Calandale's turn in the spotlight

[Calandale]

I dunno?
Many have been trying to say that everything is about to go bad and all I see is people don't agree with everything he does and the economy seems to be doing great, what do you see him doing that is really bad?

He's squandering what remains of our geo-political leadership position, among other things.

Most of the rest is stuff that any conservative would do.

What do you think he has done that is impeachable?

Violation of the emoluments clause, to begin with. That's pretty much right out there.


If obstruction of justice matters, he's admitted it already.


There's really no need for an investigation - except that impeachment is political,
and the Republicans are willing to keep him around, for whatever reason.


I somewhat assumed it was Ryan's plan - so that he can get enough evidence to take Pence down at the same time.
Not sure he's that clever though.

I would agree that Putin gets a win no matter which way the wind blows but how do you think he has played the game well with US?

Well, he has someone in place who seems to do his bidding. We're not taking down his puppets, nor opposing Russian expansionist
policies. Trump's actions are helping to degrade Nato and the other geo-political structures that Russia would like to see gone.

What are his cons as President (I personally am VERY suspicious of his promises on the Wall and on Immigration reform - I think that maybe regardless of his promises he sees these purely as negotiables - but that is me, what do YOU think)?

1. He's in Russia's pocket. And maybe other extra-national interests who control his sources of income.
2. He's further (and greatly) damaging the institutions which the US constructed over the 20th Century; steps which could well pave the way to an authoritarian take over. He sure didn't start that path though - that's got more to do with the polarization.


Outside of that, his policies align with the far-right in ways which I see as dangerous. But, a Ted Cruz would have done the same there.
I'm pretty sure a Sanders' presidency would have been as destabilizing to the center, and seem as threatening to banking interests
in a manner which would seem as dangerous to others. I'm not sure a moderate government is even possible (see damage to institutions)
in this era.

[Al Swearegen]

Again, I dunno?

"Violation of the emoluments clause" - This MAY be true. I know he is taking the sum of $1/year for his office but that his businesses are running. I understand his children are running them and I imagine that there is some trust or transfer of ownership in place but to be honest, I simply do not know. Nor does it appear does anyone else. People speculate and maybe they are right.

"If obstruction of justice matters, he's admitted it already." Except he hasn't. He got rid of Comey and it was COMPLETELY in his power to do so as Comey served under him. His comments and the optics were far from good BUT the investigations continued regardless. Not just with the special counsel and unabated.

"Well, he has someone in place who seems to do his bidding. We're not taking down his puppets, nor opposing Russian expansionist
policies. Trump's actions are helping to degrade Nato and the other geo-political structures that Russia would like to see gone."

Except, that Trump, whether right or wrong in his efforts to put America first and get other countries to pay their fair share and lessen the burden of cost on the US, is NOT a play for Putin even IF it benefits Putin. I reckon Putin would love it if every powerful country followed suit and squared off against their peers. It weakens any collective that may band against him BUT countries doing that whilst it may be better for them are not necessarily doing it on his say so nor with him in mind nor for his benefit.

"1. He's in Russia's pocket. And maybe other extra-national interests who control his sources of income."

How? 12 months and I have yet to see the collusion. It is a great talking point and for all I know may be true BUT I see no proof of this and it is a big claim without the proof needing to back it.

"2. He's further (and greatly) damaging the institutions which the US constructed over the 20th Century; steps which could well pave the way to an authoritarian take over. He sure didn't start that path though - that's got more to do with the polarization."

He is absolutely taking a sledgehammer to them. Why this is a good thing or a bad thing is up for question. My belief is that Arts, Media, Academia, Politics and virtually every facet of life has been moving further and further left politically and the Establishment is corrupt and becoming more and more so. When I say further and further left, I do not think it is Liberal. I think it is Progressivism and that is much further Left. I do not think that Trump is the answer to all ills but if he can inadvertantly or deliberately smash a few of these things and allow things to swing back to a more moderate Left position, I would consider it a good thing. I think if it does swing back it will not stop there and the Religious Right or some other for of Far Wing politics may come to the fore and that will be no better, but I do not think Progressivism is a viable option either.

[odeon]

I agree on everything but the moron part. He has a wileyness that enables him to be an effective con artist.
I wouldn't call someone with such a competency a moron, even if, like most con men, he is also easily taken in.

It's a question of nomenclature, then.

[Calandale]

Again, I dunno?

"Violation of the emoluments clause" - This MAY be true. I know he is taking the sum of $1/year for his office but that his businesses are running. I understand his children are running them and I imagine that there is some trust or transfer of ownership in place but to be honest, I simply do not know. Nor does it appear does anyone else. People speculate and maybe they are right.

Yes, you do know. Impeachment is a political process. It was left vague for a reason.
Pretty much anything (including his Twit-feed) could probably serve as an impeachable offense.

"If obstruction of justice matters, he's admitted it already." Except he hasn't. He got rid of Comey and it was COMPLETELY in his power to do so as Comey served under him. His comments and the optics were far from good BUT the investigations continued regardless. Not just with the special counsel and unabated.

Using powers of an office can certainly end up as a crime. But again, the question is Impeachable. Andrew Johnson was impeached
for what amounted to executive discretion, after all.

"Well, he has someone in place who seems to do his bidding. We're not taking down his puppets, nor opposing Russian expansionist
policies. Trump's actions are helping to degrade Nato and the other geo-political structures that Russia would like to see gone."

Except, that Trump, whether right or wrong in his efforts to put America first and get other countries to pay their fair share and lessen the burden of cost on the US, is NOT a play for Putin even IF it benefits Putin.

Opinion. There would be a cover. What we know is that there was unprecedented contact between the Trump campaign
and Russian government associates, unprecedented financial entanglements with Russian connections,  and that Trump is now performing
actions which greatly benefit Putin's aims. Circumstantial, but enough that no sane person would vote for Trump
if he hadn't been running against someone who had as many damning trails leading back to them.

"1. He's in Russia's pocket. And maybe other extra-national interests who control his sources of income."

How? 12 months and I have yet to see the collusion. It is a great talking point and for all I know may be true BUT I see no proof of this and it is a big claim without the proof needing to back it.

You ask what I see as the cons. Every scrap of circumstantial evidence I see appears to point to Trump long being on
Putin's payroll (since well before the election). Proof for this is as unnecessary as proof of his intentions toward the wall.

He is absolutely taking a sledgehammer to them. Why this is a good thing or a bad thing is up for question. My belief is that Arts, Media, Academia, Politics and virtually every facet of life has been moving further and further left politically

Really? Look at the (supposedly conservative) Nixon agenda. There was a huge swing to the right in the Reagan era, and it has
snowballed heavily. Obama managed to stand as something of a stopgap to it, temporarily. Now, I'll grant you, there was a
very large swing to the left, from FDR (or even Teddy) on - but that's what's being eaten into these days, not the spike of (supposed) liberalism
of the late 60's.

and the Establishment is corrupt and becoming more and more so.

That is the nature of government. But, the changes that we're seeing are further centralizing power in a manner which
is leading to a situation ripe for autocracy. There is no good way out of this - the best we can hope for is to soften the
fall.

I think if it does swing back it will not stop there and the Religious Right or some other for of Far Wing politics may come to the fore and that will be no better, but I do not think Progressivism is a viable option either.

The 20th Century was defined by such swings. So too, the 19th. At least in American politics. The early postwar period had the
advantage of an incredible economic position globally (which couldn't last without more big wars) and what amounted to a one-party
state, running under two names, Democrat and Republican. A time of growth and apparent stability.

[Calandale]

I agree on everything but the moron part. He has a wileyness that enables him to be an effective con artist.
I wouldn't call someone with such a competency a moron, even if, like most con men, he is also easily taken in.

It's a question of nomenclature, then.

Or fear of underestimating his ability to get what he wants.

[odeon]

I agree on everything but the moron part. He has a wileyness that enables him to be an effective con artist.
I wouldn't call someone with such a competency a moron, even if, like most con men, he is also easily taken in.

It's a question of nomenclature, then.

Or fear of underestimating his ability to get what he wants.

Not following you. Explain.

[Calandale]

I agree on everything but the moron part. He has a wileyness that enables him to be an effective con artist.
I wouldn't call someone with such a competency a moron, even if, like most con men, he is also easily taken in.

It's a question of nomenclature, then.

Or fear of underestimating his ability to get what he wants.

Not following you. Explain.

He shows certain capabilities which don't correspond with the buffoon image.


If people see him as just a moron, I fear they will not be vigilant.

[odeon]

Which capabilities, exactly?

[Calandale]

Manipulating his press coverage to cause lesser damage events to hide the bigger ones is an example.


Reading the pulse of the country well enough to understand that the institutions had been eroded enough
that he could actually pull of the election this time.


Putting enough of a squeeze on his party that they fall into line.

[Al Swearegen]

Manipulating his press coverage to cause lesser damage events to hide the bigger ones is an example.


Reading the pulse of the country well enough to understand that the institutions had been eroded enough
that he could actually pull of the election this time.


Putting enough of a squeeze on his party that they fall into line.

Also being smart enough to realise that admitting a mistake in today's climate is like blood in the water. Taking a backward step will turn momentum against you to keep you going in that direction and when you say "No" to Democrats, the sky does not fall down (the fear that has paralysed Republicans for years)

[odeon]

Manipulating his press coverage to cause lesser damage events to hide the bigger ones is an example.


Reading the pulse of the country well enough to understand that the institutions had been eroded enough
that he could actually pull of the election this time.


Putting enough of a squeeze on his party that they fall into line.

He isn't any good at #1. It's just that people are that stupid.

Wondering about #2 and thinking he got lucky.

As for #3, I don't think that is what happened. I think their other options turned to shit.

[Calandale]

Manipulating his press coverage to cause lesser damage events to hide the bigger ones is an example.


Reading the pulse of the country well enough to understand that the institutions had been eroded enough
that he could actually pull of the election this time.


Putting enough of a squeeze on his party that they fall into line.

He isn't any good at #1. It's just that people are that stupid.

They are - but he's better at taking advantage of it than he should be. He has a gift.

Wondering about #2 and thinking he got lucky.

Hard to believe, when he's considered his chances again and again, and didn't move forward previously.
It is possible that Putin was the motivating force this time though. He really wanted to get back at Clinton.

As for #3, I don't think that is what happened. I think their other options turned to shit.

They were put in a hard place. In previous times though, parties have not been so thoroughly suborned.


You can chalk it all down to luck - and do the same with any genius. The magic in play is that he's
been able to capitalize on things that no one could have predicted as working. Underestimating him
is precisely how we got into this situation; to defeat him, an understanding of his strengths has
to be fully developed.

[odeon]

I honestly don't know. Every time I spot what I think is calculation on his part, he follows it up with something incredibly stupid. If it's a gift, it's the weirdest gift ever.

[rock hound]

Surprisingly, I am actually agreeing with colondull's evaluation of trumpolini!  Though I despise the messenger, his message is heard!  Oh well, back to the shadows I go! 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

How many submarines did Germany have at the start of WW II in Sept 1939??