Trump 24: Fiddling, er, Tweeting While Rome Burns

[JoyfulSel]

7 minutes ago, Destiny said:

@JoyfulSel I am so sorry. I have no words. I wish I could do something. 

Thank you - I feel so numb to it all. I'm thankful my mom had her surgery and completed PT, because otherwise I have absolutely no idea what we would do. But now she won't be able to visit her neurosurgeon for any more follow-ups, nor her PCP. Good God. Guess we'll just have to "pray" nothing goes wrong!

Meanwhile, he's on tv talking about Iran right now like he knows anything.

[Destiny]

I completely get it @JoyfulSel. I don't have insurance at the moment either, and it keeps me up at night knowing that we are one slip and fall on the ice or whatever from bankruptcy. Our system needs to change. Europe or Canada, can I move in with you?

[Cartmann99]

The circus is back in town!

http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/schedule

The very first event on the schedule is about the importance of values:

Quote

Values Voter Summit Activist Training: Communicate Your Values to Change Law (complimentary ticketed event)

2:00 pm - 5:00 pm 

Thursday 10/12/2017

Ambassador Room

After completing this three-hour workshop, you will be able to speak persuasively to your community and legislators to spread support for your values. In this interactive set of presentations, you will learn a) communication tools to promote your values; to convince others to support those values; and c) to lobby legislators to support values-based laws. This workshop is an FRC Action and Leadership Institute partnership to equip you to spread support for your conservative values.

"Values-based laws", does that mean stoning adulterers like Donald Trump? 

For those concerned about the destruction of the ACA, here's a comedian to take your mind off of your troubles:

Quote

Breakfast (on your own) or CHRISTIAN HEALTHCARE MINISTRIES BREAKFAST (ticketed event)

7:15 am - 8:30 am

Friday 10/13/2017

Palladian Room

Speaker: John Morgan, Comedian and Author, War On Fear* 

A Message from "George W. Bush" (John Morgan) and Winning the War on Fear Speaker, Actor, Comedian, Passionate Conservative Christian Voice and author of the new book, War on Fear, John Morgan has been WOWing live and television audiences for over a decade. As America's #1 George W. Bush impersonator, John shares hilarious but respectful commentary as the former President, then delivers a no-nonsense strategy for overcoming the fear that holds us back.

Look kids, it's Judge Roy Moore!

Quote

Lunch (on your own) or AMERICAN FAMILY ASSOCIATION ACTION LUNCHEON (ticketed event)

12:15 pm - 1:45 pm

Friday 10/13/2017

Palladian Room

Speaker: Judge Roy Moore, Former Chief Justice, Alabama Supreme Court*

If you had something on your bingo card about the persecution of American Christians, mark that square:

Quote

FACES OF THE FRONT LINE: PERSONAL STORIES OF THE FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

3:15 pm - 4:15 pm

Saturday 10/14/2017

Empire Room

Jeremy Dys, Deputy General Counsel, First Liberty Institute*; Toni Richardson, First Liberty Institute Client*; Lathan Watts, Director of Community Relations, First Liberty Institute*

A report from the front lines of the struggle for religious freedom in America. Hear directly from the people at the center of the court cases that will dramatically impact religious liberty for every citizen. The legal team from First Liberty Institute, the largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious liberty for all Americans, will discuss the best strategy for winning these important cases and others. Meet clients who’ve taken a courageous stand and learn what each of us can do to protect our religious liberty rights.

I love that the Values Voters Summit has Trump up there with all of the other Family American Patriot Liberty Jesus Conservative Freedom nutbags. It puts a harsh spotlight on their so-called values.

I hope the sex workers in the area charge the attendees double their usual rates. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Another good one from Jennifer Rubin: "Four huge risks from Trump’s temper tantrum over Iran"

Spoiler

The Post reports:

President Trump is expected to announce Friday that he will abide by an international nuclear deal with Iran for now, but ask Congress to attach new caveats that could either strengthen the deal or lead to its rupture, outside advisers and other people familiar with the planning said.

Trump is expected to set his dissatisfaction with what he sees as gaps and failures in the agreement within a larger reframe of U.S. policy toward Iran. He plans to withdraw presidential “certification” or endorsement of the agreement negotiated by his predecessor, but will not recommend that Congress immediately bust terms of the agreement by reimposing U.S. sanctions on Iran, those people said

The president’s decertification is, on one level, meaningless. It does not immediately change the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nor signal our intent to leave it. It is a political maneuver designed to assuage the president. The risk is that Iran will seize the high ground, China and Russia will support Iran in refusing to enter new negotiations and, when the January deadline for Trump to waive sanctions comes up, he will refuse to issue the waiver, which will activate sanctions and likely spell the end of the deal.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has been working in concert with responsible players in the White House and Republican senators, according to a Corker news release.

In a conference call with the media this morning, Corker said he began talking to the White House on Feb. 2 and that Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and now Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have been working with him as well. Corker said he has also been discussing the matter with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, but underscored that Democrats will have to be “brought along” and will want reassurance that our European allies are supportive. He said the process would follow “regular order” (apparently leaving open the possibility of a filibuster). Corker also said he has talked to allies, asking them “to look at the glass half-full.” In other words, at least for now, the president isn’t leaving the JCPOA.

His aim is to come up with a way to both keep the president within the JCPOA and to enhance the JCPOA. In response to my question as to whether Congress would want reassurance that Trump would not withhold his waiver, Corker said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had said it was the president’s intention to remain in the JCPOA. (Democrats, one can imagine, would want more than Tillerson’s word on this.)

In a fact sheet put out by his office, Corker set out a plan to amend the Iran Agreement Review Act to define what would constitute a material breach under the JCPOA that would trigger reimposition of sanctions.

Most importantly, it would reimpose sanctions if Iran went under a one-year “break-out” period. It would also impose sanctions if Iran refused inspections and/or proceeded with prohibited, advanced research and development. Within 10 days of a breach the president would notify Congress, which then would have 30 days to vote to reimpose sanctions. Our European allies are not expected to take issue with this because the amended IARA would not impose any requirements on Iran that are not already in the JCPOA; it merely cements the requirements and the sanctions triggers in U.S. law. Corker stressed that he believed the material breaches defined in the IARA amendment are “in no way changing . . . in no way violating the JCPOA.” On this Iran may well disagree. Pressed as to whether his legislation would seek to extend the JCPOA to cover intercontinental ballistic missile testing, he acknowledged this would be a matter for consideration.

The IARA amendment would also set a marker at the end of the 10-year sunset provision, threatening reimposition of sanctions. That would put us potentially in conflict with allies — 10 years and the letter of the JCPOA from now. The time period for certification, which the president dreads, would be extended to 180 days. Corker said the legislation if passed would make the certification process “far less relevant.”

The ensuing debate would likely raise concerns from both Democrats and Republicans alike that the president could, if he gets it into his head, choose to withhold the waiver of sanctions in January, effectively wrecking the JCPOA. Democrats could, for example, insist that, in exchange for their support for the amended IARA, lifting the waiver be subject to congressional approval.

The president’s “fit” over certification and his refusal to certify at a time when Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA contains four major risks, of which Corker and other constructive Republicans are certainly cognizant. (Corker hinted that his preference was not to go the decertification route. However, he said, his job is to “deal with circumstances as they are.” In less diplomatic terms, he is trying to maneuver around a president who for emotional reasons wants to be seen as getting out of the deal.)

First, Iran could declare that we have committed an anticipatory breach, seek U.N. sanctions and/or attempt to isolate the United States diplomatically. It is unlikely, however, that Iran would then proceed with its nuclear program, which would risk reimposition of sanctions and/or military action by Israel or the United States.

Second, Russia and China could certainly side with Iran, refuse to return to negotiations and go full speed ahead with financial investment and aid for Iran. That would in essence thwart the attempt to improve/change the JCPOA and also humiliate the United States.

Third, and most worrisome, this president whom we have come to see as erratic, unhinged and reckless could provoke Iran, provide ample evidence for the claim that we are the international scofflaws and, yes, put us on track for a military faceoff with Iran.

Fourth, with some justification, Democrats could refuse to go along with the amendments to the JCPOA and publicly challenge the president to fish or cut bait (i.e. live up to the deal as is or pull out in January by allowing sanctions to be reimposed). Their attitude could well be that they will not save the president from his own destructive unilateralism; if he wants to wreck the JCPOA, it will be on his head. That’s a dangerous game of chicken but not an impossible result of Democrats’ building anger over Trump’s attempts to destroy just about everything associated with the Obama administration without offering constructive policies of his own (e.g., the Affordable Care Act, Paris climate agreement, DACA).

In a perfect world with a competent and sane president, we would leave the JCPOA in place and move aggressively on non-nuclear items to pressure Iran, improve our regional alliances and gather support to fend off Iran’s regional aggression. Instead, because of Trump’s emotional meltdown, we are in a position in which everything must fall perfectly in place — Trump must control his impulses, Congress must act in bipartisan fashion, Iran must not get the diplomatic upper hand, etc. — to get an improved JCPOA even as there is a very significant risk this will unravel the entire JCPOA and set up a second nuclear confrontation. If, for example, Trump tomorrow fired national security adviser H.R. McMaster and/or other key players who “contain” the president, does anyone have confidence this strategy would not blow up the JCPOA?

Corker was asked if he thought the president had his mind set on exiting the JCPOA despite this entire process. He did not answer directly. “We have provided a route to overcome deficiencies [in the JCPOA] and to keep the administration in the deal.” To be fair, no one can say what the president will do an hour from now, let alone in January.

Elections have consequences, and we now see that they can be potentially catastrophic.

"...erratic, unhinged, and reckless..." yeah, that describes the TT to a T.

[kunoichi66]

23 hours ago, fraurosena said:

And now, for some desperately needed light-hearted entertainment, I give you the latest Randy Rainbow.

 

Is....is that what Trump actually looks like?  I know you all call him the Tangerine Toddler, but I confess I didn't realise just how apt the name WAS...

[Destiny]

Is....is that what Trump actually looks like?  I know you all call him the Tangerine Toddler, but I confess I didn't realise just how apt the name WAS...

That is the Orange Menace in the flesh. Asshole.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump’s tax-cuts pitch takes disdain for evidence to a new level"

Spoiler

One of the new constants in the Trump era has been the GOP’s complete and utter disdain for evidence-based, nonpartisan policy analysis. In the battle to repeal Obamacare, Republicans consistently tried to ignore, delay and finally belittle by labeling as “fake news” the Congressional Budget Office analysis that tens of millions would lose coverage. In their effort to gut environmental, health and safety, and financial regulation, the White House is using accounting tricks to exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits of critical regulations. But President Trump’s dishonest pitch for his tax-cut proposals takes this tactic to a new level.

Fact checkers have already had a field day debunking claims by Trump, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn that the tax cuts benefit only the middle class and not the rich. They are, of course, lying. It’s a bit harder to debunk the president’s claim that “it’s not good for me, believe me,” since we still have no idea whether Trump has paid any federal income tax in the past 10 years. (We do know that the repeal of the estate tax will at least be good for Trump’s family.)

Not only that, but also they and their allies in Congress are already doing everything they can to undermine or even prevent objective analysis that would tell the truth. Republicans are delaying producing an actual bill, perhaps in the hope that they can rush a bill to passage before the objective congressional scorekeepers for tax legislation, the Joint Committee on Taxation, can tell us who wins and by how much. As long as Republicans can delay an official estimate of how the tax cuts’ benefits will be distributed, they can continue to perpetuate spin masquerading as analysis.

Key to that strategy is the argument that corporate tax cuts benefit workers, not shareholders — because, they’ll say, it’s workers who bear the burden of corporate taxes. Mnuchin went so far as to claim that “most economists believe that over 70 percent of corporate taxes are paid for by the workers.” If you think that sounds off, you’re right. As Reed College economist Kimberly Clausing wrote recently for the Washington Center for Equitable Growth (where I serve on the steering committee), the evidence suggests that the vast majority of corporate taxes is effectively paid by shareholders, not workers. To disguise this basic truth, the Treasury Department recently stripped from its website a study conducted in 2012 by career professionals in the department that attributed only 18 percent of the corporate tax burden to workers, a whopping 82 percent to shareholders.

To be clear, many middle-class taxpayers have significant investments in the stock market, and that’s a good thing. But their individual holdings pale in comparison with those of the wealthy, and so do any benefits they will get from a corporate tax cut.

So if the White House and Republicans believe a cut in corporate taxes is needed — say, to boost growth — they should sell it honestly. Don’t lie about who receives the direct benefits and don’t try to conceal the evidence.

Of course, even the growth argument is increasingly dubious. Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan administration official who had also worked for Jack Kemp, the original true believer in the Laffer Curve, wrote recently that even Kemp never claimed the kind of magical economic growth from cutting taxes that Mnuchin is claiming: “In reality, there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth.” Indeed, as Bartlett pointed out, most recent evidence points in the opposite direction — strong periods of gross domestic product growth have followed tax increases more than cuts.

Nor should Republicans lie again about what unpaid-for tax cuts will do to the deficit. Again Mnuchin: “Not only will this tax plan pay for itself, but it will pay down debt.” As you ponder how that claim could possibly be true, keep this in mind: An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that the George W. Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 will be responsible for 40 percent of our national debt by 2019.

At some point, the lies will fall apart and the bill will come due. And Republicans have made clear again and again this year who would pay the price. We’ve watched them try, unsuccessfully so far, to make deep cuts to Medicaid. Trump’s 2018 budget would also slash food assistance, education, biomedical research and a host of other important programs that help millions. These cuts would far outweigh any small benefits this bill might provide to working families. It might seem like Groundhog Day, but it’s no joke. Tax cuts for the wealthy will be paid for by cuts in programs affecting low- and middle-income families. But the joke will be on us if they can pass the bill by hiding the arithmetic.

Everyone, myself included, who actually cares, is getting so fatigued from the non-stop assault on the American people and the standards of life we had come to expect. I didn't sign up to be on a reality show, yet I keep wondering if there is a camera or two hidden in my house, because there is no way this crap can all be happening. Then I realize with horror, that it is all happening and will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. Sorry to be a downer, but I had to work overnight and am running on almost no sleep, so I'm more morose than usual. (and that's saying something!)

[Rachel333]

Here's the video of Trump saying he met with the president of the Virgin Islands.

 

[HeathenBlondie]

Orange fuckface pisses me off so much with his order on death insurance. He gives no shits about who he hurts because it's all about getting rid of everything good President Obama did while he was in office. How long will it be until the BTs are whining because they are losing their insurance because they can't afford it anymore?

9 hours ago, JMarie said:

But goshdarnit, he's going to require everyone to say Merry Christmas this holiday season!

He can kiss my ass! I'll be wishing everyone I see Happy Holidays or Happy Festivus just to spite him and the BTs. I usually say Happy Holidays anyway because I don't know what holiday someone celebrates in December or if they celebrate at all.

7 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Insert vomiting emoji here. I hate that orange fucker so much. Doesn't care who he hurts as long as Obama's legacy is erased. Wake me up when this nightmare is over.

The only thing keeping the last bit of sanity I have is knowing we'll never forget all of the good things President Obama did for us. TT will be remembered for erasing it and ruining our country. I just hope the next person who takes over can build us back to where we were in 2016.

[GreyhoundFan]

The last couple sentences of this article are so very true: "Trump just kneecapped the Iran nuclear deal. And he revealed his core weakness.'

Spoiler

Today, President Trump announced that the only way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to begin destroying the painstakingly negotiated agreement that is keeping them from getting nuclear weapons.

“History has shown that the longer we ignore a threat, the more dangerous that threat becomes,” Trump said, as though we had been ignoring Iran until now. “We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakout.”

So he’s going to withdraw his certification of their compliance, which means Congress now has to decide whether to reimpose sanctions. Congress will probably allow the deal to survive, with additional conditions. And Trump today said that, going forward, if he’s not satisfied, “the agreement will be terminated.”

And then what?

Or to put it another way: What exactly is Trump trying to accomplish? The answer may seem obvious, but it isn’t at all.

Presidents, we know, are supposed to have “vision,” a broad conception of where they want to lead the country. When they run, it’s often presented in vague terms; the closest Trump came as a candidate was promising that “We will have so much winning if I get elected that you may get bored with winning.” While in a sense “making America great again” was a kind of vision, presidents also need specific goals to guide their decision-making, a real conception of how they want things to turn out so that they can figure out the best way to get there.

Trump’s lack of those specific goals — or to put it another way, the lack of a defined end-state he’s trying to reach — may be one of his most underappreciated weaknesses as a president. Most people, even many in his own party, understand that he’s spectacularly uninformed about policy, not particularly bright and distressingly impulsive. But he also seems to have no idea where he’s trying to go, and we’re seeing it play out on multiple issues right now.

We’ll start with Iran. Ever since he was a candidate, Trump has complained that the nuclear agreement, which was negotiated not only between Iran and the United States but also with Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union, is a terrible deal, while seldom getting specific about what exactly he objects to in its provisions. We knew what President Barack Obama was trying to accomplish with the deal in the first place: an Iran that, whatever else it might be up to, couldn’t threaten anyone with nuclear weapons.

What’s Trump’s vision? An Iran that not only doesn’t have nuclear weapons but also is a force for peace and stability, and maybe a liberal democracy to boot? Well, that would be great. How is pulling out of the nuclear agreement going to get us there?

Trump seems to believe that there’s some mythical “better deal” awaiting somewhere, and if he threatens to withdraw from the agreement, then the Iranian government will fall to its knees and say, “We submit! We’ll do whatever you want!” But of course it won’t, and the other partners aren’t interested in starting the process all over again either. If we do pull out, there’s a chance the agreement could collapse and Iran would resume its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which is exactly the thing the agreement is preventing.

It would be edifying to hear Trump or some of his aides and allies explain exactly how this scenario is supposed to play out and where it’s supposed to end up. But if they tried to do that, it would become obvious how little they’ve thought it through.

We see a similar vacuum of vision on other issues. Trump has decided to go whole-hog to destroy the individual health insurance market, with executive orders that will drive up premiums, send insurers from the market and potentially lead to many people losing their coverage. And what exactly is the health-care future Trump is aiming for with these actions? It’s almost impossible to tell. He often talks as if he’s a social democrat wanting government to provide for everyone (“We’re going to have insurance for everybody”), but then moves to remove government protections and move us toward a cruel Randian future more in line what what most Republicans would like to see. Can anyone say they have any idea what health-care system Trump envisions, and how it relates to the decisions he’s making now?

I suppose it’s possible that Trump actually believes that the actions he has taken will give millions of people fantastic, inexpensive insurance. If that’s true, then someone has taken him for a ride — and that illustrates how his ignorance makes him easy prey for ideologues who do have a vision. A president with a better grasp on policy would have at least have a sense of what course is likely to produce success and which outcomes are reasonable to predict. Trump, on the other hand, is apparently willing to believe any ridiculous story somebody tells him, if it ends with “Trump wins!”

A case in point: Conservative economist Kevin Hassett, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, apparently told Trump that just one of the White House’s proposed tax changes — allowing corporations to repatriate cash they have parked overseas and pay low taxes on it — would be such a spectacular shot of adrenaline to the economy that it would make every American family $4,000 richer. Sane economists, both Democrat and Republican, will tell you that this notion is utterly ludicrous. But it sounds good to Trump, so he has been touting the number as proof of how great his tax cuts are going to be.

That’s hardly the only fantastical idea he’s spreading around about tax cuts. Last month The Post reported that “Trump told a group of Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday that the tax framework could lead the economy to grow more than 6 percent a year, more than double what even his advisers had hoped for and a rate that many economists say is preposterous.” Does he actually believe that? Or has someone with an ideological agenda convinced him that it’ll happen, and he didn’t bother to think it through? You could ask the same thing about issues such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, where Trump has a simplistic impulse (trade agreements are bad!) but no real conception of exactly what he’d like to change and how doing so would produce positive results.

Presidents don’t need to be policy geniuses, but at the very least they need a sense of how cause leads to effect and a vision of what they’re trying to accomplish. That way they can tell whether what they’re doing is likely to take the country to the place they want to go. Trump has neither, which means he’s either being pushed around by people who have figured out how to manipulate him for their own ideological ends, or he’s flopping about aimlessly with no principles to guide him except if Obama did it, I should do the opposite. Either way, it’s not very encouraging.

 

[Cartmann99]

Has anybody heard which golf resort Trump's staying at this weekend? @GrumpyGran reminded me the other day that he should be switching from Bedminister to Grift-a-Lago pretty soon. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

@Cartmann99 -- I haven't heard, but probably Bedminster, since I believe Mar-a-loco doesn't open until the end of October.

I love Dana Milbank: "The Holy Bible, according to Trump"

Spoiler

Seems Roy Moore, the Ten Commandments Judge and very likely the next U.S. senator from the state of Alabama, has been playing a bit fast and loose with the whole thou-shalt-not-bear-false-witness thing.

My Post colleagues Shawn Boburg and Robert O’Harrow Jr. reported this week that Moore, who claimed he did not take a “regular salary” from the Christian-values charity he founded, in fact received $180,000 a year — more than $1 million from 2007 to 2012 — in compensation, much of which the charity did not disclose.

Still, Moore is in better shape, in terms of biblical injunctions, than Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.), who is giving up his seat in Congress after admitting to an adulterous affair with a woman half his age. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that the married congressman, a member of the House Pro-Life Caucus, appeared to have asked his mistress to have an abortion.

Then there’s Steve Scalise, the House majority whip, coming up a bit short in the love-thy-neighbor category. After his shooting at a congressional baseball practice stunned the nation, he graciously praised Capitol Police special agent Crystal Griner — a lesbian who is married to a woman — and the other officer who saved his life as “heroes” and “part of our family.” But on Friday, Scalise was scheduled to speak at the Family Research Council, which proudly proclaims that “homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed.”

And, on the topic of double standards, let us not forget the president. During the Harvey Weinstein fallout, Donald Trump Jr. and Kellyanne Conway have gleefully attacked private-citizen Hillary Clinton for failing to denounce Weinstein more quickly than she did — even though they vigorously defended the elder Trump when he was found to have boasted of sexual assault.

Such behavior seems uncharitable, if not downright hypocritical. But maybe I am using the wrong standard. The Bible is, after all, foreign law; none of it was written in America. It would, therefore, be in order for President Trump to revise biblical law by executive order — much as he used one this week to dismantle Obamacare without an act of Congress. He could place a copy of the order, etched in a 2 ½ -ton stone monument, in the White House Entrance Hall.

Some proposed revisions:

In Luke 6:31, strike “as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise,” and substitute: “Do ye unto men as ye would like.”

In Mark 12:31, after the phrase “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” insert: “Thou shalt not interpret anything in Section 12:31 as applying to residents of Puerto Rico.”

In Matthew 5:5, after the phrase “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth,” insert the phrase: “The meek shalt not necessarily inherit health insurance.”

In Matthew 6:24, after the phrase “Ye cannot serve God and mammon,” insert: “But ye can hire private air charters and military aircraft at thine own discretion.”

In Exodus 20: 1-17, popularly known as “The Ten Commandments,” the following deletions, revisions and additions are to be made:

After the phrase, in 20:4, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” insert the language: “Exempt from the term ‘graven image’ will be: (a) Time magazine covers, actual or simulated; and, (b) life-size portraits of the president purchased at auction with charitable funds.”

The phrase, in Exodus 20:8-11, is hereby revised to state the following: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Acceptable remembrances of the sabbath include (a) any golf played in Bedminster, N.J., (hereafter referred to as The Land of Milk and Honey); (b) any golf played at Mar-a-Lago, Palm Beach, Fla. (hereafter referred to as the Garden of Eden).”

In Exodus 20:12, in the phrase “Honor thy father and thy mother,” insert: “Inasmuch as they hath given thee a very, very small loan of $14 million.”

In Exodus 20:13, after the phrase “Thou shalt not kill,” insert the following: “Thou mayest, however, totally destroy North Korea, which thou shalt accomplish by expanding thy nuclear arsenal tenfold.”

In Exodus 20:14, following the phrase “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” insert: “What thou has done with thine previous wives is thine own business.”

In Exodus 20:15, after the phrase “Thou shalt not steal,” insert: “Exempt from section 20:15 shall be ‘emoluments’ as defined in the U.S. Constitution.”

In Exodus 20:16, the phrase “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is to be amended with the following: “No Pinocchios, nor Pants-on-Fire, nor any other description of false witness by the Fake News Media shall be judged as evidence thou violated clause 20:16.”

In Exodus 20:17, after the phrase “Thou shalt not covet,” insert: “but thou canst grabbest whomsoever by whatsoever part, if thou art a star.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Before the 2016 election, I don't think I agreed with any of George Will's columns. That has certainly changed: "Sinister figures lurk around our careless president"

Spoiler

With eyes wide open, Mike Pence eagerly auditioned for the role as Donald Trump’s poodle. Now comfortably leashed, he deserves the degradations that he seems too sycophantic to recognize as such. He did Trump’s adolescent bidding with last Sunday’s preplanned virtue pageant of scripted indignation — his flight from the predictable sight of players kneeling during the national anthem at a football game. No unblinkered observer can still cling to the hope that Pence has the inclination, never mind the capacity, to restrain, never mind educate, the man who elevated him to his current glory. Pence is a reminder that no one can have sustained transactions with Trump without becoming too soiled for subsequent scrubbing.

A man who interviewed for the position Pence captured, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), is making amends for saying supportive things about Trump. In 2016, for example, he said he was “repulsed” by people trying to transform the Republican National Convention from a merely ratifying body into a deliberative body for the purpose of preventing what has come to pass. Until recently, Corker, an admirable man and talented legislator, has been, like many other people, prevented by his normality from fathoming Trump’s abnormality. Now Corker says what could have been said two years ago about Trump’s unfitness.

The axiom that “Hell is truth seen too late” is mistaken; damnation deservedly comes to those who tardily speak truth that has long been patent. Perhaps there shall be a bedraggled parade of repentant Republicans resembling those supine American communists who, after Stalin imposed totalitarianism, spawned the gulag, engineered the Ukraine famine, launched the Great Terror and orchestrated the show trials, were theatrically disillusioned by his collaboration with Hitler: You, sir, have gone too far.

Trump’s energy, unleavened by intellect and untethered to principle, serves only his sovereign instinct to pander to those who adore him as much as he does. Unshakably smitten, they are impervious to the Everest of evidence that he disdains them as a basket of gullibles. He understands that his unremitting coarseness satisfies their unpolitical agenda of smashing crockery, even though his self-indulgent floundering precludes fulfillment of the promises he flippantly made to assuage their sense of being disdained. He gives his gullibles not governance by tantrum, but tantrum as governance.

With Trump turning and turning in a widening gyre, his crusade to make America great again is increasingly dominated by people who explicitly repudiate America’s premises. The faux nationalists of the “alt-right” and their fellow travelers such as Stephen K. Bannon, although fixated on protecting the United States from imported goods, have imported the blood-and-soil ethno-tribalism that stains the continental European right. In “Answering the Alt-Right” in National Affairs quarterly, Ramon Lopez, a University of Chicago PhD candidate in political philosophy, demonstrates how Trump’s election has brought back to the public stage ideas that a post-Lincoln America had slowly but determinedly expunged. They were rejected because they are incompatible with an open society that takes its bearing from the Declaration of Independence’s doctrine of natural rights.

With their version of the identity politics practiced by progressives, alt-right theorists hold that the tribalism to which people are prone should not be transcended but celebrated. As Lopez explains, the alt-right sees society as inevitably “a zero-sum contest among fundamentally competing identity groups.” Hence the alt-right is explicitly an alternative to Lincoln’s affirmation of the Founders’ vision. They saw America as cohesive because of a shared creed. The alt-right must regard Lincoln as not merely mistaken but absurd in describing America as a creedal nation dedicated to a “proposition.” The alt-right insists that real nationhood requires cultural homogeneity rooted in durable ethnic identities. This is the alt-right’s alternative foundation for the nation Lincoln said was founded on the principle that all people are, by nature, equal.

Trump is, of course, innocent of this (or any other) systemic thinking. However, within the ambit of his vast, brutish carelessness are some people with sinister agendas and anti-constitutional impulses. Stephen Miller, Bannon’s White House residue and Trump’s enfant terrible, recently said that “in sending our [tax reform] proposal to the tax-writing committees, we will include instructions to ensure all low- and middle-income households are protected.” So, Congress will be instructed by Trump’s 32-year-old acolyte who also says the president’s national security powers “will not be questioned.” We await the response of congressional Republicans, who did so little to stop Trump’s ascent and then so much to normalize him.

 

[Howl]

Hubs was musing this morning that all the painful tragedies befalling our country, like hurricanes and wildfires, are an expressions of God's severe displeasure over the election of Trump.

[fraurosena]

7 minutes ago, Howl said:

Hubs was musing this morning that all the painful tragedies befalling our country, like hurricanes and wildfires, are an expressions of God's severe displeasure over the election of Trump.

If one believes in such a deity, it would certainly seem that way.  

Let's fervently hope that those that do so on fanatical evangelical knees, also see it as a sign of displeasure from on high and withdraw their support for the Maniacal Moron and his administration.

[Howl]

To clarify, it was said very much ironically. But the true-believer fundies really do believe he is a baby Christian, or he was put in office to further their agenda and sadly, I don't think their beliefs will change.  Trump made a few remarks in the last few day (probably leading up to the summit) about religious "freedom".  

That we will be stuck with some truly awful Supreme Court judges will only confirm that for a certain segment of our populace. 

[fraurosena]

46 minutes ago, Howl said:

But the true-believer fundies really do believe he is a baby Christian

Well, at least they got it half right... 

[victoriasponge]

One of my favourite British political commentators/comedians has been calling out Trump a lot lately. It's just a shame that Trump's fanbase is never going to see a *gasp* European(!) man calling them and their beliefs out.

This was his response to Vegas. And this week he also focused on his stupid pronunciation of Puerto Rico and getting rid of the free(?) pill for women. Needless to say, almost all Brits are universal in their dislike for Trump, it seems to cross our political boundaries. A couple of years ago, I had a dream to move to the US - see if I could transfer there on secondment like my Dad was offered. There's no way I want to do it in this climate though, he needs to go, for the sake of every decent American out there.

[kunoichi66]

22 hours ago, Destiny said:

That is the Orange Menace in the flesh. Asshole.

Mother of God.  I kind of want to buy shares in self-tanner right now.*

 

*Apologies to anyone I am offending.  Flippancy appears to be how I deal with stress, but if you want me to remove the joke, I will.

[Destiny]

Just now, kunoichi66 said:

Mother of God.  I kind of want to buy shares in self-tanner right now.*

Pretty sure it's spray tanning. You can sorta see the outline of the goggles around his eyes and everything. 

[kunoichi66]

3 minutes ago, Destiny said:

Pretty sure it's spray tanning. You can sorta see the outline of the goggles around his eyes and everything. 

really?  Maybe some shares in spray-tanning then...

[47of74]

19 hours ago, HeathenBlondie said:

He can kiss my ass! I'll be wishing everyone I see Happy Holidays or Happy Festivus just to spite him and the BTs. I usually say Happy Holidays anyway because I don't know what holiday someone celebrates in December or if they celebrate at all.

Personally I am religious and I do like celebrating the holidays, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I let fuck face or any Branch Trumpvidians to tell me how to worship and/or how to celebrate the holidays.  They can kiss my ass if they don't like my attitude.  

[GreyhoundFan]

How very true: "Trump governs by disruption — and overloads all the circuits"

Spoiler

Nine months into his first term, President Trump is perfecting a style of leadership commensurate with his campaign promise to disrupt business as usual in Washington. Call it governing by cattle prod.

It is a tactic borne of frustration and dissatisfaction. Its impact has been to overload the circuits of government — from Capitol Hill to the White House to the Pentagon to the State Department and beyond. In the face of his own unhappiness, the president is trying to raise the pain level wherever he can.

The permanent campaign has long been a staple of politics in this country, the idea that running for office never stops and that decisions are shaped by what will help one candidate or another, one party or another, win the next election.

President Trump has raised this to a high and at times destructive art. He cares about ratings, praise and success. Absent demonstrable achievements, he reverts to what worked during the campaign, which is to depend on his own instincts and to touch the hot buttons that roused his voters in 2016. As president, he has never tried seriously to reach beyond that base.

The past week was a perfect example of the Trump school of governing. Start with the end of the week. In rapid succession between late Thursday and midday Friday, he took steps to break the Affordable Care Act and then potentially end the Iran nuclear agreement.

These moves will earn him accolades from the people who supported his candidacy last year, which might be the principal objective. But neither action solved a problem. It will be left to others to do that, if they can. In a few hours, the nation and the world got a double dose of what Trump’s frustrations can mean in terms of their impact on important issues.

Those were only two of the moments that defined the president’s disruptive style of leadership in just one week. It was, after all, only a week ago that the president started a Twitter war with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). The tweets resulted in Corker firing off a snarky tweet in return and then bluntly calling out the president’s character and fitness in a New York Times interview in which he warned that the president’s recklessness could result in World War III.

It was also within that week that the president, with an assist from Vice President Pence, escalated and perhaps seized the advantage in his feud with professional football players who kneel during the national anthem. Amid outrage from his critics, Trump has managed to turn an issue that once was about police violence in minority communities into a cultural battle about patriotism, the flag and pride in the military. His critics are now on the defensive.

The week saw one other example of Trump’s governing by pique. Hours before the steps he took on health care, he lashed out again at critics of his handling of the hurricane cleanup in Puerto Rico, tweeting that he would cut back the federal response. Like many of his tweets, it is no doubt an idle threat, but one nonetheless designed to give a jolt of displeasure to the status quo.

Trump’s Twitter feed is an obsession, both for a president who finds release through 140-character blasts at opponents or enemies and for a media trained to jump at the moment the tweets light up smartphones. But his actions on health care and Iran were reminders that the most consequential steps are those in which he is attempting to reverse course on policies without a clear sense of a path to success.

There’s little doubt that part of the president’s motivation is to undo what former president Barack Obama did. He campaigned against Obamacare, although his prescriptions for what should replace it lacked consistency or, for that matter, clear alternatives. He railed against the Iran nuclear deal and now is trying to undo it despite the fact that all relevant parties say the Iranians are adhering to its terms.

Trump prefers to look past that history. He wants his supporters to believe that he is trying to fulfill his campaign promises in the face of resistance from entrenched powers. If it doesn’t get done, pin the blame on others. It’s still the president vs. the swamp.

The president asks much — of the Congress and of his own team. Congress is flailing, and now the president has added to the burdens on the backs of legislators. Lawmakers still must deal with funding the government and acting on the debt ceiling. Trump also wants a big tax bill, as do Republicans, and the work on that has been going on for months without any major action.

Beyond that, Trump has tossed the issue of the “dreamers” into the laps of lawmakers, with a clock ticking on action. He made a tentative deal with Democrats, but there is disagreement on the terms. So far there’s no sign of an accord. Now he has decided to force Congress to act on whether to fund the insurance subsidies that help lower-income Americans purchase health insurance. That’s another way he’s trying to bring the Democrats to the table, but the potential political costs to his party in 2018 could be significant.

The policy initiative aimed at Iran has some merit. The Obama administration tried to say that the nuclear agreement should be seen as a separate issue from other bad actions by the Iranians and that making the deal to block the Iranian path to nuclear weapons didn’t lessen concerns about the funding of terrorism and other activities.

Trump is trying to ratchet up attention to those problems but by threatening to walk away from the nuclear agreement has created a rift with U.S. partners to that pact that will necessarily complicate prospects for overall success.

But there is another element related to the Iran initiative that should not be overlooked, which is the danger of a nuclear confrontation with North Korea. That is a far more dangerous situation at the moment and one that requires constant attention from the president’s national security team. Foreign policy experts worry that by opening up a new confrontation with Iran, the administration may be stretching its capacity to handle both matters with the patience, skill and delicacy they require. Presidential tweets aimed at Kim Jong Un have not and probably will not resolve the North Korea standoff.

The president has proved himself capable and willing to start controversies and policy confrontations. That’s what being a disrupter is all about. But there is more to the presidency than initiating conflict, and on that measure, Trump has much to prove.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I hope this is true, but somehow, I can't imagine the BTs wavering in their support of the orange menace: "Trump’s not going to be able to avoid blame for kneecapping Obamacare"

Spoiler

Let’s set aside for the moment President Trump’s decision to end Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction payments (CSRs) to insurers, a system under which insurers are subsidized to help keep costs low for low-income insurance recipients.

Let’s also set aside the other ways in which the Trump administration has been deliberately undermining enrollment in the Obamacare marketplaces. We’ll set aside that the administration has slashed funding to outreach programs by as much as 92 percent, ended partnerships with state groups aimed at getting people enrolled, cut funding for advertising the enrollment period and even decided it would shut down the enrollment website for 12 hours a week for maintenance.

Let’s just pretend for a moment that none of this happened, since most of it hadn’t or hadn’t been reported in August, when the Kaiser Family Foundation polled Americans to ask their views on Obamacare-related issues. One of the questions was who should be considered responsible for the health law (formally known as the Affordable Care Act or ACA) moving forward.

Most Americans said that, given Republican control of the House and Senate and a Republican president, Trump and the Republicans were responsible for the law’s success or failure. That includes 7 in 10 Democrats, 6 in 10 independents — and even 40 percent of Republicans.

... < chart >

To put a fine point on it: Most Americans thought Trump and his party had ownership of the success of the health-care law even before the administration started undercutting the ACA.

Since the beginning of his administration, Trump has argued that Americans wouldn’t hold him responsible for any collapse of Obamacare. It was always an iffy proposition, given the control Republicans have had over policy development in the United States since Jan. 20. But it’s nothing short of baffling for Trump to apparently still believe this to be the case.

This tweet, posted on Friday morning, reads like a line from “Goodfellas” more than a statement from president acting in good faith to fix a problems with federal legislation.

... < tweet >

INTERIOR, BAMBOO LOUNGE

(Henry HILL smashes the bar with a baseball bat. The BARTENDER cowers as glass falls around him.)

HILL: Your bar is imploding. (He hands the BARTENDER a card.) You should call me to fix.

Part of this seems to stem from impatience. Trump, an avid consumer of conservative media, appears to have believed that Obamacare was near complete collapse, despite the Congressional Budget Office repeatedly noting that the marketplaces were stable as it evaluated Republican replacement bills. It’s like an Agatha Christie novel: A guy grows tired of waiting for his wealthy great aunt to expire and leave him her fortune, so he starts slipping strychnine into her tea.

And then gets more impatient and runs her over with a bus.

Kaiser Family Foundation polls on Obamacare-related issues every month. In September, as rumors were swirling that Trump might end CSR payments, KFF polled on it. Americans didn’t think they should be ended — including 40 percent of Republicans.

... < chart >

Update: On Friday, KFF released new data from its October polling. It found that 60 percent of respondents thought CSR payments should be guaranteed — a slightly lower percentage than in September. The percentage of Democrats who held that view was 82 percent; 38 percent of Republicans agreed.

(The CBO analyzed how ending CSRs would affect the marketplaces and the federal budget, by the way. Premiums would rise 20 percent by 2018 and 25 percent by 2020. The budget deficit would increase by $194 billion over the next 10 years.)

That poll also asked people what they wanted to see Congress address in terms of health-care legislation. Three-quarters of Americans said it was extremely or very important for Congress to reauthorize the children’s health insurance program (CHIP) and to stabilize — not undercut — the Obamacare marketplaces. Even 57 percent of Republicans thought stabilizing the marketplaces was very important.

... < chart >

Far fewer Americans thought tax reform was a priority.

In August, KFF asked Americans explicitly if Trump should try to push Obamacare toward failure or if he should try to make it work, even if it was repealed in the long run.

Three-quarters of Americans thought it should be made to work, including a majority of Republicans. Including, in fact, 51 percent of Trump supporters.

... < chart >

Update: The newly released KFF poll found that 71 percent of Americans still think Obamacare should be made to work, including a plurality — but not a majority — of Republicans.

Again, all of these poll results are from before the administration’s efforts to undercut Obamacare enrollment (and therefore to undercut the viability of the system for insurers) was in full swing. Four-in-10 Americans already thought Trump was hurting Obamacare enrollment, including most Democrats and 38 percent of independents.

... < chart >

Update: In the just-released October poll, these numbers were similar.

Trump seems to think that somehow he will not get the blame for his more explicit efforts to undercut the law over the past few weeks.

Or maybe, like that ne’er-do-well with his bus, he no longer cares.

 

[47of74]

I see a German soccer team stood up, or rather knelt, for their NFL brethren against fuck face

Quote

German football team Hertha Berlin have shown solidarity with sports stars in the United States by ‘taking a knee’ ahead of their Bundesliga match against Schalke on Saturday.

Just before kick-off, the starting XI lined up and linked arms, before taking a knee in similar fashion to a number of NFL stars in recent weeks.

The club’s coaching staff and substitutes also took a knee along the touchline, to the cheers of the crowd.

On Twitter, the club posted a short statement explaining why their players had made the gesture.