Donald Trump 2020

[4th&Five 41551]

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

He hit below Mendoza (the statistic and the Puerto Rican) in a third-rate athletic high school league against other bone-spur ridden doughy white kids.  
Trump?  Now there's just a 5-tool shooter with upper-division leagues written all over him.  
Even with donation help, you couldn't play Div. III with that unless you were some absolutely sick up-the-middle fielder with incredible speed and good eye to get on base.  
"I didn't hit much for power, or average, or at all.  But I could get walks.  I could get the best walks.  I would negotiate each pitch.  They'd come back and tell me it was a strike, and I'll let them know, or my dad would let them know, that these were not, uh...good pitches.  These were questionable pitches.  And I had a tremendous eye.  For women, for real estate, and for pitches.  I knew what to pass on.  And so I would, and I'd get the umpires to see it my way.  And so I'd get many walks.  Still hurt to head down to first with the bone spurs.  But I played through the pain, much like I do know with Fauci and Pelosi and others with functioning cerebral cortexes.  So you know, I was tremendous.  Probably not with the Yankees given all my other interests in New York, but certainly through uh Double-D ball.  I mean Double-A ball, the league not the breasts.  But I know breasts.  I have great breasts.  What were we talking about?  Oh yeah, me and baseball.  Look, I'm as American as Apple Pie and Baseball.  All three of us filled with crap in the middle and only made better by the Dominican Republic.  So in conclusion, baseball.  You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes you die in office.  Thank you."  

Nailed it.

[Bama Chick 28596]

You fucking guys don't get "moonface"?  
 
Of course, it's intended as a racist insult.  Conway's mom is from the Philippines.   "Big, moon, asian face".

I seriously had no idea that was a racist term.

And being from Alabama I thought I had heard them all.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

I seriously thought it just referred to Conway's fat face.

[gmr548 16580]

Good god.  It's crazy how we've forgotten the smartest shit he's done that would have sunk any other candidate or president in recent memory.

Fify.

[Zepol87 9186]

That fat piece of shit couldn't play in my sunday Mexican baseball league lol at professional teams.

[HenryJames 66052]

‪Should start calling his stupid fucking wall The Mendoza Line.‬

[TwiceHorn 31470]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

That Slate article is fucking hilarious in some sad ways.

 

[Mo Horn 8841]

The picture of empathy. 

[Jive Turkey 12598]

13 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

The picture of empathy. 

The picture of stupidity.  Simple Don.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Jive Turkey

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

Still weirds me out. 

[Radical Larry 28615]

It looks like a bag of cheetos exploded in his face.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

Or received a shart directly to the face

[Mapache 1117]

1 hour ago, Mo Horn said:

The picture of empathy. 

 

[gmr548 16580]

Still weirds me out. 

Ladies and gentlemen, a true alpha male.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

"Officers" is only ever used in the Constitution to refer to members of the executive branch.  They are people who are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate (only "inferior Officers" can be appointed in any other manner).  I think it's clear that (1) members of the legislative branch are not "Officers," (2) making members of the legislative branch "Officers" would violate separation of powers, and (3) including non-Officers (including members of the legislative branch) in the line of succession violates separation of powers and the Vacancy Clause.

So yeah--in the event of the death of Trump and Pence, I have no doubt that Pompeo would file a quo warranto suit directly with the Supreme Court.  And I have no doubt that he would win (although, I have to tell you, that Thomas vote would be a tough one with the original Presidential Succession Act going back to 1792).  And the Court would probably be right.

And yeah--it would be very bad for the Republic.

Bottom Line--maybe Congress shouldn't make unconstitutional laws.

I never thought I'd feel this, but it is good to see a neocon argument again.  And your argument here is a neocon one which came to the forefront in the early 2000s really, and like many neocon arguments, attempted to challenge 100 to 200 year old accepted truths about "founder intent."  Its still wrong, IMHO, but its wrong in the old (10 years ago feels a century ago) ways where people could have disagreements, but understand the other side.  So I truly am glad to see it.  You and I have been on the same page too often lately anyway, to be honest.

But, you're also wrong.  "Officers of the United States" is the phrase used to refer specifically to appointed members of the executive branch in the Constitution.  The word "Officer(s)" is used widely throughout the constitution, and refers to others besides those in the executive branch.

So first, let's look at Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6.  The clause in question here.

"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

I bolded "Officer", but as you can see, it is always followed in this clause by shall, and it is preceded by "what" and "such", neither of which are defining adjectives.  Its a standalone word in this clause.  On that, we can agree, right?

So lets see what the founders thought about the word "(O)fficers" specifically.  

1) Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:  "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;"

--Okay, really we could just end here, right? And come on LL, you know this is in the Constitution.  Your point (1) is entirely dead.  The Speaker is clearly an "Officer" as are the "other Officers" chosen by the House.

2) Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5: "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

-The Senate chooses "Officers" as well, but there is a tiny bit of leeway here for excluding the PPT.  Maybe.

So when we get to Article 2 is where you get stuck and why you're wrong:

3) Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

--This run on sentence clause is referring specifically to "Officers of the United States", not "Officers" of any type.  This phrase is used 3 times in the Constitution as you'll see below. 

4) Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

5) Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

--So, in fact, this term of art by which you want to define all "Officers" in the Constitution is actually used only 3 times in the Constitution and is specifically used when the founders wanted to refer to Executive appointments.

6) And this is before we get into "judicial Officers" which are also mentioned in the Constitution.

So, the founders had established a specific phrase for "executive appointed officers", but they chose not to use it in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6.  Instead, they used the broader term "Officers" which they also used to explicitly describe the Speaker, to implicitly describe the PPT, and to explicitly describe other "Officers" appointed by both the House and Senate as well as judicial Officers.  And also, not incidentally, that entire phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution at all until after 2-1-6, the clause in question.  No matter what, the founders clearly understood that there were "Officers" in all 3 branches of government, and they also specifically chose to not narrowly define the term in 2-1-6 to mean only Executive Officers.:

 

And that's not to say I don't think our current shitshow of a SCOTUS could rule wrongly.  I'd bet on a wrong ruling even.  Maybe not though.  They often surprise with real jurisprudence.

But you're better than that.  Look at the below, and think of all the rulings based on the below phrasing, and tell me you still think the founders just accidentally left out "of the United States" in 2-1-6.  

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your point (2):  Yes, the Speaker or PPT acting or "being" the President would necessarily need to resign from the House or Senate.

Your point(3):  See the rebuttal to point 1.  The Speaker is certainly a Constitutional Officer.  The PPT likely is too, but not explicitly so.

 

 

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

"Officers" is only ever used in the Constitution to refer to members of the executive branch. 

And really, knowing your posting history, I'd hire you to represent me before I hired myself, and still probably would, but this opening sentence is like Trump quoting a bible verse.  It is just facially wrong and easily proven wrong with the actual text of the Constitution.

But I know you didn't actually look it up.  We are both lawyers.  Neither of us are Constitutional lawyers.  I don't recall reading the Constitution straight through ever, and there is nothing in the curriculum of Con Law 1 or 2 regarding the definition of "Officers".  We live on "interpretation."  The Constitution for lawyers is like the bible for Christians.  Nobody reads it all the way through.  And the best priests and lawyers can't even quote their core text at all.  Even now, I just read the parts where Officers are mentioned or defined which just tells me you didn't do the same.  

So I'm asking you a favor.  Actually do the research and then give me your argument for your position.  It would be nice to have a constitutional law discussion on this board again.  Everyone knows Trump sucks ass.

Edited May 6, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4378]

52 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I never thought I'd feel this, but it is good to see a neocon argument again.  And your argument here is a neocon one which came to the forefront in the early 2000s really, and like many neocon arguments, attempted to challenge 100 to 200 year old accepted truths about "founder intent."  Its still wrong, IMHO, but its wrong in the old (10 years ago feels a century ago) ways where people could have disagreements, but understand the other side.  So I truly am glad to see it.  You and I have been on the same page too often lately anyway, to be honest.

But, you're also wrong.  "Officers of the United States" is the phrase used to refer specifically to appointed members of the executive branch in the Constitution.  The word "Officer(s)" is used widely throughout the constitution, and refers to others besides those in the executive branch.

So first, let's look at Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6.  The clause in question here.

"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."

I bolded "Officer", but as you can see, it is always followed in this clause by shall, and it is preceded by "what" and "such", neither of which are defining adjectives.  Its a standalone word in this clause.  On that, we can agree, right?

So lets see what the founders thought about the word "(O)fficers" specifically.  

1) Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:  "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers;"

--Okay, really we could just end here, right? And come on LL, you know this is in the Constitution.  Your point (1) is entirely dead.  The Speaker is clearly an "Officer" as are the "other Officers" chosen by the House.

2) Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5: "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

-The Senate chooses "Officers" as well, but there is a tiny bit of leeway here for excluding the PPT.  Maybe.

So when we get to Article 2 is where you get stuck and why you're wrong:

3) Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

--This run on sentence clause is referring specifically to "Officers of the United States", not "Officers" of any type.  This phrase is used 3 times in the Constitution as you'll see below. 

4) Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

5) Article 2, Section 4, Clause 1: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

--So, in fact, this term of art by which you want to define all "Officers" in the Constitution is actually used only 3 times in the Constitution and is specifically used when the founders wanted to refer to Executive appointments.

6) And this is before we get into "judicial Officers" which are also mentioned in the Constitution.

So, the founders had established a specific phrase for "executive appointed officers", but they chose not to use it in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6.  Instead, they used the broader term "Officers" which they also used to explicitly describe the Speaker, to implicitly describe the PPT, and to explicitly describe other "Officers" appointed by both the House and Senate as well as judicial Officers.  And also, not incidentally, that entire phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution at all until after 2-1-6, the clause in question.  No matter what, the founders clearly understood that there were "Officers" in all 3 branches of government, and they also specifically chose to not narrowly define the term in 2-1-6 to mean only Executive Officers.:

 

And that's not to say I don't think our current shitshow of a SCOTUS could rule wrongly.  I'd bet on a wrong ruling even.  Maybe not though.  They often surprise with real jurisprudence.

But you're better than that.  Look at the below, and think of all the rulings based on the below phrasing, and tell me you still think the founders just accidentally left out "of the United States" in 2-1-6.  

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Your point (2):  Yes, the Speaker or PPT acting or "being" the President would necessarily need to resign from the House or Senate.

Your point(3):  See the rebuttal to point 1.  The Speaker is certainly a Constitutional Officer.  The PPT likely is too, but not explicitly so.

 

 

 

And can't edit, but to add to:

2) Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5: "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Clause 4 says:

4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

--so the VP is Senate Officer 1 and the Senate shall choose other Officers in addition to him.  There's also a 2nd amendment level shitty comma in there that could confuse the extent of the PPT's power, but the fact that the Senate can and does choose Officers is plainly written. 

--But again, maybe the PPT isn't a Constitutional Officer even though the Speaker is.  That I could maybe agree with.  PPT seems to be implicitly excluded from VP or "other Officers" as written in this clause alone. 

So Pelosi then Pompeo.  

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[TornACL 7698]

12 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

That fat piece of shit couldn't play in my sunday Mexican baseball league lol at professional teams.

I am sure Fred Trump had some mafia, errr business contacts within MLB ownership ranks, and sweet talked some stupid team into sending a scout to look at his boy. 

The scout probably drank from a flask in the stands and drew a giant red x on the scouting report, but little Donnie could boast for the rest of his life that he had pro teams interested in him. 

Either that, or one time someone wore a Yankees hat in the stands, and he convinced himself that it was a very important scout there just for him. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I am sure Fred Trump had some mafia, errr business contacts within MLB ownership ranks, and sweet talked some stupid team into sending a scout to look at his boy. 

The scout probably drank from a flask in the stands and drew a giant red x on the scouting report, but little Donnie could boast for the rest of his life that he had pro teams interested in him. 

Either that, or one time someone wore a Yankees hat in the stands, and he convinced himself that it was a very important scout there just for him. 

I doubt his father would have bothered. Most likely Trump made it up on the fly and came to believe it himself as you stated. A fish tale, among the many that he cycles through.

It's not like there is a stolen valor for MLB rejects. Besides, bone spurs. That he can claim the MLB is less selective than the draft is interesting....

[Mo Horn 8841]

 

[Red Five 40858]

hahahaha

[Guest Lobo]

So the Impeachment Trial of 2020 caused us to go back in time and gut the advance overseas pandemic teams, the CDC budget, and IG oversight into several related agencies and foreign equivalencies?

So you're saying you have a time machine, Mr. President.  I defended you against juvenile comparisons to Biff from "Back to the Future", but if what you're suggesting is true...your hand in 2017-mid 2019 was forced by the events of late 2019-mid 2020...then you have to had access to the DeLorean.  The only question is how?  

 

 

"Tell me something 'Future Boy'...who's the President in the time you come from?"

"Donald Trump."

"Donald Trump?  The gameshow host?"  

[Tom 2959]

4 minutes ago, Lobo said:

"Tell me something 'Future Boy'...who's the President in the time you come from?"

"Donald Trump."

"Donald Trump?  The gameshow host?"  

 

"Then who's vice president?  Steve Harvey?  I suppose Ellen DeGeneres is first lady.  And Chris Hardwick is secretary of the treasury!"

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, Tom said:

 

"Then who's vice president?  Steve Harvey?  I suppose Ellen DeGeneres is first lady.  And Chris Hardwick is secretary of the treasury!"

Well done.  I forgot about that line.  I was trying to do it from memory and use imdb but shit, it's hard after not having seen that movie in 30 years.  

I remember he uses Jane Wyman because that's who Reagan was married to in 1955, but obviously not in 1985.  

I guess, "Then who's vice president?  A gay albino from Indiana?  I suppose a Slovenian nude model is First Lady.  And a thrice divorced Muppet is Secretary of the Treasury?"  

[Biff Tannen 45685]

36 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I defended you against juvenile comparisons to Biff from "Back to the Future",

Biff was a much more likeable villain than the dotard.

[DigglerontheHoof 21199]

45 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Biff was a much more likeable villain than the dotard.

And exponentially smarter. 

[TwiceHorn 31470]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

So the Impeachment Trial of 2020 caused us to go back in time and gut the advance overseas pandemic teams, the CDC budget, and IG oversight into several related agencies and foreign equivalencies?

So you're saying you have a time machine, Mr. President.  I defended you against juvenile comparisons to Biff from "Back to the Future", but if what you're suggesting is true...your hand in 2017-mid 2019 was forced by the events of late 2019-mid 2020...then you have to had access to the DeLorean.  The only question is how?  

 

 

"Tell me something 'Future Boy'...who's the President in the time you come from?"

"Donald Trump."

"Donald Trump?  The gameshow host?"  

More importantly, because the executive branch wholly declined to participate, and the outcome of the Senate trial was a foregone conclusion, how distracting could it have been?

It's not like he was anxiously awaiting his time to testify before the Senate.  Or the testimony of other witnesses or anything.

JFC.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

More importantly, because the executive branch wholly declined to participate, and the outcome of the Senate trial was a foregone conclusion, how distracting could it have been?

Well, I wouldn't say the executive branch WHOLLY declined to participate.  They did spend some time game-planning with Republican senators.

[tx 3 putt 76957]

Im waiting for this press release - dear leader shoots a 18 today, lowest round of golf ever !!!!!

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

I don't expect Donald Trump to be walking through our warehouses checking the inventory levels of our "bullets" or our "emergency management supplies". That's not his job, we all know this. What he should not have done was wipe out branches of career federal employees who's job it was to either oversee it or eliminate the department entirely because it was created by his predecessor. 

It is most likely he ignored the warnings that our inventory was either out of date or insufficiently stocked because it's not a hot button for him like his claim that the military was out of ammunition when he started office. Furthermore, if he wants us to believe that he is so busy and had so many things going on {cough, cough golf, rallies, and trips to his hotels and resorts) then maybe come November we need to look into hiring a CEO who can multitask.  

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

"Tell me something 'Future Boy'...who's the President in the time you come from?"

"Donald Trump."

"Donald Trump?  The reality TV star?"  

Fify. It wasn't a game show. 

[Nivek 16930]

Im waiting for this press release - dear leader shoots a 18 today, lowest round of golf ever !!!!!

17. Sometimes his balls fill 2 holes/GOP.

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

A new paint job that Mexico is going to pay for.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-border-wall-black-paint/2020/05/06/dbda8ae4-8eff-11ea-8df0-ee33c3f5b0d6_story.html

 

Quote

President Trump is once more pushing to have his border wall painted black, a design change that is projected to add at least $500 million in costs, according to government contracting estimates obtained by The Washington Post.

The president’s determination to have the steel bollards coated in black has fluctuated during the past several years, and military commanders and border officials believed as recently as last fall that they had finally talked him out of it. They consider the black paint unnecessary, costly and a significant long-term maintenance burden, and they left it out of the original U.S. Customs and Border Protection design specifications.

 

Quote

Trump has not let go of the idea, insisting that the dark color will enhance its forbidding appearance and leave the steel too hot to touch during summer months. During a border wall meeting at the White House last month amid the coronavirus pandemic, the president told senior adviser Jared Kushner and aides to move forward with the paint job and to seek out cost estimates, according to four administration officials with knowledge of the meeting.

 

Quote

“POTUS has changed his mind and now wants the fence painted. We are modifying contracts to add,” said one official involved in the construction effort who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired.

Trump, during that meeting, directed aides to seek input from North Dakota-based Fisher Sand and Gravel, a company the president favors. Fisher has a $400 million contract to build a section of new barrier in Arizona, an award that is under review by the Department of Defense inspector general.

 

Quote

The Post obtained a copy of painting estimates that federal contracting officials produced, and it shows costs ranging from $500 million for two coats of acrylic paint to more than $3 billion for a premium “powder coating” on the structure’s 30-foot steel bollards, the high end of the options the officials have identified.

The White House has not yet chosen a grade of paint, but Trump has insisted for years that the barrier should be black to discourage climbers. He has favored a shade known as “flat black” or “matte black” because of its heat-absorbent properties.

 

 

Quote

During the same White House meeting, Kushner expressed frustration at the pace of land acquisition in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, where the Trump administration is preparing to seize hundreds of parcels of private land from owners who have refused to sell.

Trump’s son-in-law, who is also at the center of the administration’s pandemic response, has been placed in charge of overseeing construction. He expressed frustration at this role during the meeting, telling others the wall was not his favorite project but that he is the only one who can get it done.

 

 

 

 

[4th&Five 41551]

also, this:

 

[TheStoicPaisano 9922]

They all think they’re The Chosen One.

[henrygandorf 29191]

17 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

while on its face, this is all stupid and totally expected, it's not surprising to me, even on the up-and-up, that a campaign manager for a presidential campaign would get rich.  it's a prized position, although you'd think some of the windfall would come after a win, not during the 3 year ramp-up.  but a florida house and a boat ($2-3mm total?) don't really move the needle for me.  if we start reading about g5's and private islands, maybe i'd bat an eye.

my question is - where did the rest of the $740mm+ even go?  and if they're spending that much money, why do they leave so many bills unpaid after events?  i can only assume trump has personally netted over $200mm from this, and i bet parscale isn't even the 2nd biggest beneficiary (ronna?).

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

while on its face, this is all stupid and totally expected, it's not surprising to me, even on the up-and-up, that a campaign manager for a presidential campaign would get rich.  it's a prized position, although you'd think some of the windfall would come after a win, not during the 3 year ramp-up.  but a florida house and a boat ($2-3mm total?) don't really move the needle for me.  if we start reading about g5's and private islands, maybe i'd bat an eye.

my question is - where did the rest of the $740mm+ even go?  and if they're spending that much money, why do they leave so many bills unpaid after events?  i can only assume trump has personally netted over $200mm from this, and i bet parscale isn't even the 2nd biggest beneficiary (ronna?).

How is it only 3 years?  I don't recall there being any break at all between the 2016 campaign and the 2020 one.  I figured they just changed the sign on the door on election day and kept on going.

I'm sure Trump is embezzling a significant portion of it, and probably also using it to illegally shelter other income from taxes.  Trump doesn't pay bills because he doesn't have to.  It isn't usually about whether he has the funds or not.  "The Art of the Deal" is entirely about sticking it to the other guy.  Venues and vendors make a huge mistake by providing services to Trump on credit.  Nobody should do any work for his companies or campaign unless they are paid in full up front.

Edited May 6, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

while on its face, this is all stupid and totally expected, it's not surprising to me, even on the up-and-up, that a campaign manager for a presidential campaign would get rich.  it's a prized position, although you'd think some of the windfall would come after a win, not during the 3 year ramp-up.  but a florida house and a boat ($2-3mm total?) don't really move the needle for me.  if we start reading about g5's and private islands, maybe i'd bat an eye.

my question is - where did the rest of the $740mm+ even go?  and if they're spending that much money, why do they leave so many bills unpaid after events?  i can only assume trump has personally netted over $200mm from this, and i bet parscale isn't even the 2nd biggest beneficiary (ronna?).

I couldn't care less what Parscale has pocketed as campaign manager; that's between him and Trump, since the GOP has been wholly subsumed into the Trump re-election campaign.  But, of note:

-Trump thinks it is his money, and seeing it spent in this manner (boats! houses! cars!) in the media with nothing to show for it poll-wise is going to leave a mark, and

-As noted earlier, they all look at Trump and think what the fuck, I'm going to get mine, too and

-They may figure this is their one shot at a payday, because if Trump loses, no future GOP contender is going to hire these fucking clowns.  

Edited May 6, 2020 by Francisco 2.0

[UpperWestside 6163]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That Slate article is fucking hilarious in some sad ways.

 

Definitely not a wannabe authoritarian. Authoritarians never make up stories about athletic achievements they never came close to accomplishing. 

I want to see a reporter ask him about this. They can set him up and ask him "Mr. President it was reported that you garnered interest from professional baseball teams coming out of high school. Is that true?" Let that idiot start rambling for a minute or so and then finish up with "It was also reported that you hit .138 and Keith Law,  a noted baseball writer and former front office MLB employee said you couldn't fucking hit and would have gotten zero interest from any colleges. Can you comment on that as well?" He would go off the freaking rails.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

15 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

Definitely not a wannabe authoritarian. Authoritarians never make up stories about athletic achievements they never came close to accomplishing. 

I want to see a reporter ask him about this. They can set him up and ask him "Mr. President it was reported that you garnered interest from professional baseball teams coming out of high school. Is that true?" Let that idiot start rambling for a minute or so and then finish up with "It was also reported that you hit .138 and Keith Law,  a noted baseball writer and former front office MLB employee said you couldn't fucking hit and would have gotten zero interest from any colleges. Can you comment on that as well?" He would go off the freaking rails.

The Keith Law bit might be hilarious, but the question about "garnered interest" falls right into the Trump trap.  That's a subjective thing that no one can define or prove happened or didn't happen.  Trump always destroys that shit to the satisfaction of his base because it can't be conclusively shown to be false.

Reporters need to take a course on cross-examination:  asking questions with only one possible truthful answer, the others being outrageous and easily proven lies; and concise questions without "preamble" so that he can't avoid answering the question by going off on a tangent provoked by the question.  They fail at that on the daily.

[henrygandorf 29191]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Keith Law bit might be hilarious, but the question about "garnered interest" falls right into the Trump trap.  That's a subjective thing that no one can define or prove happened or didn't happen.  Trump always destroys that shit to the satisfaction of his base because it can't be conclusively shown to be false.

Reporters need to take a course on cross-examination:  asking questions with only one possible truthful answer, the others being outrageous and easily proven lies; and concise questions without "preamble" so that he can't avoid answering the question by going off on a tangent provoked by the question.  They fail at that on the daily.

th - i assume you read that twitter thread about the questioning/answering during the briefings, and how the press needs to rethink the way they go about it, starting with their initial "premise statement".  curious to hear what litigators would have to say about it, as the piece read as a cross between journalism and trial law.

to your point, i would rather the reporters in the room get advice from attorneys over journalism professors.

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Francisco 2.0 32393]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-venezuela-trump-just-inspired-the-dumbest-coup-plot-in-latin-american-history-complete-with-a-qanon-crazy?ref=home

 

Quote

A small mercenary force led by former U.S. military personnel attempted to invade and conquer Venezuela over the weekend.

Headlines about the op have embarrassed Donald Trump’s U.S. administration even more than earlier failed efforts to oust the putrid dictatorship of Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro, and Trump is saying he had no hand in this thing, which might just be true.

But there’s no question the conspirators thought he’d be pleased, and pay cash, if they succeeded.

 

Quote

Just a few weeks ago, on March 26, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promised very big rewards for "information leading to the arrest and/or conviction" of the top people in a Venezuelan regime that the United States no longer recognizes: $15 million for Maduro himself, and $10 million each for four of his top officials, all charged by Washington with drug trafficking.

So, yeah, $55 million in rewards, that's a bit of an incentive for would-be Rambos.

 

Quote

In the old days, the CIA tried to back coups with secret funding, and then denied what it was doing if it got caught. The Trump administration appears to have tried something like that last year, and failed. So now, flailing, it's offering tens of millions of dollars—in public—but also hints and nudges to suggest there are big plots and plans afoot.

 

Spoiler

Thus Pompeo on Wednesday alluded to President Trump's remark that there was no U.S. Government direct involvement in this operation, then added, "If we had been involved, it would have gone differently." Of course. "As for who bankrolled it, we’re not prepared to share any more information about what we know took place. We’ll unpack that at an appropriate time. We’ll share that information that makes good sense."

Which is to say: We will continue to bullshit you until somebody gets the job done, we hope.

But these guys? These guys just weren't up to it.

They were a sea-borne assault group of about 60 men, with another 50 or so fifth-columnists already behind enemy lines, all hell bent on regime change. They were going up against the Venezuelan army’s 130,000 active duty soldiers and another 220,000 paramilitary loyalists.

It does sound almost like a late-period Stallone action vehicle, no? Some Hollywood fantasy of war-porn where the bad guys can’t shoot straight. But unfortunately for these poor coup-plotting bounty-hunting bastards, it was all too real. And the bad guys' aim was fatally good.

The attackers launched what they called “Operation Gideon” from neighboring Colombia after dividing their meager forces into two amphibious landing parties.

The first group was intercepted by Venezuela’s navy off that country’s Caribbean coast on Sunday. Those would-be liberators did manage to land a few fighters about 20 miles north of Caracas. But Maduro’s ground forces quickly subdued them and recaptured the beachhead. 

The second prong was rolled up on Monday, allegedly after a community of irate local fishermen surrounded it

Yes. Fishermen.

When the dust settled Maduro, a former bus driver who succeeded the late populist demagogue Hugo Chávez and has held on to power with the support of the Cuban intelligence services, went on state TV to brag that eight “professional American mercenaries” had been killed and 23 captured. These included two ex-Green Berets and a retired DEA agent. Maduro made a great show of holding up the captured men’s blue U.S. passports for the cameras. He also thanked the fishermen.

“The United States government is fully and completely involved in this defeated raid,” Maduro said, and went on to blame Colombia’s far-right President Iván Duque as well. 

Like Washington, Bogotá has denied any involvement in the attempted coup, but leaders in both capitals have called repeatedly for Maduro’s ouster—and there was that reward thing.

Meanwhile, Operation Gideon’s top two masterminds courageously remained Stateside throughout the botched invasion.

“I’ve tried to engage everybody I know at every level,” Jordan Goudreau, 43, an ex-Green Beret who had recruited and organized the expedition, told the Associated Press. “Nobody’s returning my calls. It’s a nightmare.”

Not, apparently, a nightmare to wake from anytime soon. The merc commanders in the U.S. informed the Miami Herald they were merely suspending activity temporarily, due to “leaks” and “infiltrators” in their force, which is largely made up of disgruntled Venezuelan exiles.

Javier Nieto, a former captain in Venezuela’s National Guard and Goudreau’s co-commander, offered a sitrep so understated that it might be comical, were his comrades in arms not dead or rotting in a Venezuelan prison:

“The operations will be halted given that a number of errors were made,” Nieto said.

Operation Gideon has been given ample coverage throughout the hemisphere and beyond. But most of it has tended to focus on who did what and when. Little has been written so far about the why and the how. 

As in why would trained military personnel believe that an invasion force of a few dozen fighters could topple the nation’s armed forces and "capture Maduro," as they stated their goal? How in God's name could they be so misguided? 

Of course, character is fate, as the old saying goes. So it might come as no surprise to learn that one of the captured ex-Green Berets, Airan Berry, appears to be a devotee of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which posits a "deep state" plot targeting President Trump.

Both Berry and the other captured American, Luke Denman, had worked as private contractors under Goudreau's Florida-based company, Silvercorp USA. Originally founded to provide "protection" against school shooters by embedding "counter-terror agents in schools disguised as teachers," Silvercorp eventually was tapped by President Trump's handlers to provide security for his rallies. 

Based on extensive photographic evidence compiled by Bellingcat, we know Goudreau himself was an earpiece-wearing security guy near the president during an October 2018 rally in Charlotte, N.C. And it's likely Silvercorp was tapped to safeguard Trump's assemblies in Houston and Pennsylvania that same year as well.

So what would impel red-blooded, MAGA-minded men like Goudreau, Denman, and Berry, to risk their lives emancipating an entire nation full of "bad hombres" south of the border? 

One suggestion experts have floated is that the amateur putsch was merely disguised, for the sake of good PR, to look like ragtag freedom fighters seeking liberty for an oppressed people—when in fact it was really motivated, as we've suggested, by good old-fashioned greed.

“Given his focus on capturing Maduro, it seems quite possible that Goudreau was motivated in part by the $15 million bounty on Maduro, as well as the bounties on other senior Venezuelan government officials,” Alex Main, Director of International Policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), told The Daily Beast.

Goudreau also claims to have a contract for $212 million signed by Venezuelan opposition leader, Trump ally, and self-declared “interim President” Juan Guaidó. The contracted funds—cited by Maduro in his address to the nation—ostensibly are earmarked for taking him down and installing Guaidó in the presidential palace.

According to Steve Ellner, an editor at the journal Latin American Perspectives, “Guaidó was at first on board with the plan but then grew wary of it, realizing it was doomed to failure.”

Ellner noted that, “After having undertaken several abortive and embarrassing attempts to overthrow Maduro with the support of Washington in 2019, [Guaidó] is now more cautious, having learned from those frustrating experiences."

According to CEPR’s Main, Goudreau and Nieto may have seen a successful incursion as a way to force Guaidó to honor his signed agreement.

“It's possible that Goudreau considered that he and his co-conspirators could still get monetary compensation [from Guiadó] for the operation if they succeeded in capturing Maduro and other senior officials,” Main said.

“FILIBUSTEROS”

Other observers blame simple gringo hubris. Not that hubris and greed are mutually exclusive.

The first half of the 19th century was full of North American adventurers who thought the manifest destiny of the United States should include the riches of the Caribbean and Central America. Freebooters or “filibusteros,” often working with local “freedom fighters” but supported by North America’s slave-owning interests, repeatedly tried to overthrow regimes.

One of the most famous interlopers, William Walker—subsequently lionized in the South as the "gray-eyed man of destiny"— actually did manage to take over Nicaragua for a while, but even his short-lived success was rare. More typical was an abortive effort to seize Cuba in 1851, when 40 North American adventurers were captured and summarily shot. 

Interventions, invasions, occupations and covert operations continued almost to the end of the 20th century. Again and again, right up through the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961, and the CIA-run Contra war in Nicaragua in the 1980s, U.S. politicians, adventurers and spooks harbored the fatal illusion that tiny groups could spark mass uprisings. All of which is familiar history in South America, and largely forgotten in the North.

“One of the greatest failures of U.S. policy is to view Latin America through imperial eyes, failing to see the reality on the ground,” says Miguel Tinker Salas, a professor of Venezuelan studies at Pomona College in California. “In Venezuela, as elsewhere, they rely on a handful of individuals that parrot U.S. policy.”

Some of that parroting might have misled Gideon’s modern-day William Walkers, those Rambos without a cause. Although Trump paints Maduro as a hated figure, and many middle and upper class Venezuelans oppose him, he remains popular with the impoverished lower classes, for whom he provides generous subsidies for food and fuel. Most military commanders have stayed loyal as well, despite concerted efforts by U.S. Republicans, Venezuelan opposition figures, and whatever clandestine operatives Washington has at work to sway them.

Venezuela remains one of the most troubled and unstable countries in the world, plagued by rampant corruption, skyrocketing inflation, and violent crime. Crippling sanctions imposed by Washington have only added to the chaos. Collapsing oil prices have made things even worse for a country that previously found solace in the fact it has the world’s biggest proven petroleum reserves. And, due to the already weakened health care system, medical experts say the country could soon see a coronavirus explosion of extraordinary proportions.

Yet the Yanqui-led liberation push still had no takers.

“The more radical elements of the Venezuelan opposition have since 2014 promoted the narrative that Maduro is teetering and only needs a push to fall,” said Tinker Salas. “As tragic as it may be, this is not the first time the U.S. is guilty of believing its own fabricated rhetoric.”

“IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE”

Operation Gideon comes on the heels of another, even bigger invasion force that retired Green Beret Goudreau tried to organize, but that fell apart.

Earlier this month, the AP reported that Goudreau—who allegedly first met opposition leader Guaidó through one of Trump’s bodyguards—had been running a series of paramilitary training camps in Colombia. The camps housed some 300 former Venezuelan soldiers who had deserted and fled across the border in protest against Maduro’s rule. 

Those trainees had also been intended to take part in a coup attempt, until Goudreau’s partner, exiled Venezuelan General Cliver Alcalá, was arrested on drug charges and extradited to the U.S. in March of this year. Shortly thereafter, Colombian officials nabbed a shipment of weapons and military gear worth about $150,000, after which the camps disbanded.

Yet for some reason, less than a week after news of the defunct training camps broke, Goudreau chose to launch Operation Gideon.

On Monday, Trump declared the failed attack “has nothing to do with our government.” And Defense Secretary Mark Esper said, “the United States government had nothing to do with what happened in Venezuela.”

So far, no direct evidence has surfaced that links either Bogotá or Washington to the training camps or Operation Gideon. But that doesn’t mean they’re not complicit in this fiasco. 

“It is impossible to imagine that the U.S. government did not have prior knowledge of the operation. U.S. intelligence closely follows developments along the Colombian-Venezuelan border where these individuals purportedly trained,” Tinker Salas said. 

For Salas, the use of irregular forces allows the U.S. to maintain “plausible deniability while hoping to reap any benefits that might have been derived from the operation.” 

Alex Main at CEPR agreed. “It is highly unlikely that the Colombian government, which maintains very close military ties to the U.S. government, wouldn't have been informed of [these] activities,” he said. He also pointed out that the Trump administration has a long track record of openly threatening regime change and military intervention against Maduro. 

“The U.S. government was probably directly aware of the ongoing plans to mount another armed attack from Colombia.” If either Trump or President Duque were concerned about that, Main said, “they could have intervened a long time ago.”

Ellner added that tactically savvy Green Berets would have been unlikely to undertake such a risky mission if they hadn’t believed at least tacit international support was behind them.

“Obviously Goudreau was confident that once the military incursion showed signs of viability, the rebels could count on the solid backing of Washington and Bogotá,” he said.

Whether it be for financial gain or political leverage, the obsession with violently displacing Maduro—no matter how controversial he might be—has led to “many missed opportunities to support national dialogue between divergent political forces,” Tinker Salas said.

“In the end, only a process of negotiation between Venezuelans themselves can set the stage to resolve the nation’s problems.”

But such sentiments are not likely to carry much weight with the Trumpistas.

 

[henrygandorf 29191]

this is from a few days ago, but if it was posted, i missed it.  michael lewis chimes in:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/02/michael-lewis-trump-is-like-a-psycho-dad-to-america

“It’s interesting to watch,” Lewis says, “because I think he’s figuring out in his reptilian brain that he actually has to solve a problem, rather than just let it all happen and then make up a story after the fact.”

The problem for Trump, whose speciality is presidential edict by tweet, is that he’s never had much respect for policy and planning. The degradation of federal planning and infrastructure is not a new development. It extends back to Ronald Reagan’s day, but Trump has rapidly accelerated the process. He is, says Lewis, “the last station on the Reagan Express”.

An illustrative example of his approach to government was his appointment of Rick Perry as the head of Department of Energy – a huge bureaucracy that, among other things, is responsible for nuclear weapons and waste. Perry’s main claim to relevance was that, as an unimpressive presidential candidate, he promised to close down the Department of Energy, without actually knowing what it did.

Trump also unsuccessfully sought to install Barry Myers, CEO of AccuWeather, as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the National Weather Service (NWS). At AccuWeather, which his family owns, Myers had lobbied to undermine the NWS.

“I don’t think it’s quite as cynical as Trump auctioning off the government to business interests,” cautions Lewis. “It‘s more that he had no interest whatsoever himself, paid no attention to it, and so he had no positive motivation to put the right people into the various positions. Who then comes rushing in? The people who have a financial interest.”

Such behaviour has led Lewis to conclude that Trump never expected to become president. The campaign was just a brand-building exercise. “He’s the dog who caught the car,” he says. But if that were the case, wouldn’t he welcome the release of electoral defeat in November?

“I’m guessing he’s worried about going to jail if he doesn’t control the White House,” Lewis says.

 

‘Trump is like a psycho dad to America’

The uncannily prescient author of Moneyball explains how Trump’s ‘appallingly bad’ handling of the coronavirus outbreak could finally undo him

Back in December, the bestselling author Michael Lewis was asked by the Observer what it would take for America to want a leader who understood the importance of scientific knowledge.

“I think a pandemic might do it.” he replied. “Something that could affect millions of people indiscriminately and from which you could not insulate yourself even if you were rich.”

Lewis has a long track record for spotting trends. He was ahead of the game in his 1989 debut book Liar’s Poker, which revealed the scandalous risk-taking practised on Wall Street. He went on to document the monomaniacal ambition of Silicon Valley (The New New Thing) and the fledgling business of sports analytics (Moneyball), but never has his cultural antenna tuned into the future with greater accuracy than that particular remark.

Michael Lewis: ‘Don’t bet against the US. It has an incredible capacity for self-reinvention’

Now that the coronavirus is here, Lewis has further predictions. He says that financial speculators will be looking to the White House for tips to exploit the economic crisis that the pandemic has unleashed.

“Given what we know about Trump and his network of cronies,” he says, “you just wonder how many of them are out there with some advanced notice of what he’s going to say, and are taking advantage of it.”

While he may not be overly concerned with the complexities of good governance, Trump has maintained a firm focus on a much more visible, if volatile, yardstick of success: the US stock market.

On 12 February, the main US stock indexes recorded all-time highs, and the president was a happy man. Less than two weeks later, as Wall Street realised the dimensions of the approaching pandemic, there was a spectacular crash, followed by a series of further reversals. Suddenly, Trump’s chief selling point looked as vulnerable as his hairdo.

But every stock market crash is an opportunity for the canny speculator. Lewis’s bestselling book, The Big Short, later turned into an Oscar-winning film, was a classic on the subject. It told the story of the hedge fund managers and traders who bet against the market leading up to the 2007-8 financial crisis. Now, says Lewis, such people will surely be studying Trump’s Twitter account.

“There are bound to be smart hedge funds or high-frequency traders who have figured out how to time the tweets and the market reactions. Trump has the ability to move sectors up and down by recommending a drug or saying that he’s solved the problem between the Saudis and the Russians, and the oil market’s going to recover.

“I keep waiting for the story that they found the guy or guys who are doing this,” he says.

For all Trump’s many missteps, the political impact of Covid-19 remains far from certain. The US leads the world with over a million cases and more than 60,000 deaths. But has it awoken the American public to their president’s methodical shortcomings? Or has it simply reinforced the ideological sectarianism that is a feature of a deeply divided country?

“It has been party politicised,” says Lewis, “but less successfully than anything else that’s come down the pike. You see friction between Trump and Republican governors. You see friction between Trump and Republican legislators. He should’ve had a big spike up in his poll numbers. Instead, he’s drifting down.”

Liberal critics have come to realise that challenging Trump often serves only to rally his supporters. But, in recent weeks, tactical circumspection has been completely abandoned. In a piece in the latest issue of The Atlantic, entitled We Are Living in a Failed State, the respected commentator George Packer writes: “The crisis demanded a response that was swift, rational and collective. The United States reacted instead like Pakistan or Belarus — like a country with shoddy infrastructure and a dysfunctional government whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering.”

‘I think Trump’s figuring out in his reptilian brain that he actually has to solve a problem.’

The nature of that shoddiness and dysfunction was the issue that Lewis explored in The Fifth Risk, his coruscating exposé of the depletion of US government agencies by the Trump administration. The book, published in 2018, sought to educate Americans in the many vital roles the much-pilloried federal bureaucracy performs – from maintaining nuclear waste to assembling the data for weather forecasts.

Nowhere was ignorance of these responsibilities quite as glaring as within the Trump camp when it walked into the White House. The presidential team had next to no interest in studying the outgoing Obama administration’s painstaking transition documents.

And ever since, Trump has displayed a barely concealed indifference to the government he is supposed to lead, either leaving key posts vacant or appointing ill-suited hangers-on or business people with obvious conflicts of interest to head up different departments, agencies and regulatory bodies.

It’s a laissez-faire attitude that has left him ill-prepared to mobilise a coordinated national response to Covid-19. Lewis rates Trump’s performance at the outset of the pandemic as “appallingly bad”, not least because he had already dismantled a programme called Predict that was designed to anticipate the movement of viruses around the world.

“But the big thing he did,” Lewis adds, “was to remove the pandemic response team from the White House. So he cost us time in the beginning, and time is lives. He cost us much more time than an ordinarily inept man would’ve cost us because, in addition to being inept, he dug his heels in and pretended for weeks that he wasn’t inept. And those weeks were expensive.”

Trump’s downplaying or outright denial of the Covid-19 threat is well-documented. From mid-January to mid-March, he seemed to view it as something that could be talked away, as though it would disappear through the sheer force of his bluster. Since then he has been forced by events to change tack. The strategic line, though, has been rather muddled: one moment he emphasises the need to support the lockdown, the next he encourages protesters to reject individual state restrictions.

“He should be speaking for the whole country and he’s not,” says Lewis, “but having said that, he hasn’t been as hostile to science as he might have been.”

By this, Lewis means that Trump has largely stood by Anthony Fauci, the key member of the White House coronavirus task force, whom Lewis calls “the most popular man in America”. The celebrated immunologist has certainly spearheaded a much-needed revival of expertise, but nonetheless Trump’s newfound support for science is not an obvious improvement on his previous hostility. After all, the cause of empirical research was hardly advanced by his suggestion that injecting disinfectant could be the answer to the pathogen.

Lewis concedes the point, yet sees signs that Trump, or those around him, are trying to scramble together a functioning operation to deal with the pandemic, if only because there is now no alternative.

“It’s interesting to watch,” Lewis says, “because I think he’s figuring out in his reptilian brain that he actually has to solve a problem, rather than just let it all happen and then make up a story after the fact.”

The problem for Trump, whose speciality is presidential edict by tweet, is that he’s never had much respect for policy and planning. The degradation of federal planning and infrastructure is not a new development. It extends back to Ronald Reagan’s day, but Trump has rapidly accelerated the process. He is, says Lewis, “the last station on the Reagan Express”.

An illustrative example of his approach to government was his appointment of Rick Perry as the head of Department of Energy – a huge bureaucracy that, among other things, is responsible for nuclear weapons and waste. Perry’s main claim to relevance was that, as an unimpressive presidential candidate, he promised to close down the Department of Energy, without actually knowing what it did.

Trump also unsuccessfully sought to install Barry Myers, CEO of AccuWeather, as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the National Weather Service (NWS). At AccuWeather, which his family owns, Myers had lobbied to undermine the NWS.

“I don’t think it’s quite as cynical as Trump auctioning off the government to business interests,” cautions Lewis. “It‘s more that he had no interest whatsoever himself, paid no attention to it, and so he had no positive motivation to put the right people into the various positions. Who then comes rushing in? The people who have a financial interest.”

The US reacted [to the pandemic] like a country whose leaders were too corrupt or stupid to head off mass suffering.

Such behaviour has led Lewis to conclude that Trump never expected to become president. The campaign was just a brand-building exercise. “He’s the dog who caught the car,” he says. But if that were the case, wouldn’t he welcome the release of electoral defeat in November?

“I’m guessing he’s worried about going to jail if he doesn’t control the White House,” Lewis says.

What’s clear is that Trump has confounded, not to say dumbfounded, many experienced observers. At the outset, the received wisdom was that the established processes of the American political system, and the sheer weight of responsibility, would force the maverick to conform to presidential expectations.

Not only has that not proven the case, but Trump has redefined the whole concept of presidential politics. The fact that no one knows what he’s going to do next, least of all his advisers, has become the means by which the White House operates.

“The model I have in my head right now for our society is the model of a family with kind of a psycho, alcoholic dad,” says Lewis. “It is the story of how the country compensated for its president, which is a really bizarre story to tell about an American crisis. If you go back in history, it’s usually a president who in some ways leads the response. In this case, he is being dragged along.”

But being forced in the direction he never wanted to go is not a role that a man of Trump’s outsized ego will readily accept. He knows that if he is to avoid being the Neville Chamberlain of the pandemic, he has to wrest control of the narrative.

To that end, he has directed fire at China (which does, indeed, have questions to answer) and dog-whistled the growing libertarian revolt. Ultimately, however, he will be judged on the numbers. Not of his favoured Dow Jones index – though that doesn’t look great at the moment – but of the death count of Americans.

As Lewis puts it: “If this pandemic does not wake Americans up to the importance of good government, then nothing will.”

Michael Lewis is the author of The Fifth Risk, published by Penguin. The new season of his Against the Rules podcast show launches on 5 May

[henrygandorf 29191]

why are all my quotes appearing inside my other quotes?

[Guest Lobo]

Speaking of Trump's newfound athletic prowess (weird that nobody on the planet can tell us his handicapped/average score for a round at Mar-a-Lago despite him having played a thousand rounds at the same course)...what was that movie where the young kid was talking about how badass he was at some sport and the dad just clamors at him, "Oh, so now you're an athlete" or maybe it was "Oh, suddenly you're an athlete?"  Something like that, basically the audio from a conversation between Trump and his dad in the 60's?  

Also, why is it you can't find out Trump's GPA, his tax returns, his credit facility records, his Deutsche Bank docs, his China banking docs, his fundraising records, or even a record of what the fuck he said last week?  But we suddenly have access to his high school baseball stats from the 1960's?  Anybody else find that weird?  I can't even find a record of my school existing in the 1990's.  

[henrygandorf 29191]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Trump doesn't pay bills because he doesn't have to.  It isn't usually about whether he has the funds or not.  "The Art of the Deal" is entirely about sticking it to the other guy.  Venues and vendors make a huge mistake by providing services to Trump on credit.  Nobody should do any work for his companies or campaign unless they are paid in full up front.

i've told this story before, but i was hanging out in the office of our in-house atty at my old old job, and he kept a dry-erase board up with a bunch of pending litigation and whatever - most of which were pissed off vendors.  i asked why there were so many, and he said that our boss's exact philosophy on the subject was, "if i owe 50 people money, we don't pay anyone.  they'll all complain, and they'll come after me, but if we can get away with only paying 48 or 49 out of 50, then that's a win."

really fun doing business with people who feel that way.

[Woland 733]

A new paint job that Mexico is going to pay for.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-border-wall-black-paint/2020/05/06/dbda8ae4-8eff-11ea-8df0-ee33c3f5b0d6_story.html
 

President Trump is once more pushing to have his border wall painted black, a design change that is projected to add at least $500 million in costs, according to government contracting estimates obtained by The Washington Post.
The president’s determination to have the steel bollards coated in black has fluctuated during the past several years, and military commanders and border officials believed as recently as last fall that they had finally talked him out of it. They consider the black paint unnecessary, costly and a significant long-term maintenance burden, and they left it out of the original U.S. Customs and Border Protection design specifications.

 

Trump has not let go of the idea, insisting that the dark color will enhance its forbidding appearance and leave the steel too hot to touch during summer months. During a border wall meeting at the White House last month amid the coronavirus pandemic, the president told senior adviser Jared Kushner and aides to move forward with the paint job and to seek out cost estimates, according to four administration officials with knowledge of the meeting.

 

“POTUS has changed his mind and now wants the fence painted. We are modifying contracts to add,” said one official involved in the construction effort who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of being fired.
Trump, during that meeting, directed aides to seek input from North Dakota-based Fisher Sand and Gravel, a company the president favors. Fisher has a $400 million contract to build a section of new barrier in Arizona, an award that is under review by the Department of Defense inspector general.

 

The Post obtained a copy of painting estimates that federal contracting officials produced, and it shows costs ranging from $500 million for two coats of acrylic paint to more than $3 billion for a premium “powder coating” on the structure’s 30-foot steel bollards, the high end of the options the officials have identified.
The White House has not yet chosen a grade of paint, but Trump has insisted for years that the barrier should be black to discourage climbers. He has favored a shade known as “flat black” or “matte black” because of its heat-absorbent properties.
 

 

During the same White House meeting, Kushner expressed frustration at the pace of land acquisition in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, where the Trump administration is preparing to seize hundreds of parcels of private land from owners who have refused to sell.
Trump’s son-in-law, who is also at the center of the administration’s pandemic response, has been placed in charge of overseeing construction. He expressed frustration at this role during the meeting, telling others the wall was not his favorite project but that he is the only one who can get it done.
 
 
 

 

[Biff Tannen 45685]

58 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

why are all my quotes appearing inside my other quotes?

because you touch yourself at night