US General Election 2016

Trump taking notes from Turkey

Exclusive: Trump could seek new law to purge government of Obama appointees

If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.

Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

“As you know from his other career, Donald likes to fire people,” Christie told a closed-door meeting with dozens of donors at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, according to an audio recording obtained by Reuters and two participants in the meeting.

Christie was referring to Trump's starring role in the long-running television show "The Apprentice," where his catch-phrase was "You're fired!"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-purge-exclusive-idUSKCN10003A

It's like a hostile take-over in business: you throw everyone out, though lord knows why this is considered good policy in business circles.

I have so many worries about what Trump will try to do.... But I've overlooked one that I think might be the most natural for him... Financial corruption - the lining if his own pockets! With or without WW3.

That kind of corruption was largely stamped out after the great depression, though I'm not sure exactly how since it was rampant before.

I think his likely approach will be to legally separate himself from his companies which find ways to profit off his presidency via the notoriety, then stepping back in after he's out.

Two paraphrases from Lewis Black:

"I have to keep coming up with words to describe the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Currently it's 'idiotic' versus 'psychotic'."

"Back in the 50's, two drunk congressmen, a democrat and a republican, would stumble into a bar, get even more drunk and work things out together. That tells you how bad things are now: drunks used to do a better job running the government."

Ivanka may have just won the election for her father.

Her speech gave the opposite of the chest thumping we have gotten used to, showing a caring, gentler side of him that will appeal to independents. People don't trust Trump, but they trust Ivanka.

Stephen's still got it.

It's official; Hillary has picked Tim Kaine as her running mate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0

Security must have had a shit freak about the way the driver with both Michelle and Missy Elliot was doing anything but paying attention to the road. But then I suppose the car following them (and probably ahead of them) was security and wouldn't allow any accidents.

She should be easy to get along with, she married one of the best comedians since Seinfeld. Did you see his delivery at the last White House correspondent's dinner?

Seems this Kaine chap will be a good choice. I knew his brother, Ima Abul.

Did you see his delivery at the last White House correspondent's dinner?- Halfy

{{His timing is immaculate, either a born natural or he has been moonlighting in dingy standup clubs honing his craft all this time
I can only imagine if Trump wins that the address next year will at least be car crash TV, not that it matters too much as he will have crashed the whole plane by then anyway }}}}}

To the important questions now...what does Trump look like without his wig?

{{{Seems clear who Russia want to be the new president! I hope the Clinton campaign is prepared, I forsee more Wikileaks on the Clinton Foundation coming yet}}}

Aa beautiful self-analysis of what happened to the Republican party.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12256510/republican-party-trump-avik-roy

The basic idea is that the party lost its way in one act: the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. He was against much of civil rights on theoretical grounds: the government telling business how to behave was anathema to him. Though his reasoning wasn't racist, it drove racists into the party and minorities out of the party.

The result was a party with a base built of white nationalists, but the leaders who were not racist could never bring themselves to accept what had happened: in order to advance their old school conservative agenda, they had to turn a blind eye to the new white nationalists who were happy to give them votes. The end result of course is Trump, who is pure white nationalism with barely a shred of classic conservatism.

I think it's very much on target.

Interesting to hear that stuff coming from a veteran Republican. I don't agree with the extent of the pessimism, though. Trying to divorce the GOP from white nationalism (or white identity politics, for those who prefer that term) would require some compromises on conservative dogma, but I think that can be done without abandoning the underlying principles of movement conservatism. Goldwater might have seen his stand against the Civil Rights Act as principled and non-racist because he felt so strongly about the rights of businesses in a free economy, but being pro-segregation is of course not compatible with being in favor of the rights of individuals in a free society. Removing the racial blinders and not seeing race relations as a zero-sum game would actually bring conservative policy much closer to the most fundamental ideals of conservative ideology, IMO. And were that to happen, there are many conservative-leaning people of color, LGBT people, women, etc. who would be much more willing to vote Republican.

Tl;DR Jackie Robinson* didn't stop being a Republican because he wanted to, and while movement conservatism's problem with race has been there from the start with Buckley et al, I think it's possible to excise it without having to burn everything to the ground.

* see here and here

Wow, I never realized Jackie Robinson had such an active political life. Why has this been subsumed into the image of the older, largely mute and genteel icon? His writing style is magnificent, and should be part of grade school history. Perhaps it's shunted aside as too political.

I think you're right that it's seen as too political, and I think that too many of our history writers are more comfortable seeing civil rights figures as neutral to the point of being neutered. Anyway, the political side of Robinson eventually became so buried in terms of popular imagination that today we sometimes get well-meaning individuals saying that we should spend even less time on Robinson because he was "just a sports figure" and there were more important milestones in civil rights.

Jackie Robinson was a thoroughly fascinating man though and I'd love to see him get more attention. It's only been in the past two or three years that I've learned more about him than the extremely cursory version I learned as a little kid. He was one of the few black officers in the army during WWII and despite being more than qualified he only got into OCS after Joe Louis (the reigning heavyweight champion of the world) got in touch with his connections in the War Department. He campaigned against segregation in dining areas on base with limited success, though as a result more seats were allotted to black officers. He was court-martialed for refusing to sit in the back of a bus in 1944, but was acquitted. And of course he remained politically active during and after his time as a professional baseball player.

Interesting that other people are seeing the comparisons between Obama and Reagan.

John Podhoretz, a former speechwriter to Ronald Reagan, the former Republican president revered within his party, tweeted: “Take about five paragraphs out of that Obama speech and it could have been a Reagan speech. Trust me. I know.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/28/obama-republicans-speech-democratic-convention-patriotic

The reason the rich New Yorkers give Trump the cold shoulder is because most rich people actually donate to charity and projects that benefit all people of the city.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-trump-is-mad-at-bloomberg-2016-7

Ouch.

{{{Watched quite a few bits and pieces of the Democrats convention, and the overall impression was sanity. It just seemed sane for the most part. Not sure if thats just in comparison to Trump or if it actually was. Oh and Bill Clinton really loves balloons! Look at his little face light up!}}}

If he'd had balloons earlier in life it looks like all those women wouldn't have happened. I wish I liked balloons that much.

halfwise wrote:If he'd had balloons earlier in life it looks like all those women wouldn't have happened.  I wish I liked balloons that much.