not obstructionism.

 

Anyone remember that "Solidarity" was the name of the Polish labor movement in the 1980's? Like "union", it means that people work together to achieve common goals, but doesn't deny that the individuals still exist and may have their own needs as well.

[y66]

From What Republicans Have to Learn From the Women’s March By EVAN SIEGFRIED JAN. 23, 2017

 

On Saturday, millions of women — and men — marched in cities around the country, and the world, in response to the inauguration of Donald J. Trump. At the rally in Washington, demonstrators chanted: “We won’t go away. Welcome to your first day!”

 

Though the march had been in the works for months, even its organizers were surprised by the turnout. Whether President Trump, newly ensconced in the White House, was surprised, or even noticed, is unclear. Given his reputation, he may not even care. But the Republican Party should.

 

Though the tone of the march was decidedly left wing, it was made up of women of every background — black, white and brown; moderate and radical; urban and rural; rich and poor; Christian, Muslim and Jew — united in their belief in women’s rights. More important, perhaps, than their message was their intent: Many saw themselves as the nucleus of a legitimate opposition movement that could have a real impact on policy and elections for years to come.

 

The success of the march, despite having no central leadership, demonstrates the potential for its message to rally grass-roots activism. It’s reminiscent of another grass-roots movement, started in opposition to a new president, eight years ago: the Tea Party.

 

There are obvious differences. The Tea Party was ideologically unified and further to the right than the women’s march was to the left. And of course, we know the Tea Party succeeded; it’s too early yet to know what will happen with the women’s march. But with anti-Trump sentiment already aboil, there’s every indication that the march will become the movement’s touchstone. Unfortunately, the Republicans have begun to make the same mistakes that Barack Obama and Democrats made with the Tea Party in 2009 and 2010.

 

Democrats responded to Tea Party supporters by mocking them, dismissing them and even belittling them. The left said that the Tea Party demonstrators were bitter, uninformed, even ignorant. No effort was made to work with them, and when their ranks began to swell, Democrats called them crazy extremists. This type of talk only fanned the flames of dissent, and the Tea Party thrived. It grew in size and strength, becoming a major grass-roots movement. The results were three catastrophic congressional elections for the Democrats, in 2010, 2014 and 2016.

 

Now, with the rise of this new movement, Republicans are taking the same path as Democrats did with the Tea Party in 2009. We are calling the people who participated in the Women’s March outside of the mainstream, and laughing at their actions. The march seems to represent exactly the sort of target the right like to deride — feminists, millennials, “social justice warriors.” Congress and the White House were largely silent, while their proxies in the news media took potshots — saying, for example, that American women should “grow up,” and that women in other countries have it much worse. While such comments might be low hanging fruit for retweets, they are no way to engage with legitimate, widely shared views, even if you disagree with them.

[mike777]

With so many Americans fearful and anxious over Trumps election, I wonder how controversial Trump is compared to other Presidents when they first came to power.

 

For example Jackson, Lincoln and Reagan were quite controversial early on.

[ldrews]

I think that some of the concerns that I have about President Trump are broadly shared.

 

I suspect that the group of people who share that concern are mostly called "Democrats".

[PassedOut]

I suspect that the group of people who share that concern are mostly called "Democrats".

I'm not a Democrat, but I do share that concern, along with several of my friends. We'll see what happens when Trump tries to reinstate -- and escalate -- torture. This is one of many issues that extend way beyond the simplistic label "Democrat."

[barmar]

Are there Trump supporters here who can say how they're reacting to his claims about the inauguration attendance? How do you maintain your trust in someone who spouts such total BS?

 

If it were just self-aggrandizing about the crowds, I suppose one could rationalize that it's not really an important issue. But then he goes on to claim that the media is lying about it. One of the linchpins of our democracy is a free and independent press, and he seems to be trying to undermine it, and make his Twitter feed the official news organ of the administration. That's very troubling.

[ldrews]

I'm not a Democrat, but I do share that concern, along with several of my friends. We'll see what happens when Trump tries to reinstate -- and escalate -- torture. This is one of many issues that extend way beyond the simplistic label "Democrat."

 

I agree, there are many areas of concern. But I prefer to judge based on actual actions, not what he might/might not do. Speaking as an independent/libertarian, so far he seems to be doing just what he promised on the campaign trail. This apparently upsets those voters who did not agree with his "vision". But those people didn't vote for him anyway.

 

Again, his cabinet picks cause me some concern. But the common factor seems to me to be that he has selected, with some exceptions, people who have strong, practical experience in managing large organizations. And they have their own strong opinions and are not afraid to go counter to Trump in their expressions of their opinions. But since Trump has extensive experience managing a conglomeration of business entities, I assume he will be able to manage his cabinet as well, So I anticipate some significant and fundamental changes in the affected agencies. Whether this will be good or bad depends on your ideological viewpoint.

 

So, unless Trump is assassinated or impeached/convicted, I foresee a significant change in direction for the nation. I happen to think it long overdue.

[ldrews]

Are there Trump supporters here who can say how they're reacting to his claims about the inauguration attendance? How do you maintain your trust in someone who spouts such total BS?

 

I think from the fotos that Trump is both correct and incorrect. The physical attendance was clearly larger for Obama. But if I remember correctly, Trump's statement included both the physical and the internet attendance. In that I case I have no clue which total was larger.

 

To me the interesting feature is the media treatment. During the campaign Trump consistently drew larger crowds at his rallies than did Clinton, but I don't remember the media doing a crowd size comparison then. So to me it seems somewhat biased to be comparing Obama's inauguration crowds to Trump's inauguration crowds, particularly since Trump was not competing with Obama. What is that about?

[PassedOut]

I agree, there are many areas of concern. But I prefer to judge based on actual actions, not what he might/might not do. Speaking as an independent/libertarian, so far he seems to be doing just what he promised on the campaign trail. This apparently upsets those voters who did not agree with his "vision". But those people didn't vote for him anyway.

 

Again, his cabinet picks cause me some concern.

Yes, the concern is what he might do, given his past statements. If he actually does some of those things, like reinstating torture, it will go way beyond "concern."

 

I do hope that he'll be reined in by his cabinet and advisors, but I find the need for that to be quite disconcerting. And if he is reined in, I wonder how many of his supporters will be further enraged.

[mikeh]

I think from the fotos that Trump is both correct and incorrect. The physical attendance was clearly larger for Obama. But if I remember correctly, Trump's statement included both the physical and the internet attendance. In that I case I have no clue which total was larger.

 

To me the interesting feature is the media treatment. During the campaign Trump consistently drew larger crowds at his rallies than did Clinton, but I don't remember the media doing a crowd size comparison then. So to me it seems somewhat biased to be comparing Obama's inauguration crowds to Trump's inauguration crowds, particularly since Trump was not competing with Obama. What is that about?

Nonsense. He clearly referenced the physical crowd, in his rant at the CIA. In any event, counting internet audiences, which likely can't be measured, is absurd. Hey: he definitely had way more internet watchers than did Carter, or Eisenhower.

[ldrews]

Nonsense. He clearly referenced the physical crowd, in his rant at the CIA. In any event, counting internet audiences, which likely can't be measured, is absurd. Hey: he definitely had way more internet watchers than did Carter, or Eisenhower.

 

Mea culpa. Apparently what I remembered is Sean Spicer's comment:

 

"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,” Sean Spicer said during his first official appearance in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.

 

F

[Winstonm]

One more thought on the inauguration speech., from E. J. Diomme Jr.

 

 

 

Indeed. Never mind disconcerting, I found this ominous. Other than Dionne, I have not seen any reference to this part of his speech. As I said, I thought the whole speech was awful. But this need for our speech to pusue solidarity is truly frightening. And I both hope and believe that a person does not have to have voted for Clinton to find it so.

 

I think we are some sort of collision course and I hope that Ds and Rs can at least somewhat mitigate the damage. Having a president state that speech must pursue solidarity is not something that anyone should be comfortable with.

 

An inaugural speech is not the place for detailed policy statements, but it is a place fr setting out the president's vision for the country. He certainly did that.

 

His call for unity through nationalism is equally revolting - to me it all reeked of authoritarian newspeak.

[Al_U_Card]

Even without reviewing my posts, I am confident that I have never either endorsed or rejection what someone has said based on whether or not it is politically correct. I am not really sure just what the expression means, or if it means anything at all.

 

When anyone speaks if the necessity for debate, and then immediately limits this by speaking of the need for solidarity, this worries me. When the someone is the president, it creates very great concern.

 

I think that some of the concerns that I have about President Trump are broadly shared. For example, I cannot imagine John McCain saying such a thing.. Or former presidents Bush, either of then. Nixon might have thought it, actually I don't think so, but if so he would have been smart enough not to say it.

 

There seems to be general agreement that Trump is an agent of change. Not all change is for the better.

Based on the revelations of what Presidents say and do when not on the record, Trump appears to have little or no filter on his actions (word and deed) likely due to years of being a boss and being full of himself.

That might be of greater concern but he will undoubtedly learn quickly if he wishes to maintain his aura of superiority.

[Winstonm]

The latest from Trump's psyche:

 

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump told Capitol Hill leaders Monday evening that he lost the popular vote because 3 million to 5 million “illegals” voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to three sources in both parties familiar with the meeting.

 

Trump has repeatedly claimed that he lost the popular vote in November’s election because of voter fraud. There is no evidence of this, and none that millions of undocumented immigrants voted for Clinton. It’s a fixation for Trump, who won the election because of Electoral College votes, but has had trouble accepting that Clinton won the popular vote by more than 2.8 million.

 

“I don’t think he was joking,” said one person familiar with what happened in the meeting. “He spent 10 minutes on his win and said he won the popular vote, except 3 to 5 million illegals voted for” Clinton.

 

Does anyone genuinely believe this guy is mentally fit enough or smart enough for the job he's been handed?

[mike777]

The latest from Trump's psyche:

 

 

 

Does anyone genuinely believe this guy is mentally fit enough or smart enough for the job he's been handed?

 

 

Impeach? I mean if no one believes

 

Law suit filed in court stating he has violated the constitution.

 

I mean we can blame the Rep.. but it is long past time the Dems need to take point. Where is Warren, where is Sanders....where is miss P of the HOuse????

[y66]

Crowd estimates for Women's Marches -- in progress by Jeremy Pressman (@djpressman, U of Connecticut) and Erica Chenoweth (@EricaChenoweth, U of Denver).

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true

 

Edit: Story here

[mike777]

Crowd estimates for Women's Marches -- in progress by Jeremy Pressman (@djpressman, U of Connecticut) and Erica Chenoweth (@EricaChenoweth, U of Denver).

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa0iLqYKz8x9Yc_rfhtmSOJQ2EGgeUVjvV4A8LsIaxY/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true

 

and the size is important why?...bias?

 

posters have already told us trump lies, trump is a racist, trump is a bigot, trump is a fascist

 

.

[diana_eva]

and the size is important why?...bias?

 

posters have already told us trump lies, trump is a racist, trump is a bigot, trump is a fascist

 

.

 

Looks more and more like he's encouraged to act like a clown to keep the public opinion flamed while he signs important stuff that get less coverage than say how he's an asshole with his wife, or how he spouts lies.

[Zelandakh]

and the size is important why?

Looks more and more like...

I suspect Diana was the perfect BBFer to answer this question... :P ;) :D

[helene_t]

and the size is important why?...bias?

It is not very important but it gives a clue as to how the administration is generally going to deal with inconvenient truths.

[y66]

From What if Trump Skeptics, Like Me, Turn Out To Be Wrong? by the Conversable Economist Timothy Taylor:

 

If a Trump presidency turns out badly in various ways, then Trump skeptics like me will certainly say so. But if matters don't go wrong, then in fairness, then it seems to me that Trump skeptics should take a pledge to admit and acknowledge in a few years that at least some of our doubts and suspicions were incorrect--and indeed, we should be pleased that we were wrong. Here's my version of that pledge on a few economic issues.

 

• 
   
  
• If the US economy experiences a resurgence of manufacturing jobs, I will say so.
  
• If US economic growth surges to a 4% annual rate, I'll say so.
  
• If the US economy does not actually retreat from foreign trade during four years of Trump presidency (which may well happen, given that globalization is driven by underlying economic forces, not just trade agreements), I will say so.
  
• If US carbon emissions fall during a Trump presidency (which may happen with the resurgence of cleaner-burning natural gas and the larger installed base of noncarbon energy sources), I will say so.
  
• If the budget deficit does not explode in size during a Trump administration, despite all the promises for tax cuts and a huge boost in infrastructure spending, I will say so.
  
• If the Federal Reserve has maintained its traditional independence after 3-4 years, I will say so.
  
• If the number of Americans without health insurance is about the same in 3-4 years, or even lower, I will say so.
  

These statements are not intended as predictions of what will or won't happen. My mother didn't raise any sons silly enough to make definite predictions about the future in print, and I have not tried to put a personal probability estimate on these outcomes. They are just possibilities. Of course, one can expand this list to include an array of other issues: what will happen in foreign policy hotspots from China and Latin America to the Middle East; patterns of economic and social inequality; fair treatment under the law for every single American; and many more.

 

On this Inauguration Day for President Donald Trump (and frankly, I still can't believe I am writing those words), I sincerely hope that I will turn out to be deeply incorrect about his readiness and fitness for office. I will try to observe what happens during a Trump administration clearly, without distortion through the prisms of my fears and disbeliefs, and without trying to justify my preexisting skepticism. After all, I've been wrong on big topics before.