Trump 25: Stephen King’s Next Horror Story

[fraurosena]

Hypocrites, much?

Senate Republicans Increasingly See Trump as a Threat, Then Give Him a Standing O at Lunch

Quote

When President Donald Trump traveled to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to attend the weekly Senate GOP lunch, there was no shortage of anticipation for the fireworks that would follow. He and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) had spent the morning exchanging bitter jabs, as they have for weeks prior. A protester had greeted the president with screams of “treason” and hurled mini Russian flags. Even the relatively diminutive Sen. Thom Tillis (R-S.C.) brought a box of popcorn to the luncheon in anticipation of theatrics.

An hour and a half later, there was, well, nothing—at least, not immediately.

The senators left the lunch saying that Trump hadn’t addressed Corker. Corker explained that Trump hadn’t actually addressed policy details at all. There was some talk of tax reform, a border wall and healthcare. But the biggest reveal seemed to be that Trump had consumed two slices of cherry pie and a plate of rice, which he apparently loves.

Rare is it that the lack of news is the news. But on Tuesday, that certainly was the case. Corker chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has publicly warned that the president  “debases” the country and is leading the globe to the precipice of World War III. But when his fellow party members had the chance to ask Trump directly about it, they demurred.

“It was a very positive meeting,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said. “No one called anybody an ignorant slut.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), likewise, dismissed talk of a feud with Trump entirely, decrying it as a “personality battle” and a “political circus.”

Instead, everyone who attended the lunch chose to act as if there was no drama at all, as if finding the right corporate tax rate and the ideal combination of fencing and physical wall were the predominant concerns confronting them. Only afterward were they jolted back to reality, when Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) (another Republican who Trump has been personally and politically targeting) announced that he was retiring. Once again, it became abundantly clear again that Republicans holding high office see the president as an existential threat.

I'm thinking of reviving the Wut of the day...

[Howl]

This is starting to pop up all over the place, and, although not technically directly a Trump thing, it could only happen in THIS administration, because it's so fucking blatant.  The Weather Channel (!) originally broke the story: 

$300M Puerto Rico Contract Awarded To Tiny Firm Financed By Big Trump Donors

Yup, $300, 000,000 to a firm that is reported to have had 2 (two, 2!) full-time employees at the time Hurricane Maria decimated Puerto Rico.  Cronyism can't  quite envelop this.  Follow the money trail on this one; there have to kickbacks, bribes and whatever the hell else. Actually, the bribes are the donations to the Trump campaign.  

Spoiler

TalkingPointsMemo.com   By ALLEGRA KIRKLAND Published OCTOBER 24, 2017 10:42 AM

A tiny Montana utility company that received a $300 million contract to help restore power to Puerto Rico after its electrical grid was devastated by Hurricane Maria is financed by major Trump donors and run by a CEO friendly with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a series of recent reports has revealed.

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s granting of the huge contract to Whitefish Energy Holdings, a two-year-old company that reportedly had two full-time employees when the hurricane first hit, was first reported by the Weather Channel last week.

The Washington Post and the Daily Beast on Tuesday offered more details on the company’s backers. The Post noted that the firm is based in Zinke’s hometown and that its CEO, Andy Techmanski, is friendly with the Interior secretary, while the Daily Beast reported that Whitefish’s general partner maxed out donations to the Trump primary and general election campaigns, as well as a Trump super PAC, in 2016.

That newly surfaced information has raised eyebrows about just why Whitefish was awarded a contract to restore electricity to hundreds of thousands of Puerto Rico residents. The firm insists that everything is above board, with both Zinke’s office and Techmanski told the Post that the Interior secretary played no role in securing the contract.

But as multiple publications have noted, the type of work Whitefish will be doing is usually handled through “mutual aid” agreements with other utilities, rather than by for-profit companies, especially those of Whitefish’s exceptionally small size.

“The fact that there are so many utilities with experience in this and a huge track record of helping each other out, it is at least odd why [the utility] would go to Whitefish,” Susan F. Tierney, a former senior official at the Energy Department told the Post. “I’m scratching my head wondering how it all adds up.”

In addition to Techmanski’s relationship with Zinke, Joe Colonnetta, partner at Whitefish and founder of HBC Investments, the private-equity firm that finances the energy company, is a significant power player in Republican politics, according to the Beast.

Colonetta donated a total of $74,000 towards Trump’s presidential victory and $30,700 to the Republican National Committee, the Beast reported. His wife, Kimberly, separately gave $33,400 to the RNC shortly after Trump’s win, and was photographed with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson during inauguration week, per the report.

 

[GrumpyGran]

7 minutes ago, Howl said:

This is starting to pop up all over the place, and, although not technically directly a Trump thing, it could only happen in THIS administration, because it's so fucking blatant.  The Weather Channel (!) originally broke the story: 

$300M Puerto Rico Contract Awarded To Tiny Firm Financed By Big Trump Donors

Yup, $300, 000,000 to a firm that is reported to have had 2 (two, 2!) full-time employees at the time Hurricane Maria decimated Puerto Rico.  Cronyism can't  quite envelop this.  Follow the money trail on this one; there have to kickbacks, bribes and whatever the hell else. Actually, the bribes are the donations to the Trump campaign.  

  Reveal hidden contents

TalkingPointsMemo.com   By ALLEGRA KIRKLAND Published OCTOBER 24, 2017 10:42 AM

A tiny Montana utility company that received a $300 million contract to help restore power to Puerto Rico after its electrical grid was devastated by Hurricane Maria is financed by major Trump donors and run by a CEO friendly with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, a series of recent reports has revealed.

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s granting of the huge contract to Whitefish Energy Holdings, a two-year-old company that reportedly had two full-time employees when the hurricane first hit, was first reported by the Weather Channel last week.

The Washington Post and the Daily Beast on Tuesday offered more details on the company’s backers. The Post noted that the firm is based in Zinke’s hometown and that its CEO, Andy Techmanski, is friendly with the Interior secretary, while the Daily Beast reported that Whitefish’s general partner maxed out donations to the Trump primary and general election campaigns, as well as a Trump super PAC, in 2016.

That newly surfaced information has raised eyebrows about just why Whitefish was awarded a contract to restore electricity to hundreds of thousands of Puerto Rico residents. The firm insists that everything is above board, with both Zinke’s office and Techmanski told the Post that the Interior secretary played no role in securing the contract.

But as multiple publications have noted, the type of work Whitefish will be doing is usually handled through “mutual aid” agreements with other utilities, rather than by for-profit companies, especially those of Whitefish’s exceptionally small size.

“The fact that there are so many utilities with experience in this and a huge track record of helping each other out, it is at least odd why [the utility] would go to Whitefish,” Susan F. Tierney, a former senior official at the Energy Department told the Post. “I’m scratching my head wondering how it all adds up.”

In addition to Techmanski’s relationship with Zinke, Joe Colonnetta, partner at Whitefish and founder of HBC Investments, the private-equity firm that finances the energy company, is a significant power player in Republican politics, according to the Beast.

Colonetta donated a total of $74,000 towards Trump’s presidential victory and $30,700 to the Republican National Committee, the Beast reported. His wife, Kimberly, separately gave $33,400 to the RNC shortly after Trump’s win, and was photographed with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson during inauguration week, per the report.

 

Oh, look, it's Iraq all over again. You just know Dick Cheney had a good life about this.

So, another day at the Demolition Derby. It will be interesting to see unleashed Flake, because leashed Flake was pretty nasty.

Those hats, what is it with the hats? The Christmas one will say Merry Christmas, of course. The New Years One might say "Look. We're still here!" I guess we'll have to have one to celebrate the first anniversary of his 'election.' 

[Howl]

Quote

“It was a very positive meeting,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said. “No one called anybody an ignorant slut.”

OK, best quote ever, and as true a thing as can be said about anything involving Trump.  It's the type of stuff that Southern politicians say.

 

3 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Oh, look, it's Iraq all over again. You just know Dick Cheney had a good laugh about this.

I know, right?  I had a Halliburton flashback the minute I read the original article. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"In Trump’s White House, there is no right or wrong. There is only winning or losing."

Spoiler

It is not really accurate to say that the White House responded on Tuesday to the harsh criticisms leveled against President Trump by retiring Republican Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.). During an afternoon media briefing, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders didn't even attempt to engage with the substance of what either man said.

Instead, she offered a retort that can be summarized like this: Trump is a winner. Corker and Flake are losers.

Witness this exchange between Sanders and Politico's Matthew Nussbaum:

NUSSBAUM: So, we have two Republican senators, just now, today — so there's Corker and Flake — calling the president's behavior “unacceptable” and “dangerous,” saying that he regularly tells untruths. Senator Flake just called on his fellow Republicans to end what he called “complicity and accommodation.” I'm wondering: What's the White House's response to this criticism coming from two Republican senators?

SANDERS: I think that we support the American people on this one. I think that the people, both in Tennessee and Arizona, supported this president, and I don't think the numbers are in the favor of either of those two senators in their states.

Notice that Sanders didn't bother to defend Trump's conduct. She didn't say that it is acceptable or that it is not dangerous. All she said was that Trump won Tennessee and Arizona last fall, while suggesting that Corker and Flake would have lost in 2018 had they not decided to retire.

Sanders did the same thing a few minutes later, when questioned by ABC's Jonathan Karl:

KARL: I understand that neither of these two senators we're talking about now have been allies, to say the least, of the president. But this has been an extraordinary series of attacks on the president, from major figures in the Republican Party — not typical political attacks. I mean, saying the president is responsible for the debasement of the nation, that a breakdown of civility is the fault of the president and that enough is enough. We've seen similar remarks from John McCain, the party's former nominee. In any of this — does any of this make the president pause and wonder if he is doing anything wrong, if he bears any responsibility for what these senators are saying is a breakdown of civility in our country.

SANDERS: Look, I think the voters' of these individual senators' states are speaking in pretty loud volumes. I think that they were not likely to be reelected, and I think that shows that the support is more behind this president than it is behind those two individuals.

Again, Sanders didn't argue against the charge that Trump has debased the nation and damaged civic discourse. She simply asserted that voters in Tennessee and Arizona like Trump better than Corker and Flake.

Sanders has a point. Flake told the Arizona Republic that to be reelected, he would essentially have to act more like Trump than himself:

Here's the bottom line: The path that I would have to travel to get the Republican nomination is a path I'm not willing to take, and that I can't in good conscience take. It would require me to believe in positions I don't hold on such issues as trade and immigration, and it would require me to condone behavior that I cannot condone.

There you have it. Flake, for one, agrees with the White House. In this political environment, Trump's way is the way to win.

The winning way is not necessarily the same as the right way — Flake clearly believes it is not — but the clear message from Sanders on Tuesday was that winning is all that matters in Trump's White House.

Just ask Breitbart.

... < inane breitbart tweet that just repeats the word "WINNING" over and over >

Sigh, just more ugliness from the WH and associated persons.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump punches back at Flake and Corker, claims a ‘love fest’ of support in Senate"

Spoiler

President Trump on Wednesday defended himself against the extraordinary criticism leveled by two Republican senators, insisting that support on Capitol Hill for his presidency amounts to “a love fest” and accusing the senators of acting “so hurt & wounded.”

Trump was responding to comments by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who said Tuesday that Trump was unfit for office and warned that his actions were degrading and dangerous to the country.

Both men have announced they are not running for reelection in 2018, and Trump portrayed them as sore losers.

The president tweeted on Wednesday morning, “The reason Flake and Corker dropped out of the Senate race is very simple, they had zero chance of being elected. Now act so hurt & wounded!”

... < typical TT tweet >

In a second tweet, Trump sought to prove that Flake and Corker are outliers by characterizing his closed-door luncheon with Republican senators on Tuesday at the Capitol as “a love fest.”

“The meeting with Republican Senators yesterday, outside of Flake and Corker, was a love fest with standing ovations and great ideas for USA!” Trump tweeted.

... < another typical TT tweet >

Trump's tweets came as Flake continued to excoriate Trump — from his behavior and temperament to his rhetoric and policies — in a series of interviews on television morning shows, elaborating upon his speech on the Senate floor Tuesday and his op-ed, titled “Enough,” in The Washington Post.

Flake said on CNN that he thinks more of his Republican colleagues in the Senate will speak out about Trump in the days and weeks to come.

“I think we’ve hit the tipping point,” Flake said. “At some point, just the weight of it just causes people to change and to say, 'I can’t take this anymore.' I hope that we’ve reached that point.”

More than an hour after the initial tweet, Trump singled out Flake, citing a poll released in August by Public Policy Policy that placed the Arizona's approval rating at 18 percent. The poll — among 704 Arizona voters — found 31 percent of respondents said they would support Flake if a midterm election was held when the survey was taken, compared to 47 percent who indicated support for a generic Democratic opponent.

... < still another TT tweet >

Well, the TT is right about one thing: there is a "love-fest" between some of the most repugnant members of congress and his slimy self.

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump punches back at Flake and Corker, claims a ‘love fest’ of support in Senate"

  Reveal hidden contents

President Trump on Wednesday defended himself against the extraordinary criticism leveled by two Republican senators, insisting that support on Capitol Hill for his presidency amounts to “a love fest” and accusing the senators of acting “so hurt & wounded.”

Trump was responding to comments by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who said Tuesday that Trump was unfit for office and warned that his actions were degrading and dangerous to the country.

Both men have announced they are not running for reelection in 2018, and Trump portrayed them as sore losers.

The president tweeted on Wednesday morning, “The reason Flake and Corker dropped out of the Senate race is very simple, they had zero chance of being elected. Now act so hurt & wounded!”

... < typical TT tweet >

In a second tweet, Trump sought to prove that Flake and Corker are outliers by characterizing his closed-door luncheon with Republican senators on Tuesday at the Capitol as “a love fest.”

“The meeting with Republican Senators yesterday, outside of Flake and Corker, was a love fest with standing ovations and great ideas for USA!” Trump tweeted.

... < another typical TT tweet >

Trump's tweets came as Flake continued to excoriate Trump — from his behavior and temperament to his rhetoric and policies — in a series of interviews on television morning shows, elaborating upon his speech on the Senate floor Tuesday and his op-ed, titled “Enough,” in The Washington Post.

Flake said on CNN that he thinks more of his Republican colleagues in the Senate will speak out about Trump in the days and weeks to come.

“I think we’ve hit the tipping point,” Flake said. “At some point, just the weight of it just causes people to change and to say, 'I can’t take this anymore.' I hope that we’ve reached that point.”

More than an hour after the initial tweet, Trump singled out Flake, citing a poll released in August by Public Policy Policy that placed the Arizona's approval rating at 18 percent. The poll — among 704 Arizona voters — found 31 percent of respondents said they would support Flake if a midterm election was held when the survey was taken, compared to 47 percent who indicated support for a generic Democratic opponent.

... < still another TT tweet >

Well, the TT is right about one thing: there is a "love-fest" between some of the most repugnant members of congress and his slimy self.

Have to admit I saw this and thought 'more shit, blah blah' except for the love fest thing. Then had to go and see if I could figure out where he got that. Unless he's been watching old episodes of 'Mr Belvedere' he must have heard it from whoever blathered the 'prayer' at the luncheon, because that is not one of his 10 phrases he has on permanent replay. 

[GrumpyGran]

Doing three things at once but I think I just heard that he put Niger off on "his generals", says he had nothing to do with it. 

[Howl]

"In Trump’s White House, there is no right or wrong. There is only winning or losing."

I may have mentioned this upthread while discussing a TalkingPointsMemo.com editor's blog post: For Trump, winning is the only thing, BUT, to know he's won, someone has to clearly lose.  This is the reason he publicly shits on people and continues to do so and does not give up.  It's why some of his actions today (with the NFL, for example) can be traced back to incidents where he did not clearly "win" years and years ago.  And yes, it's clearly pathological. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Because he just can't let anything go: "Trump undercuts widow again, says he remembered name ‘right from the beginning’"

Spoiler

President Trump on Wednesday revived the controversy over his handling of a condolence call with an Army soldier’s widow, refuting Myeshia’s Johnson’s claim that he did not seem to remember her husband’s name and calling into question the memories of others who heard the conversation.

Speaking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before departing for a fundraiser in Dallas, Trump said he called Army Sgt. La David Johnson — who was killed after an Oct. 4 ambush in Niger that is still being investigated — by his correct name “right from the beginning.”

“One of the great memories of all time,” the president said, pointing at his head with his left hand. “There’s no hesitation.”

Trump also said he had not specifically authorized the mission in Niger, which left four U.S. soldiers including Johnson dead and has prompted a slew of unanswered questions about how the mission went awry. 

“No I didn’t, not specifically, but I have generals that are great generals — these are great fighters, these are warriors,” he said. “I gave them authority to do what’s right so that we win. That’s the authority they have. I want to win and we’re going to win.”

After Trump first called Myeshia Johnson more than a week ago to express sympathy for her husband’s death, the president has waged a back-and-forth war of words with the pregnant widow and others who listened in on the call.

Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.), a family friend of the Johnsons, had criticized the president for insensitivity, saying he had upset Johnson by saying her husband “knew what he was getting into,” and seeming to bungle his name.

The White House disputed Wilson’s claims, which were then reiterated by an aunt who raised La David Johnson and by Johnson’s widow, who in a Monday interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” told ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, “I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband’s name.”

“And that’s what hurt me the most, because if my husband is out here fighting for our country, and he risked his life for our country, why can’t you remember his name?” Myeshia Johnson said. “And that’s what made me upset and cry even more, because my husband was an awesome soldier.”

On Wednesday, Trump again pushed back on the claim about La David Johnson’s name, repeating it to reporters and saying he had stated it correctly during his initial call — in part because he was provided with a chart that had the fallen soldier’s name written out. 

“I certainly respect La David, who I, by the way, called La David right from the beginning,” he said. “Just so you understand, they put a chart in front — ‘La David,’ it says ‘La David Johnson.’ So I called right from the beginning.”

The firestorm has dragged in not only Trump, Wilson, and Johnson, but also the president’s Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who made a surprise appearance at the White House news briefing last Thursday to defend Trump and attack Wilson for allegedly politicizing a Gold Star family’s heartache. But in doing so, Kelly made false claims about Wilson that were later disproved by videotape.

Trump struck a more deferential tone in his latest comments than he had in some earlier statements, largely praising Johnson and calling her “a lovely lady” while also defending himself.

“I was extremely nice to her,” Trump said. “She sounds like a lovely lady. I’ve never seen her, I’ve never met her, but she sounds like a lovely lady. But I was extremely nice to her, I was extremely courteous, as I was to everyone else.”

The president added that he respects both her and her family, including her late husband. “I think she’s a fantastic woman,” he said. “I was extremely nice to her, extremely respectful.”

As for not authorizing the Niger mission, Trump’s remarks were reminiscent to comments he made earlier this year following the death of Senior Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, a U.S. Navy SEAL who was the first U.S. service member under killed in the line of duty during Trump’s term.

At the time, Trump refused to accept responsibility for the covert mission he had authorized, saying in a Fox News interview that the mission “was started before I got here” and seeming to blame the military by saying, “And they lost Ryan.”

Trump’s impromptu, 15-minute news conference Wednesday came as he was fending off attacks from members of his own party — namely Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (R-Az.), who announced Tuesday he was not seeking reelection and delivered a scathing floor speech excoriating Trump.

In response to a question about whether he should behave more civilly, the president, in rapid succession, blamed the media and cited his Ivy League education.

“I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am,” he said. “ I went to an Ivy League college, I was a nice student, I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

The press, he said, “creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.” 

In the next breath, however, he returned to his attacks. “Well I think it’s always okay, when somebody says something about you that is false, I think it’s always okay to counterpunch or to fight back,” Trump said. 

"I was a nice student." WTAF?

[JMarie]

32 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Because he just can't let anything go: "Trump undercuts widow again, says he remembered name ‘right from the beginning’"

  Hide contents

President Trump on Wednesday revived the controversy over his handling of a condolence call with an Army soldier’s widow, refuting Myeshia’s Johnson’s claim that he did not seem to remember her husband’s name and calling into question the memories of others who heard the conversation.

Speaking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before departing for a fundraiser in Dallas, Trump said he called Army Sgt. La David Johnson — who was killed after an Oct. 4 ambush in Niger that is still being investigated — by his correct name “right from the beginning.”

“One of the great memories of all time,” the president said, pointing at his head with his left hand. “There’s no hesitation.”

Trump also said he had not specifically authorized the mission in Niger, which left four U.S. soldiers including Johnson dead and has prompted a slew of unanswered questions about how the mission went awry. 

“No I didn’t, not specifically, but I have generals that are great generals — these are great fighters, these are warriors,” he said. “I gave them authority to do what’s right so that we win. That’s the authority they have. I want to win and we’re going to win.”

After Trump first called Myeshia Johnson more than a week ago to express sympathy for her husband’s death, the president has waged a back-and-forth war of words with the pregnant widow and others who listened in on the call.

Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.), a family friend of the Johnsons, had criticized the president for insensitivity, saying he had upset Johnson by saying her husband “knew what he was getting into,” and seeming to bungle his name.

The White House disputed Wilson’s claims, which were then reiterated by an aunt who raised La David Johnson and by Johnson’s widow, who in a Monday interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” told ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, “I heard him stumbling on trying to remember my husband’s name.”

“And that’s what hurt me the most, because if my husband is out here fighting for our country, and he risked his life for our country, why can’t you remember his name?” Myeshia Johnson said. “And that’s what made me upset and cry even more, because my husband was an awesome soldier.”

On Wednesday, Trump again pushed back on the claim about La David Johnson’s name, repeating it to reporters and saying he had stated it correctly during his initial call — in part because he was provided with a chart that had the fallen soldier’s name written out. 

“I certainly respect La David, who I, by the way, called La David right from the beginning,” he said. “Just so you understand, they put a chart in front — ‘La David,’ it says ‘La David Johnson.’ So I called right from the beginning.”

The firestorm has dragged in not only Trump, Wilson, and Johnson, but also the president’s Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who made a surprise appearance at the White House news briefing last Thursday to defend Trump and attack Wilson for allegedly politicizing a Gold Star family’s heartache. But in doing so, Kelly made false claims about Wilson that were later disproved by videotape.

Trump struck a more deferential tone in his latest comments than he had in some earlier statements, largely praising Johnson and calling her “a lovely lady” while also defending himself.

“I was extremely nice to her,” Trump said. “She sounds like a lovely lady. I’ve never seen her, I’ve never met her, but she sounds like a lovely lady. But I was extremely nice to her, I was extremely courteous, as I was to everyone else.”

The president added that he respects both her and her family, including her late husband. “I think she’s a fantastic woman,” he said. “I was extremely nice to her, extremely respectful.”

As for not authorizing the Niger mission, Trump’s remarks were reminiscent to comments he made earlier this year following the death of Senior Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, a U.S. Navy SEAL who was the first U.S. service member under killed in the line of duty during Trump’s term.

At the time, Trump refused to accept responsibility for the covert mission he had authorized, saying in a Fox News interview that the mission “was started before I got here” and seeming to blame the military by saying, “And they lost Ryan.”

Trump’s impromptu, 15-minute news conference Wednesday came as he was fending off attacks from members of his own party — namely Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (R-Az.), who announced Tuesday he was not seeking reelection and delivered a scathing floor speech excoriating Trump.

In response to a question about whether he should behave more civilly, the president, in rapid succession, blamed the media and cited his Ivy League education.

“I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am,” he said. “ I went to an Ivy League college, I was a nice student, I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

The press, he said, “creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.” 

In the next breath, however, he returned to his attacks. “Well I think it’s always okay, when somebody says something about you that is false, I think it’s always okay to counterpunch or to fight back,” Trump said. 

"I was a nice student." WTAF?

I hope someone can dig up his college transcript, just to show how "very well" he did.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump to skip key Asia summit in Philippines to go home earlier"

Spoiler

Leaders of more than a dozen countries will meet for a major summit in the Philippines in mid-November, but President Trump won’t be there. He is planning to skip it and leave the Philippines the day before. It’s a bad signal to send to the region, and it could undermine the overall goal of his Asia tour by calling American regional leadership into question.

At the White House Monday, Trump said he will “probably” be visiting the Philippines as part of his 12-day trip to Asia early next month. A National Security Council spokesman told me Trump will be in Manila Nov. 12 and 13 and will meet with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and others. But Trump will not travel the additional 52 miles to the Philippine city of Angeles on Nov. 14 for the East Asia Summit, an annual conference of Asian and world leaders that focuses on the strategic future of the region.

“The President’s trip to Asia is extremely lengthy and will be his longest to date – his return to the U.S. on the evening of Nov. 13 is entirely schedule-driven,” the spokesman said. “You should not read anything into his being absent on the 14th.” The East Asia Summit opens in Angeles on Nov. 13, but the major events with world leaders occur on Nov. 14.

But the region is sure to read a lot into Trump’s absence, according to experts and former officials. By not attending the East Asia Summit his first year in office, even though he will already be nearby, Trump is signaling a lack of interest in the organization and the project it represents.

“It is a big deal. The Obama administration made a point of investing in these regional institutions in order to demonstrate we are an Asia Pacific power, a resident power in the region. This will only raise more questions about American credibility,” said Derek Mitchell, former U.S. ambassador to Burma. “Multilateralism in Asia is often just about showing up, but even that appears to be hard for him.”

Multiple administration officials told me there was a lengthy debate inside the Trump administration about the summit, but officials close to Trump were concerned the president did not want to stay in the region for so long and worried he could get cranky, leading to unpredictable or undiplomatic behavior.

President Barack Obama brought the United States into the East Asia Summit after his administration signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce in Southeast Asia in 2009. He became the first American president to attend the summit in 2011 and attended each year thereafter except for 2013, when he canceled his trip due to the U.S. government shutdown.

Mitchell said the hosts scheduled the summit close to other regional events, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, specifically to accommodate the U.S. president. Trump will attend APEC meetings in Vietnam on Nov. 10.

“They tend to schedule [the EAS] to make it easier for the United States to attend,” he said. “It’s not necessarily convenient for others. I’m sure it’s frustrating to many of our partners.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may stay in the Philippines for the East Asia Summit, but it’s not the same, said Ernest Bower, senior adviser for Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Tillerson can sit in the president’s seat, but the symbolism of that will be the headline of the day,” he said.

The East Asia Summit is unique because it focuses on greater strategic issues, as opposed to the economic focus of APEC, said Bower. Trump’s absence is part of a pattern of his administration downgrading the importance of multilateral organizations and forums overall.

The East Asia Summit includes the 10 nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India and South Korea, along with the United States. It’s a missed opportunity for Trump to show all those countries that the United States is still committed to the strengthening regional integration and cooperation as China becomes more aggressive and expansionist, said Bower.

“The rest of Asia needs us to be there,” he said. “Since you’ve flown all that way, I can’t imagine not staying for that last 24 hours just to keep America in the game. It’s shocking.”

Not all Asia experts think Trump skipping the East Asia Summit is such a disaster. After all, Trump will spend 12 days on his Asia trip and visit several countries including Japan, South Korea and China. That should reassure the region of Trump and America’s commitment, said Dan Blumenthal, director of Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

“I don’t think it’s that big of a deal,” he said. “What’s a bigger deal is what comes out of the actual Duterte meeting and other bilaterals, the fact that he’s out there for so long and meeting so many leaders and the content of the policy.”

Big deal or not, it’s an unforced error that will cause concern among allies and celebration by adversaries. Trump should just stay one extra day in the country he’s already going to, to make sure his Asia trip doesn’t end in doubts about whether the United States is really showing up in the region.

Telling quote: "...officials close to Trump were concerned the president did not want to stay in the region for so long and worried he could get cranky, leading to unpredictable or undiplomatic behavior." I guess the daycare staff needed to adjust his schedule.

[Audrey2]

1 minute ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Trump to skip key Asia summit in Philippines to go home earlier"

  Reveal hidden contents

Leaders of more than a dozen countries will meet for a major summit in the Philippines in mid-November, but President Trump won’t be there. He is planning to skip it and leave the Philippines the day before. It’s a bad signal to send to the region, and it could undermine the overall goal of his Asia tour by calling American regional leadership into question.

At the White House Monday, Trump said he will “probably” be visiting the Philippines as part of his 12-day trip to Asia early next month. A National Security Council spokesman told me Trump will be in Manila Nov. 12 and 13 and will meet with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and others. But Trump will not travel the additional 52 miles to the Philippine city of Angeles on Nov. 14 for the East Asia Summit, an annual conference of Asian and world leaders that focuses on the strategic future of the region.

“The President’s trip to Asia is extremely lengthy and will be his longest to date – his return to the U.S. on the evening of Nov. 13 is entirely schedule-driven,” the spokesman said. “You should not read anything into his being absent on the 14th.” The East Asia Summit opens in Angeles on Nov. 13, but the major events with world leaders occur on Nov. 14.

But the region is sure to read a lot into Trump’s absence, according to experts and former officials. By not attending the East Asia Summit his first year in office, even though he will already be nearby, Trump is signaling a lack of interest in the organization and the project it represents.

“It is a big deal. The Obama administration made a point of investing in these regional institutions in order to demonstrate we are an Asia Pacific power, a resident power in the region. This will only raise more questions about American credibility,” said Derek Mitchell, former U.S. ambassador to Burma. “Multilateralism in Asia is often just about showing up, but even that appears to be hard for him.”

Multiple administration officials told me there was a lengthy debate inside the Trump administration about the summit, but officials close to Trump were concerned the president did not want to stay in the region for so long and worried he could get cranky, leading to unpredictable or undiplomatic behavior.

President Barack Obama brought the United States into the East Asia Summit after his administration signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce in Southeast Asia in 2009. He became the first American president to attend the summit in 2011 and attended each year thereafter except for 2013, when he canceled his trip due to the U.S. government shutdown.

Mitchell said the hosts scheduled the summit close to other regional events, including the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, specifically to accommodate the U.S. president. Trump will attend APEC meetings in Vietnam on Nov. 10.

“They tend to schedule [the EAS] to make it easier for the United States to attend,” he said. “It’s not necessarily convenient for others. I’m sure it’s frustrating to many of our partners.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may stay in the Philippines for the East Asia Summit, but it’s not the same, said Ernest Bower, senior adviser for Southeast Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Tillerson can sit in the president’s seat, but the symbolism of that will be the headline of the day,” he said.

The East Asia Summit is unique because it focuses on greater strategic issues, as opposed to the economic focus of APEC, said Bower. Trump’s absence is part of a pattern of his administration downgrading the importance of multilateral organizations and forums overall.

The East Asia Summit includes the 10 nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus Russia, China, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India and South Korea, along with the United States. It’s a missed opportunity for Trump to show all those countries that the United States is still committed to the strengthening regional integration and cooperation as China becomes more aggressive and expansionist, said Bower.

“The rest of Asia needs us to be there,” he said. “Since you’ve flown all that way, I can’t imagine not staying for that last 24 hours just to keep America in the game. It’s shocking.”

Not all Asia experts think Trump skipping the East Asia Summit is such a disaster. After all, Trump will spend 12 days on his Asia trip and visit several countries including Japan, South Korea and China. That should reassure the region of Trump and America’s commitment, said Dan Blumenthal, director of Asian studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

“I don’t think it’s that big of a deal,” he said. “What’s a bigger deal is what comes out of the actual Duterte meeting and other bilaterals, the fact that he’s out there for so long and meeting so many leaders and the content of the policy.”

Big deal or not, it’s an unforced error that will cause concern among allies and celebration by adversaries. Trump should just stay one extra day in the country he’s already going to, to make sure his Asia trip doesn’t end in doubts about whether the United States is really showing up in the region.

Telling quote: "...officials close to Trump were concerned the president did not want to stay in the region for so long and worried he could get cranky, leading to unpredictable or undiplomatic behavior." I guess the daycare staff needed to adjust his schedule.

Of course not. It would interfere with his golf schedule.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Telling quote: "...officials close to Trump were concerned the president did not want to stay in the region for so long and worried he could get cranky, leading to unpredictable or undiplomatic behavior." I guess the daycare staff needed to adjust his schedule.

Well, they say he doesn't like to sleep anywhere except his own crib bed. And those odd Asians won't serve well-done steak with ketchup, chocolate cake and two scoops of ice cream. Honestly, I think he does hate to have to deal with anything except exactly what he wants.

That mess on the way to the helicopter was epic. So much classic Dumpy. There was a 'Not-my-fault', a 'I'm-very-smart', a 'They-love-me-standing-ovation', and a 'I-did-a-great-job'. I'm surprised he didn't break into "I Did It My Way". It was extremely, extremely extreme.

[Cartmann99]

3 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am,” he said. “ I went to an Ivy League college, I was a nice student, I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person.”

Dude, if you really were "very intelligent",  you wouldn't have to brag about it all the damn time. 

[candygirl200413]

It's funny because Hillary and Bill Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama all went to Ivy league at some point and never mentioned it once in regards to their intelligence in the way orange fuckface is. Also since UPenn is around me Wharton wants nothing to do with him, for obvious reasons (and yes many of us threw up when we saw his tent for Tiffany's graduation in 2016, but also claps to Lin Manuel Miranda for calling him out).

[JMarie]

11 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

It's funny because Hillary and Bill Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama all went to Ivy league at some point and never mentioned it once in regards to their intelligence in the way orange fuckface is. Also since UPenn is around me Wharton wants nothing to do with him, for obvious reasons (and yes many of us threw up when we saw his tent for Tiffany's graduation in 2016, but also claps to Lin Manuel Miranda for calling him out).

Lots of famous people went to Ivy League schools, but they don't brag about it.  Natalie Portman doesn't, neither do Jodie Foster, Al Gore, Tommy Lee Jones, Mindy Kaling, Matt Damon, Rivers Cuomo (Weezer's lead singer), all the members of Vampire Weekend, the Notorious RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), Shonda Rhimes, Jennifer Weiner, Brooke Shields, and on and on.

There's eight schools in the Ivy League.  Thousands graduate every single year.  It's not some super-exclusive club, like the I Hate Rachel Green club.

 

[WiseGirl]

6 hours ago, JMarie said:

Lots of famous people went to Ivy League schools, but they don't brag about it.  

Perhaps only those that weren't at the top of the class have to brag?  You know lthe person last in class at an Ivy League can still brag that they went and you didn't. What the hell is the standard for "a very fine student" anyway?

BTW after hearing all those self-congratulatory phrases yesterday, I had to come here to see the snark. People,  you did not disappoint, so thank you!

[apple1]

So embarrassing. I promise, all Americans are not like that.

[Zola]

I love the part where points at his head and says, "one of the great memories of all time."

Of all time, people. How much of a fool do you have to be to make a ridiculous statement like that? He can't even find the limo at the bottom of the staircase coming from the plane. Hint: it's right in front of the stairs - where it always is.

It's so nausea-inducing to listen to him enjoy babbling on about himself, as if he had something worth hearing to say. No. It's the same drivel over and over again about how smart he is, how much people want to see him, how successful his administration is, and how he somehow has all the answers...but not now. Soon. Very soon. Like we're all watching some damn tv show starring him, needing a teaser to keep us tuned in after the commercial break.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trolling Trump: How viral visual taunts have changed protest in nation’s capital"

Spoiler

An hour before dawn on Oct. 6, Robby Diesu directed a trailer onto the Mall near the Washington Monument. At a spot with a good sightline to the White House, he and a small crew set up a 160-square-foot video screen, hooked it to a laptop and hit play.

What ran on the screen for the next 12 hours was a relentless Jumbotron rewind of Donald Trump’s infamous “Access Hollywood” tape,” the hot-mic remarks that had roiled the 2016 campaign one year earlier — complete with audio and subtitles.

The three minutes of vulgarity-laced chatter (“Grab them by the p---y. You can do anything.”) looped over and over through the day, within view of the West Wing and well beyond, thanks to countless mentions in the mainstream news media and on social media. Dozens of onlookers posted their own videos of the video with the White House in the background.

“The point of actions is to create conflict with your target, and the target here is the president of the United States being a sexual predator,” said Diesu, a professional protest organizer with the DC Action Lab.

This is Washington protest in the age of Trump, when public actions increasingly combine performance art and catchy visuals to toss a made-to-go-viral insult straight at the president. It is trolling as dissent.

In the year since Trump won, activists have expanded the age-old Washington reliables of marches and rallies with more-unconventional ploys: queer dance parties, high-wire banner stunts, animated graffiti projected onto the walls of Trump’s Washington hotel. In volume and style, the digital age and the president’s own pugilistic instincts have created a unique moment in movements.

“There was outrage against [Richard] Nixon and against [Lyndon] Johnson, but those protests were mostly against policy,” said Michael Kazin, a historian of social movements at Georgetown University. “Now the focus is to a great extent on the president’s personality. They are responding to his own way of attacking people by attacking him.”

Even traditional protests seek a visually viral taunt. The Women’s March, which drew hundreds of thousands to the Mall a day after Trump’s inauguration, was forever branded by the thousands of hand-knit pink triangular hats worn as a defiant symbol of Trump’s “grab them” comment.

A towering inflatable chicken with Trumpian Orange hair made an appearance outside the White House in August (get yours on eBay for $498). After the president announced he was pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accord in June, Diesu helped sneak dozens of protesters into the lobby of Trump International Hotel, where, at 7 a.m., they pulled out alarm clocks and air horns to “wake up” guests to the dangers of global warming.

The hotel, emblazoned with the president’s name, has emerged as a second White House, one without fences and Secret Service agents. Pedestrians have been known to shout “Shame!” at diners at the hotel’s sidewalk tables. Marchers frequently end the day by dumping their signs at the hotel door. And D.C. artist Robin Bell has projected animated jeers onto the building, including “Pay Trump bribes here” and “The president of the United States is a known racist and a Nazi sympathizer.”

The video screen on the Mall was the brainchild of UltraViolet, a national women’s advocacy group that wanted to remind people about Trump’s remarks, which he later described as “foolish” and dismissed as “locker-room talk.”

A video screen rented by UltraViolet showed the “Access Hollywood” footage on a nonstop loop near the White House earlier this month. (Perry Stein/The Post)

The group often tries to reach Trump in a way that gets under his famously thin skin, said chief campaigns officer Karin Roland. The group once purchased a 30-second ad in West Palm Beach, Fla., while Trump was staying at his Mar-a-Lago resort. The commercial — which aired during “Saturday Night Live” — displayed numbers showing that access to abortion polls more favorably than Trump does.

As the anniversary of The Washington Post’s publication of the “Access Hollywood” tape approached, Ultraviolet considered planning a large rally or march but ultimately decided that loudly recycling Trump’s own words would be more powerful.

“One of the reasons trolling him is so valuable strategically is that he does react to it,” Roland said. “You can influence the latest thing he says on Twitter or what he says by getting in his Twitter feed or on the shows that he watches.”

As many liberal activists do, UltraViolet contacted DC Action Lab, which has helped plan about 75 anti-Trump actions since his election last November. Diesu, who can quote National Park Service and Secret Service regulations by heart and is on a first-name basis with many of the officers who patrol the protests, advised Roland on where to park the screen, applied for the permit and rented the equipment. (The same screen was used outside Nationals Park that night to show a Washington Nationals playoff game.)

Other protests take a guerrilla approach. In January, Greenpeace sent seven climbers up a 30-story construction crane to unfurl a 70-foot “Resist” banner that, visually, seemed to hang directly over the White House. It was an image the activists knew would be irresistible as a media meme.

“With the framing of that image, we controlled our own message,” said James Brady, a District-based Greenpeace activist. “It was not possible to re-caption that photo.”

Two days before the inauguration, a dancing flash mob of up to 200 convened near Vice President Pence’s temporarily rented home in Washington, filling the streets with Beyoncé’s music, biodegradable glitter and rainbow banners.

“It’s a way for the queer community to occupy space and say we are here,” said Firas Nasr, who has organized what he calls queer dance parties in front of the White House, the Trump hotel, and the homes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

The diverse modes of protest have given activists a larger variety of options to keep up with a sometimes-exhausting variety of controversies coming out of the Trump administration. A coalition of groups opposed to the president’s proposed ban on U.S. entry by citizens of several majority-Muslim countries decided last week that a conventional rally with speakers and signs near the White House would be the most attractive for the families and elderly protesters the organizers hoped to attract from across the country.

“A traditional rally is the most comfortable,” said Noor Mir, a DC Action Lab member who organized a gathering at Lafayette Square that drew a crowd to within a block of the White House. “It tends to be the best for folks that are only here for a few hours to protest.”

In September, though, Mir consulted on a splashier demonstration. Immigration advocates — angered when the administration canceled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program — set up an enormous paper effigy of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then gleefully knocked it over as if he were a deposed dictator.

The new age of protesting has been good for the old art of protest-puppet making.

“It’s always been the case: A picture is worth a thousand words, and a puppet is worth a thousand times that,” said Nadine Bloch, the Takoma Park, Md., resident who made the ersatz Sessions and who has been one of Washington’s go-to makers of protest puppets since the Reagan era. “And if you can roll it down the street, smash it, it can be worth 1,000 times more.”

And if one of those makes the presidential Twitter feed, consider Trump trolled.

There is a video in the body of the article. I think my favorite is the chicken.

[GreyhoundFan]

From the WaPo's editorial board: "Trump crosses another line"

Spoiler

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S disdain for the integrity of the Justice Department may no longer surprise a weary public. But it is nevertheless shocking to learn that Mr. Trump has breached tradition to personally interview two candidates for U.S. attorney — both of whom would have the power to investigate him in the future.

Politico and CNN report that Mr. Trump met with Geoffrey Berman and Ed McNally, whom the administration is considering for the roles of U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York, respectively. This isn’t the first time Mr. Trump has spoken directly to a U.S. attorney candidate. In March, he met with Jessie Liu, who has since been confirmed as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

The White House and the Justice Department assert that the president is acting within the scope of his authority, because he has the constitutional power to nominate U.S. attorneys in the first place. But the fact that Mr. Trump’s actions are legal does not mean that they are acceptable.

According to Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman under President Barack Obama, Mr. Obama never interviewed a candidate for U.S. attorney. Past presidents have remained at arm’s length from nominees — and later, the attorneys themselves — to preserve the Justice Department’s ability to enforce the law without political interference. It’s just this principle that Mr. Trump violated in requesting the loyalty of then-FBI Director James B. Comey and pushing the FBI and Justice Department to drop proceedings he disliked.

Any presidential interview of a U.S. attorney candidate would cross the line. But it is particularly concerning that Mr. Trump chose to speak with the men and women who could lead investigations into his business in New York and his activities as president in Washington. With special counsel Robert S. Mueller III already investigating Mr. Trump for possible obstruction of justice — and reports that the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office is now looking into possible money laundering by former Trump aide Paul Manafort — such interference is not an abstract concern.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm Ms. Liu after she assured members that Mr. Trump had not requested her loyalty or discussed any ongoing or future investigations. The same may turn out to be true of Mr. Berman and Mr. McNally. But the fact that the president spoke with them is concerning enough. And Mr. Trump’s continued violations show that a stronger response from Congress is required.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the committee should refuse to consider any nominees whom Mr. Trump has interviewed, as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has suggested. This has nothing to do with Mr. Berman and Mr. McNally’s fitness for office: Mr. Berman appears qualified for the position, while Mr. McNally’s behavior as interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Illinois raises questions. Rather, it’s a matter of the committee making clear to the White House that Mr. Trump’s behavior crosses a line no matter whom he nominates. This threat to the impartial administration of justice cannot go unchallenged.

I agree. This is not interviewing potential employees for your private business. He shouldn't be engaging the nominees.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The Trump authoritarian cult"

Spoiler

The Glorious Republican Civil War of 2017 isn’t really a battle over policy or ideology. It isn’t even quite the clash of grand agendas we constantly read about — the supposed showdown between populist economic nationalism on one side, and limited government conservatism, free trade and internationalism on the other.

Instead, the GOP civil war is really a battle over whether Republican lawmakers should — or should not — genuflect before President Trump. The battle is over whether they should — or should not — applaud his racism, his authoritarianism and his obvious pleasure in dispensing abuse and sowing racial division. It’s also over whether Republicans should submit to Trump’s ongoing insistence that his lack of major accomplishments is fully the fault of Republicans who failed his greatness.

The Post reports that allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have hit on a new strategy for countering Stephen K. Bannon’s insurgency. Bannon’s challengers are running on the idea that they constitute the true bearers of the Trumpist banner against a GOP establishment that has allegedly betrayed Trumpism. The strategy is to walk a careful line, avoiding attacking Trump while linking Bannon’s version of Trumpism “to white nationalism to discredit him and the candidates he will support.”

The notion that the GOP civil war is really about whether to genuflect to Trump’s racism and authoritarianism helps resolve some glaring disconnects in our politics that make little sense under any other interpretation.

For instance: The GOP civil war does not align with any major policy dispute now underway among Republicans. The New York Times reports that Republicans see the general goal of cutting taxes (with the largest benefits going to the rich) as tonic to unite the party. The real disagreements on taxes revolve around whether the plan will end state and local deductions (which is opposed by Republicans whose constituents would lose out) and whether the plan should balloon the deficit.

In other words, there is no serious disagreement between the Bannon wing and the GOP establishment on the goal of cutting taxes to the great benefit of the wealthy, while skyrocketing the deficit. Meanwhile, on Obamacare, the main disagreement arose when a few moderates couldn’t stomach its enormously regressive rollback of health-care coverage. There are no Bannon/populist objections to the GOP establishment position on taxes or health care, even though there should be ones in line with Trump’s campaign vows to soak the rich and protect the safety net for aging working-class and rural white voters.

My frame also helps explain how Trump and his allies can continually cast GOP leaders as betrayers of Trump, even though they all agree on the same big-ticket goals on health care and taxes. GOP leaders react to Trump’s worst abuses by condemning them where they have to, and playing them down where possible, while always retreating to the idea that Republicans will all get along on tax reform. When Trump allies blast the GOP establishment as sellouts, they are saying two things — that GOP leaders are both insufficiently enthusiastic about his ongoing employment of white identity politics and that they are failing his agenda in some sense that never has to be defined. Their loyalty is suspect on both fronts.

Bannon understands the power of this narrative, and he’s exploiting it for his own murky purposes. He is building a movement around the idea that Trump is both winning everywhere and being failed everywhere. Bannon tells Trump voters that Trump is winning when he is pilloried by elites (including Republicans) for failing to denounce the Charlottesville white supremacists. Bannon tells Trump voters that black football players should be kneeling in thanks to Trump, because Trump is winning for America in spite of having “no help.” This Bannon play goes way back. As Joshua Green’s biography reports, as soon as Trump secured the nomination, Bannon immediately exaggerated the threat that the GOP establishment would steal the nomination, to rally “Pepe” (Trump nation) to “stomp their a–.”

The GOP civil war is really over how Republicans should react to Trump’s bigotry and authoritarianism, and about how they should react when Trump demands that they admit that they are the losers when things go wrong. This is why Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker focused their criticism on those particular excesses; why other Republicans were reluctant to endorse that criticism; and why Trump easily brushed them off by ridiculing them as losers. This is not to say there are no meaningful policy divisions — if Trump pulls out of NAFTA, there will be a real schism — but rather that they pale in importance to these larger story lines. Trump put it well in this tweet:

... < the TT tweet slamming Jeff Flake and talking about his standing ovation >

We don’t know if that actually happened, or if it did, why Republicans applauded Trump. But what Trump means by this is that Republicans have no choice but to applaud him even though he damn well will keep doing all the things that Flake and Corker protested, and even though they also find those things distasteful or horrifying. And as it happens, Trump is right.

We have become a land ruled by a banana (maybe it should be orange) dictator who will permit no dissent.

[Destiny]

Not only does he not allow dissent, I’m not sure he has the mental capacity to understand WHY people dissent. Despite my hate for him, I genuinely think he needs to get help. Something’s not fucking right.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is a good analysis of yesterday's ramblings: "Trump says the media unfairly portrays him as uncivil, which he’s not because he ‘went to an Ivy League college’"

Spoiler

President Trump vouched for his own character Wednesday by citing his diploma from the University of Pennsylvania, claiming it proves he is not as bawdy as the media portrays him.

“I think the press makes me more uncivil than I am,” Trump told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One for a trip to Texas. “You know, people don’t understand. I went to an Ivy League college. I was a nice student. I did very well. I’m a very intelligent person. You know, the fact is I think — I really believe — I think the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person.”

Note that Trump did not say he is civil; he said the media depicts him as more uncivil than he actually is. He did not describe himself as a kind person or a polite person; he described himself as an intelligent person.

Trump is certainly smart enough to know what he was doing — deflecting a question about one personality trait by addressing another.

What's striking about the president's claim that “the press creates a different image of Donald Trump than the real person” is that Trump prides himself on shaping his own image through social media. And it is on Twitter — where there is no media filter — that Trump often appears to be at his most uncivil.

Trump's remarks assume that more-educated people are also gracious people, which is, of course, not always the case. Trump voters — 69 percent of whom do not have degrees from any colleges, never mind Ivy League institutions, according to the American National Election Study — surely would disagree with the president's logic.

The surprising thing about Trump's comments is not that he cast blame on the media or employed a straw-man argument but that he betrayed a mind-set that is anathema to so many of his supporters. If, as Trump said, “people don't understand” that he graduated from Penn, it is because as a politician he has worked hard to cast himself not as an elitist but as an everyman. The president praises himself regularly but seldom talks about his educational background.

Regaling voters with the story of how he, a millionaire's son, arrived on Penn's stately campus in a flashy convertible in 1966 somehow never made it into Trump's stump speech.

Put on the spot Wednesday, however, Trump reached for a credential that he considers impressive. And it had little to do with civility.