Your Once and Final Supreme Double Impeachee

[Dr Sardonicus]

"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall."

-- Donald J. Trump, speech announcing candidacy for President, June 16, 2015

"Very inexpensively" was estimated, last I heard, at around 25 billion dollars. Now, according to this March 27 WAPO story,

“Build WALL through M!” Trump recently wrote on Twitter. He retweeted those words Tuesday, noting that “our Military is again rich.” Two advisers said “M” stood for “military.”

What??? It doesn't stand for Mexico???

The president has suggested to Mattis that his department, instead of the Department of Homeland Security, could fund the construction, two Trump advisers said. But the military is not likely to fund the wall, according to White House and Defense Department officials.

The Pentagon has plenty of money, but reprogramming it for a wall would require votes in Congress that the president does not seem to have. Taking money from the 2018 budget for the wall would require an act of Congress, a senior Pentagon official said.

For all those who believed Il Duce would (or even could) get Mexico to pay for the wall, I have one word:

SUCKER!!!

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Yes, it is true that Il Duce is not being stopped, let alone held to account for his despoliation of everything that made the good ol' USA good. But IMO it does matter, because it is something that we, as a nation, and most of us as individuals, will be paying for dearly.

Re. "good" -- you mean like respect for its own constitution, an economy that works for everyone, a thriving middle class, a government of/by/for the people, and a respect for international law? Yep, it was Trump done destroyed all those! Toxic economic "free market" neoliberalism, mass-murderous imperial regime-change lawlessness in dozens of nations which refused to kiss the ring, a relentless rise in wealth inequality and destruction of hope for the economic bottom 90% - all that began in 2017.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Re. "good" -- you mean like respect for its own constitution, an economy that works for everyone, a thriving middle class, a government of/by/for the people, and a respect for international law? Yep, it was Trump done destroyed all those! Toxic economic "free market" neoliberalism, mass-murderous imperial regime-change lawlessness in dozens of nations which refused to kiss the ring, a relentless rise in wealth inequality and destruction of hope for the economic bottom 90% - all that began in 2017.

It is one thing to fall short of one's ideals, or those of one's country. It is quite another to abandon those ideals altogether. I would argue that, before the election of Il Duce, the good ol' USA was good because, even if it often fell short of its ideals, the country was just as often compelled to correct course, having been reminded that it was acting, as were the writers of the Declaration of Independence, "in the name of the good people of the United States of America." And as long as the good people of the United States of America aspired to this country's ideals, America lived. When they, in an act of despair, elected Il Duce as president, they abandoned the ideals on which this country was based.

[rogue]

I think you missed Ernst's satire. Trump is just continuing a tradition of "screwing the 90%" that started before he was president. He is just telling the 90% that they are screwed and that he doesn't care. The simple reason is that half of that 90% will support any conservative leader regardless of how corrupt/morally bankrupt they are. The other half of that 90% will support any liberal leader regardless of how corrupt/morally bankrupt they are.

Until the American people decide to choose candidates that are honest and have integrity rather than a questionable political ideology, nothing will change.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by rogue

I think you missed Ernst's satire. Trump is just continuing a tradition of "screwing the 90%" that started before he was president. He is just telling the 90% that they are screwed and that he doesn't care. The simple reason is that half of that 90% will support any conservative leader regardless of how corrupt/morally bankrupt they are. The other half of that 90% will support any liberal leader regardless of how corrupt/morally bankrupt they are.

Until the American people decide to choose candidates that are honest and have integrity rather than a questionable political ideology, nothing will change.

No, this is different. Even Nixon wasn't the unmitigated villain his detractors would have him be^*. Il Duce, however, being a narcissist, is an unmitigated villain.

^*A moment of RMN's presidency we can all be proud of, is his remarks here.

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

No, this is different. Even Nixon wasn't the unmitigated villain his detractors would have him be^*. Il Duce, however, being a narcissist, is an unmitigated villain.

^*A moment of RMN's presidency we can all be proud of, is his remarks here.

He was not defending Trump behaviors. I assume that he agrees that Trump is a terrible human being, but his statement was about the policies, not the person.

He was stating that the economic policies of this presidency are just the natural progression of the economic policies of the previous presidents.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by rogue

He was not defending Trump behaviors. I assume that he agrees that Trump is a terrible human being, but his statement was about the policies, not the person.

He was stating that the economic policies of this presidency are just the natural progression of the economic policies of the previous presidents.

+1!

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

No, this is different. Even Nixon wasn't the unmitigated villain his detractors would have him be^*. Il Duce, however, being a narcissist, is an unmitigated villain.

Oh, I dunno - while Trump is indubitably a disaster on most policy fronts, my point was that, while he fails to bother to disguise his villainy behind high-flown Big Lie verbiage (some folks might even term this a kind of "refreshingly honest villainy", as reflected in the nightly media hysterics and protests over things that were already in full swing under his predecessors), his actual policies are for the most part a direct continuation of those of said predecessors. Let's just look at the state of the big stuff under Obama:

o Neoliberal elite-looter-enriching economics? Check.
o Legal impunity for all the really big crime rackets? Check.
o Mass deportations? Check.
o Ever-expanding War on Terra and drone slaughter? Check.
o Ever-expanding mass domestic surveillance and abrigation of civil liberties? Check.
o Frack-it-till-it-bleeds environmental policies? Check. (Though Trump is undeniably worse in terms of environmental policy.)

And as far as your 'unmitigated' claim - he did refuse to sign the nasty piece of work that is the TPP (and its related fellow 'free trade' agreements TTIP and ISDS), and he's actually agreed to the crazy notion of talking to the North Koreans. While it's impossible to say how hopeful we should be on the latter front, which other recent president or party nominee ever raised that possibility? Trump's going after government-largesse-grifting owner of the WaPo also brought a "these two really deserve each other" smile to my face this week.

Your main objection as I see it seems to be one of "lack of decorum". I see decorous, establishment-approved villains like Obama and Hillary as being more dangerous precisely because they are so good at fooling most of the populace with their smiling-faced lies, and because their villainy gets a free pass from the MSM.

I would argue that, before the election of Il Duce, the good ol' USA was good because, even if it often fell short of its ideals, the country was just as often compelled to correct course, having been reminded that it was acting, as were the writers of the Declaration of Independence, "in the name of the good people of the United States of America." And as long as the good people of the United States of America aspired to this country's ideals, America lived. When they, in an act of despair, elected Il Duce as president, they abandoned the ideals on which this country was based.

I would argue that if you believe any that hifalutin claptrap, you are delusional.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

No, this is different. Even Nixon wasn't the unmitigated villain his detractors would have him be^*.

In my experience, having discussed this with a wide variety of people over the decades, is that opinions on Tricky Dicky depend strongly on whether the opinion holder is a US citizen or not.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that Nixon was a crook. Having accepted that, what else can be said about him? A good fraction of US citizens seem to believe that he was, if not the worst, in the top three worst ever presidents. (Here we have to discount the then current president and his predecessor because tribal loyalties are too strong for anything like an objective view.)

Of those in the rest of the world who express an opinion, views are more nuanced. For my part, there appears to be rather persuasive evidence that he and the good Doctor K. averted a nuclear war. The story goes that the NSA and CIA found good evidence that Soviet hawks in the military, in the ignorance of the Soviet government, were planning a pre-emptive strike against China while it was still possible for them to destroy the entire Chinese nuclear weapon systems. The CIA arranged for a study to be conducted on the outcome of such an attack, conclusions of which included that very significant amounts of radioactive contamination would occur throughout the northern hemisphere. The dosage that Moscow would receive would be somewhat lower than that of Washington but it would still cause serious consequences to human health. The report was sent to US embassies around the world in a code which the NSA knew that the USSR could read but which they believed that the Soviets didn't know that the US knew that it had been broken. At the same time, a US diplomat attended a formal dinner in Beijing where he accosted a Chinese government representative and said "we must talk". Everything else, including the table tennis games and the visit of RMN to China is widely known.

[kladner]

In a move that foreshadowed the Iran hostage dealings of the Reagan campaign, Nixon tried to "monkey wrench" the peace cease fire talks in Vietnam. His minions urged the South Vietnamese government to hold out agreement until after the election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/u...otes-show.html

Common Dreams August 12, 2014
George Will Confirms Nixon's Vietnam Treason
Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ietnam-treason

Richard Nixon was a traitor.
The new release of extended versions of Nixon's papers now confirms this long-standing belief, usually dismissed as a "conspiracy theory" by Republican conservatives. Now it has been substantiated by none other than right-wing columnist George Will.

Nixon's newly revealed records show for certain that in 1968, as a presidential candidate, he ordered Anna Chennault, his liaison to the South Vietnam government, to persuade them to refuse a cease-fire being brokered by President Lyndon Johnson.

Nixon's interference with these negotiations violated President John Adams's 1797 Logan Act, banning private citizens from intruding into official government negotiations with a foreign nation.

In the Price of Power (1983), Seymour Hersh revealed Henry Kissinger—then Johnson’s adviser on Vietnam peace talks—secretly alerted Nixon’s staff that a truce was imminent.

According to Hersh, Nixon “was able to get a series of messages to the Thieu government [of South Vietnam] making it clear that a Nixon presidency would have different views on peace negotiations.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668
LBJ called it treason, but that was about all he did about it.

By the time of the election in November 1968, LBJ had evidence Nixon had sabotaged the Vietnam war peace talks - or, as he put it, that Nixon was guilty of treason and had "blood on his hands".

Declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls provide a fresh insight into his world. Among the revelations - he planned a dramatic entry into the 1968 Democratic Convention to re-join the presidential race. And he caught Richard Nixon sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks... but said nothing.

After the Watergate scandal taught Richard Nixon the consequences of recording White House conversations none of his successors has dared to do it. But Nixon wasn't the first.

He got the idea from his predecessor Lyndon Johnson, who felt there was an obligation to allow historians to eventually eavesdrop on his presidency.

"They will provide history with the bark off," Johnson told his wife, Lady Bird.

The final batch of tapes released by the LBJ library covers 1968, and allows us to hear Johnson's private conversations as his Democratic Party tore itself apart over the question of Vietnam.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

In a move that foreshadowed the Iran hostage dealings of the Reagan campaign, Nixon tried to "monkey wrench" the peace cease fire talks in Vietnam. His minions urged the South Vietnamese government to hold out agreement until after the election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/u...otes-show.html

Common Dreams August 12, 2014
George Will Confirms Nixon's Vietnam Treason
Bob Fitrakis, Harvey Wasserman
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ietnam-treason
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668
LBJ called it treason, but that was about all he did about it.

This bit of Tricky Dick's trickery was included in Ken Burns' series "The Vietnam War" which aired last fall. Apparently, LBJ didn't reveal that he knew about it, because he didn't want to explain how he knew about it (namely, from illegal eavesdropping). The episode includes a phone conversation in which Nixon denies to LBJ that he knew anything about how reporters had found out about the prospect of peace ceasefire talks, and LBJ seemingly accepting the denial, even though he knew that Nixon was lying.