How Trump decides what’s true

Jan 4th, 2017 11:19 am | By

One for the Strange Bedfellows file: Trump and Assange.

President-elect Donald Trump has backed Wikileaks founder Julian Assange in casting doubt on intelligence alleging Russian meddling in the US election.

Mr Assange said Russia was not the source for the site’s mass leak of emails from the Democratic Party.

Mr Trump has now backed that view in a tweet. He wrote: “Assange… said Russians did not give him the info!”

The president-elect has repeatedly refused to accept the conclusions of the US intelligence community.

Based on what? Nothing. Just his wishes. He doesn’t want it to be the case that Russia hacked DNC emails and helped sabotage Clinton, therefore he asserts that it’s not the case. He is Important, and the truth is not, therefore he gets to assert whatever he chooses to assert as truth, because he is The Big Dog, and the big dog is always right.

On Tuesday evening, Mr Trump said an intelligence briefing he was due to receive on the issue had been delayed.

“Perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!” he wrote.

But US intelligence officials insisted there had been no delay in the briefing schedule.

Liar liar liar liar liar liar. Trump is such a liar.



Category mistake

Jan 3rd, 2017 5:04 pm | By

Today in Trump Stupid on Twitter:

The Democrat Governor.of Minnesota said “The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is no longer affordable!” – And, it is lousy healthcare.

Democratic Governor. Democrat is the noun, Democratic is the adjective.

But that’s not the stupid. The stupid is “And, it is lousy healthcare.” It’s not healthcare at all you imbecile! It’s a system for distributing and financing healthcare, it’s not healthcare itself. College loans are not “lousy education” because they’re not education at all, they’re a (bad) system for distributing and financing higher education.

Plus of course there’s the fact that health care was not affordable before the ACA and it won’t be affordable after Trump and the Republicans trash it.

Other than that, right on the money.



Not just for pizza

Jan 3rd, 2017 3:33 pm | By

Also good: the kelp forest.

10 Facts You Didn’t Know About Sea Life Before Visiting the Monterey Bay Aquarium

Also, the anchovies:

Northern anchovy

They open their heads like that as they swim.



Sea Nettles

Jan 3rd, 2017 3:16 pm | By

I’m on the Monterey Peninsula for my job, and I was given a guest pass to the Aquarium, so I went there. I see why people say good things about it.

This for instance held me rapt:



Mr Exxon

Jan 3rd, 2017 10:28 am | By

Speaking of corruption, conflicts of interest, ethics, plutocrats – the Times reported a couple of weeks ago on how that whole tangle is slowing down the vetting of Trump’s cabinet o’ billionaires.

Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sent letters to the top ethics officials at 17 government agencies, asking if they had been in touch with officials of the Trump transition, whether they had received financial disclosure statements, and whether any Trump pick “refused to provide any information that you believe is necessary to conduct a conflicts analysis as required by law.”

“Given the large and complex financial holdings and boundless, serious potential for conflicts of interest,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in an email, “these nominees need to turn over all relevant financial and background information so that senators can thoroughly review their record before going forward with any hearings.”

Several of Mr. Trump’s cabinet picks would be among the wealthiest public servants in modern history. That alone presents a significant financial-vetting challenge to Senate Republicans, who hope to begin confirmation hearings in a few weeks. Mr. Trump’s selection process — begun, unlike that of most predecessors, after his election rather than before — may have added to the challenge of moving quickly now.

“They need to step on the gas and get it done,” said Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who served as chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush. “They need to tell the Senate what they are going to do with their assets.”

Many Republicans seem wedded to the idea that rich=good and very rich=super-good, and that that’s pretty much all there is to it. Trump himself is far more wedded to that idea than he’s ever been to any mere woman.

Cabinet nominees undergo rigorous background checks by the F.B.I. and the Office of Government Ethics, as well as a complicated process involving the agencies they are nominated to run. This is to ensure that nominees have no financial conflicts of interest or outstanding tax matters that could later expose them to criminal prosecution.

If they have lots of $ that can take weeks or even months.

Many of Mr. Trump’s nominees come with a complex web of financial interests and investments. They include Mr. Tillerson; Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner picked to head the Treasury; the billionaire investor Wilbur L. Ross Jr., chosen as commerce secretary; and Betsy DeVos, the president-elect’s choice to run the Department of Education.

Lawmakers have already raised questions about Mr. Tillerson’s seeming reluctance to turn over his personal financial information. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has tentatively set Jan. 11 for the start of Mr. Tillerson’s confirmation hearing.

In keeping with longstanding committee precedent, it has not asked Mr. Tillerson to provide his tax returns, Senator Corker said. “By all accounts, Mr. Tillerson is currently ahead of schedule in providing information to the committee,” he added. “He already has submitted a completed nominee questionnaire and will soon submit an extensive financial disclosure.”

But Mr. Cardin voiced the fears of some Democrats that Mr. Tillerson and other nominees — and Republican committee chairmen — may take their cues from Mr. Trump’s unusual decision not to release his own tax returns.

“I think it is an important part of vetting this candidate because he has never made public disclosures of this type, as he has worked at Exxon Mobil for his entire career and has never been in public service,” Mr. Cardin wrote on Thursday in a letter to committee Democrats. “Mr. Tillerson was actively engaged with many foreign governments that could become relevant if confirmed as secretary of state. The Senate has a responsibility to review all relevant documents during the confirmation process.”

Nothing has changed since then. The Democrats want Tillerson to show his tax returns, the Republicans say no he doesn’t have to. Mr Exxon will be running the State Department.



Republicans say: never mind

Jan 3rd, 2017 9:40 am | By

For now, that is.

The news broke 15 minutes ago that

House Republican leaders have pulled a proposal that would gut its independent ethics panel, amid widespread criticism of the plan, multiple lawmakers tell CNN.

Even Trump objected – except what he objected to was the timing, the prioritization, not the substance.

Trump called out his fellow Republicans Tuesday for proposing to curb the powers of the independent ethics panel as their first move of the year, although the President-elect suggested the ethics panel was “unfair.”

“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it … may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS,” Trump said over two consecutive tweets.

And then, once that’s all done, they can go ahead and get rid of independent ethics oversight.

House Republicans voted 119-74 during a closed-door meeting in favor of Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s proposal, which would place the independent Office of Congressional Ethics under the control of those very lawmakers, a move that outraged Democrats and outside ethics organizations. The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on it as part of a larger rules package up for consideration Tuesday.

Ryan defended the proposed changes, marking the first high-profile break with Trump of the new year.

“After eight years of operation, many members believe the Office of Congressional Ethics is in need of reform to protect due process and ensure it is operating according to its stated mission,” Ryan said in a statement after Trump’s tweets. “I want to make clear that this House will hold its members to the highest ethical standards and the Office will continue to operate independently to provide public accountability to Congress.”

He can “make it clear” all he wants, but that’s not the same as making it true. This House has not always held its members to the highest ethical standards, to put it mildly, and there’s no reason to think it’s going to start now – on the contrary, there’s a lot of reason to think the opposite, given the jaw-dropping level of blithe corruption in the form of conflicts of interest in the new administration. In short no, Paul Ryan, we’re not going to trust you.

Outside ethics group point to the ethics panel as the only real entity policing members and argue its independent status and bipartisan board are an appropriate way to oversee investigations.

“Gutting the independent ethics office is exactly the wrong way to start a new Congress,” said Chris Carson, spokesperson for League of Women Voters, in a statement. “This opens the door for special interest corruption just as the new Congress considers taxes and major infrastructure spending.”

Norman Eisen and Richard Painter, of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit watchdog group, said the ethics office “has played a critical role in seeing that the congressional ethics process is no longer viewed as merely a means to sweep problems under the rug.”

“If the 115th Congress begins with rules amendments undermining (the ethics office), it is setting itself up to be dogged by scandals and ethics issues for years and is returning the House to dark days when ethics violations were rampant and far too often tolerated,” they said in a Monday night statement.

Stay tuned.



Self-cleaning swamp

Jan 3rd, 2017 9:10 am | By

It’s a useful symbol, if nothing else – the surprise vote by House Republicans to kill the independent ethics office that oversees…Congress. No stinkin’ ethics for them! It’s helpful of them to make it so very clear.

The surprising vote came on the eve of the start of a new session of Congress, where emboldened Republicans are ready to push an ambitious agenda on everything from health care to infrastructure, issues that will be the subject of intense lobbying from corporate interests. The House Republicans’ move would take away both power and independence from an investigative body, and give lawmakers more control over internal inquiries.

It also came on the eve of a historic shift in power in Washington, where Republicans control both houses of Congress and where a wealthy businessman with myriad potential conflicts of interest is preparing to move into the White House.

We have an openly pro-corruption government. Cool.

In place of the office, Republicans would create a new Office of Congressional Complaint Review that would report to the House Ethics Committee, which has been accused of ignoring credible allegations of wrongdoing by lawmakers.

See, the thing about the Office of Congressional Ethics is that it was independent – it wasn’t an insider office. The House Ethics Committee is an insider office. Congress wants to go back to policing its own self, with all the obvious conflicts of interest that entails. The fox voted to restore supervision of the chicken house to the fox.

“Poor way to begin draining the swamp,” Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, said on Twitter. He added, “Swamp wins with help of @SpeakerRyan, @RepGoodlatte.”

Mr. Goodlatte defended the action in a statement on Monday evening, saying it would strengthen ethics oversight in the House while also giving lawmakers better protections against what some of them have called overzealous efforts by the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Well yes, naturally, letting Congress oversee its own ethics would naturally give members of Congress “better protections” – with the result that they could get away with more corruption.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, joined others who had worked to create the office in expressing outrage at the move and the secretive way it was orchestrated.

“Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp,’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House G.O.P. has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Ms. Pelosi said in a statement on Monday night. “Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”

Let’s have more and better corruption.

The body was created after a string of serious ethical issues starting a decade ago, including bribery allegations against Representatives Duke Cunningham, Republican of California; William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana; and Bob Ney, Republican of Ohio. All three were ultimately convicted and served time in jail.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, which is overseen by a six-member outside board, does not have subpoena power. But it has its own staff of investigators who spend weeks conducting confidential interviews and collecting documents based on complaints they receive from the public, or news media reports, before issuing findings that detail any possible violation of federal rules or laws. The board then votes on whether to refer the matter to the full House Ethics Committee, which conducts its own review.

But the House Ethics Committee, even if it dismisses the potential ethics violation as unfounded, is required to release the Office of Congressional Ethics report detailing the alleged wrongdoing, creating a deterrent to such questionable behavior by lawmakers.

Under the new arrangement, the Office of Congressional Complaint Review could not take anonymous complaints, and all of its investigations would be overseen by the House Ethics Committee itself, which is made up of lawmakers who answer to their own party.

The Office of Congressional Complaint Review would also have special rules to “better safeguard the exercise of due process rights of both subject and witness,” Mr. Goodlatte said. The provision most likely reflects complaints by certain lawmakers that the ethics office’s staff investigations were at times too aggressive, an allegation that watchdog groups dismissed as evidence that lawmakers were just trying to protect themselves.

The whole system is already notoriously corrupt, because bribery in the form of campaign donations is entrenched. Investigations should be aggressive.

By moving all of the authority to the House Ethics Committee, several ethics lawyers said, the House risks becoming far too protective of members accused of wrongdoing.

Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”



On the eve of destruction

Jan 2nd, 2017 4:32 pm | By

The Republicans are getting all their ducks in a row for their big project of destroying everything now that they have the chance.

For six years, since they took back the House of Representatives, Republicans have added to a pile of legislation that moldered outside the White House. In their thwarted agenda, financial regulations were to be unspooled. Business taxes were to be slashed. Planned Parenthood would be stripped of federal funds. The ­Affordable Care Act was teed up for repeal — dozens of times.

When the 115th Congress begins this week, with Republicans firmly in charge of the House and Senate, much of that legislation will form the basis of the most ambitious conservative policy agenda since the 1920s. And rather than a Democratic president standing in the way, a soon-to-be-inaugurated Donald Trump seems ready to sign much of it into law.

Please, tell us again how it’s all the fault of the coastal elite liberals in their bubble of disdain for the white working class. Tell us again how these people seized power by being so much more attuned to the working class than the left is.

This year’s agenda from House and Senate Republicans has clarity that was often lacking from Trump’s own campaign. Senate Republicans favor using a procedure known as “budget reconciliation,” in which measures can be passed with a simple 51-vote majority rather than a filibuster-proof 60 votes, to tackle the ACA and to undo much of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform.

As part of undoing the financial overhaul law, some GOP leaders have begun planning strategies for how to effectively kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whether by giving Congress control over its budget or finding cause to replace its director, Richard Cordray, with a weaker board.

It’s so elitist to think consumers should have protection, isn’t it? The democratic, populist, people-loving thing to do is let corporations make and market whatever they like however they like, and respect us enough to assume we can tell when they’re cheating or poisoning or shortchanging or overcharging us without any help from the government.

GOP leaders have cited the 21-year old Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to cast simple majority votes of disapproval for regulations, as a way to block anything the administration has ordered since June 2016.

Since its passage, the CRA has been used only once. But in December, the conservative House Freedom Caucus began compiling a list of more than 200 regulations it views as vulnerable to a disapproval vote. They include “burdensome” school lunch standards, tobacco regulations, laws that set higher wages for contractors and elements of the Paris climate-change agreement.

“Talking to some individuals with the Trump transition team, they are taking this extremely serious[ly],” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the Freedom Caucus, told the Heritage Foundation last month.

Republicans intend to supplement the CRA by enacting a law that would subject any regulation with an economic impact greater than $100 million to a vote of Congress, a change that would have prevented nearly every climate or employment rule change of the Obama years. The measure, called the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or Reins, is a conservative priority that passed the Republican House in 2011, 2013 and 2015 with backing from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republican aides now hope for a vote on Reins in the coming days so it can be sent for Trump’s signature immediately after he is sworn in on Jan. 20.

Great. Make it so that profit is the only criterion for everything, and let the fun begin.



Becoming a stan

Jan 2nd, 2017 12:27 pm | By

Paul Krugman on Trump the strongman:

In 2015 the city of Ashgabat, the capital of Turkmenistan, was graced with a new public monument: a giant gold-plated sculpture portraying the country’s president on horseback. This may strike you as a bit excessive. But cults of personality are actually the norm in the “stans,” the Central Asian countries that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union, all of which are ruled by strongmen who surround themselves with tiny cliques of wealthy crony capitalists.

Americans used to find the antics of these regimes, with their tinpot dictators, funny. But who’s laughing now?

We are, after all, about to hand over power to a man who has spent his whole adult life trying to build a cult of personality around himself; remember, his “charitable” foundation spent a lot of money buying a six-foot portrait of its founder. Meanwhile, one look at his Twitter account is enough to show that victory has done nothing to slake his thirst for ego gratification. So we can expect lots of self-aggrandizement once he’s in office. I don’t think it will go as far as gold-plated statues, but really, who knows?

It already has gone that far, and beyond – all these Trump Towers cluttering up the planet are gigantic gold-plated statues. His current business is a matter of being paid millions by gullible developers for the use of his name on their buildings – his name is his only contribution, and they pay him millions for it. Can you get much more self-aggrandizing than that?

I know that many people are still trying to convince themselves that the incoming administration will govern normally, despite the obviously undemocratic instincts of the new commander in chief and the questionable legitimacy of the process that brought him to power. Some Trump apologistshave even taken to declaring that we needn’t worry about corruption from the incoming clique, because rich men don’t need more money. Seriously.

But let’s get real. Everything we know suggests that we’re entering an era of epic corruption and contempt for the rule of law, with no restraint whatsoever.

How could this happen in a nation that has long prided itself as a role model for democracies everywhere?

Several ways, no doubt, but without The Apprentice, it probably wouldn’t have happened.



He’s got a plan

Jan 2nd, 2017 11:42 am | By

The Wall Street Journal tells us that Trump’s childish blurts on Twitter are actually all part of his cunning plan.

In fact, there seem to be specific objectives behind many of Mr. Trump’s seemingly scattershot missives and comments. Often, say those who know him, he is posturing or positioning in pursuit of broader goals. He doesn’t mind roiling the waters in the process—and, as a consequence, some of what he says isn’t to be taken literally.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who speaks regularly with Mr. Trump and is developing a lecture series and book examining Trumpism, suggests the president-elect is in this regard similar to Franklin Roosevelt, who sometimes seemed to cultivate chaos in preparing the ground for his initiatives. Mr. Gingrich also predicts the style won’t change:  “My advice is to relax. It’s going to be this way for eight years.”

In other words…he’s being an asshole on purpose. Well no kidding, but he’s still being an asshole, and there are still a lot of compelling reasons to think that’s not a good thing for him to do.

He’s doing it as part of his deal-making strategy, Gerald Seib goes on. He’s doing it to set the agenda. He’s doing it to distract everyone – oh look, a squirrel.

Certainly there is danger in leaving the world unsure which messages to take literally, and in trying to handle subjects as sensitive as nuclear-weapons strategy on the fly. But it’s also likely Mr. Trump knows exactly what he is doing.

Again: no kidding, and that is not the issue. The issue is that the way he’s carrying on is degrading to the whole fucking country, and the fact that he may be doing it for reasons does nothing to change that. The casual acknowledgement followed by dismissal of the danger of tweeting about nukes is enough to demonstrate that.



Trump is easily distracted by shiny objects

Jan 2nd, 2017 11:18 am | By

Again, the Times says Trump lies, in a headline:

Why Corporations Are Helping Donald Trump Lie About Jobs

The byline is The Editorial Board, so it’s not just one writer, it’s basically the whole outfit.

President-elect Donald Trump would like everybody to believe that his election is energizing the economy by forcing businesses to create thousands of jobs in the United States. And companies like Sprint seem perfectly happy to go along with this fiction because they know they can profit handsomely by cozying up to Mr. Trump.

They point to his lie about the 5000 Sprint jobs, and add:

In sum, Mr. Trump’s statement was hot air, just like his tweet in which he thanked himself for an increase in a consumer confidence index last month.

Lie, fiction, hot air.

It’s easy to see why SoftBank and Sprint might want to help Mr. Trump take credit for creating jobs.

It’s because he’s anti-regulation, including anti-trust regulation that would hinder their plans.

This is crony capitalism, with potentially devastating consequences. If Mr. Trump appoints people to the antitrust division and the F.C.C. who are willing to wave through a Sprint/T-Mobile merger, he will do lasting damage to the economy that far outweighs any benefit from 5,000 jobs, jobs that might have been created even without the merger. Individuals and businesses will find wireless service costs a lot more when they have only Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile/Sprint to choose from.

Also mergers cause huge job losses, not gains.

It has become abundantly clear that Mr. Trump is easily distracted by shiny objects, especially if they reflect back on him. He’s more interested in boasting about how he personally saved a thousand jobs at Carrier, say, than in policy details that could make a difference in the lives of tens of millions of workers. Never mind that Carrier is only keeping about 800 jobs and that its chief executive said that the company would get rid of some of those anyway through automation. This should greatly worry Americans, especially people who are counting on Mr. Trump to revive the economy and help the middle class.

They’re calling him stupid as well as a liar, as they must, because he so obviously is.



Upside the head

Jan 1st, 2017 5:46 pm | By

stop tweeting, batman slapping trump



Have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way

Jan 1st, 2017 3:39 pm | By

Trump is skeptical about the Russian hacking. He wants good evidence before he accepts the claims.

Speaking to a handful of reporters outside his Palm Beach, Fla., club, Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump cast his declarations of doubt as an effort to seek the truth.

I see what the NY Times did there. They said he’s bullshitting.

“I just want them to be sure because it’s a pretty serious charge,” Mr. Trump said of the intelligence agencies. “If you look at the weapons of mass destruction, that was a disaster, and they were wrong,” he added, referring to intelligence cited by the George W. Bush administration to support its march to war in 2003. “So I want them to be sure,” the president-elect said. “I think it’s unfair if they don’t know.”

He added: “And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”

Ah there’s Donnie from Queens – “I know something you don’t know, nananananana.”

It’s still bullshit, too. Of course he knows things “other people don’t know” but they probably aren’t things to do with the Russian hacking, since he’s been refusing to take his daily intelligence briefings. He knows a great deal less than he should know, as we can see every time he opens his mouth.

When asked what he knew that others did not, Mr. Trump demurred, saying only, “You’ll find out on Tuesday or Wednesday.”

Spoken like a child. As always.

Then he gave us some important advice.

Mr. Trump, who does not use email, also advised people to avoid computers when dealing with delicate material. “It’s very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way, because I’ll tell you what, no computer is safe,” Mr. Trump said.

“I don’t care what they say, no computer is safe,” he added. “I have a boy who’s 10 years old; he can do anything with a computer. You want something to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier.”

Because a courier is way more secure than any stinkin’ computer. Call up Supreme Systems – several outlets near Trump Tower – and give the courier they send your top secret shit and you’re golden. There is no conceivable way a courier can be made unsafe, unlike a computer.

I can’t wait to see him start negotiating with North Korea.



He’s amazed

Jan 1st, 2017 11:34 am | By

The Woodward-Costa interview with Trump last April, part 2.

Woodward asks the great pussygrabber for his thoughts on why Lincoln succeeded. He doesn’t say what he means by “succeed” and of course Trump doesn’t ask.

But he does answer.

DT: Well, I think Lincoln succeeded for numerous reasons. He was a man who was of great intelligence, which most presidents would be. But he was a man of great intelligence, but he was also a man that did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time. Ten years before or 20 years before, what he was doing would never have even been thought possible. So he did something that was a very important thing to do, and especially at that time. And Nixon failed, I think to a certain extent, because of his personality. You know? It was just that personality. Very severe, very exclusive. In other words, people couldn’t come in. And people didn’t like him. I mean, people didn’t like him.

The mind reels. The mind fucking reels. He sounds like a fifth grader answering an exam question when he hasn’t done the homework. “…he was also a man that did something that was a very vital thing to do at that time.” That’s what you say when you know nothing whatever about the subject.

After that Woodward gets very pointed. He points out that Nixon wasn’t just disliked, he was a criminal. He did serial criminal acts.

BW: And time and time again, break in, get the FBI on this, get the IRS on.

DT: Sure. Sure.

BW: I mean, it is an appalling legacy of criminality.

DT: Right.

BW: And at the end, the day he resigned, an amazing day, he gives that speech which is kind of free association about mom and dad.

DT:    Right.

BW: He’s sweating. And then he said, “Always remember: Others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” The piston was hate.

DT: Well, and he was actually talking very much about himself, because ultimately, ultimately, that is what destroyed him. Hate is what destroyed him. And such an interesting figure. I mean, you would know that better than anybody. But such an interesting figure. And such a man of great talent. I mean, Nixon had great potential, great talent. Unfortunately it was a very sad legacy in the end. It turned out to be a very sad legacy. Such an interesting figure to study. I think. . . .

BW: Do you take any lessons from that? Because what did is he converted the presidency to an instrument of personal revenge.

BAM.

President Pussygrabber is doing that already, and he’s not even president yet.

BW: You’re my enemy, I’m going to get you. I’m going to get so-and-so on you.

DT:  Yeah. No, I don’t. I don’t see that. What I do see is — what I am amazed at is, I’m somebody that gets along with people. And sometimes I’ll notice, I’ll be, I have the biggest crowds. Actually we’ve purposefully kept the crowds down this past week. You know, we’ve gone into small venues and we’re turning away thousands and thousands of people, which I hate, but we didn’t want to have the protest. You know, when you have a room of 2,000 people, you can pretty much keep it without the protesters. When you have 21 or 25,000 people coming in, people can start standing up and screaming. What has been amazing to me — I’m a very inclusive person. I actually am somebody that gets along with people. And yet from a political standpoint, although I certainly have a lot of fans — you just said hello to Senator Sessions. Cruz and everybody wanted Senator Sessions as much as they’ve wanted anybody, and he’s a highly respected guy, great guy. And we have some— and he endorsed me. We have some amazing endorsements, some amazing people, but I’m amazed at the level of animosity toward me by some people. I’m amazed.

RC: But you’re going to have to overcome that, Mr. Trump, if you’re going to be the nominee and the president.

DT:  I think you may be right. I think you may be right.

Oh god oh god oh god.



Only thought process

Jan 1st, 2017 10:52 am | By

Going back to the roots of the catastrophe. Last April Bob Woodward and Robert Costa interviewed Trump. They asked him when the dream was born. He indicated that the earliest hint was perhaps while Romney was campaigning against Obama. He thought Romney was weak – very, very weak.

I thought that — I thought Obama was very beatable. Very, very beatable. You know, you had a president who was not doing well, to put it nicely. And I looked at that very seriously. I had some difficulty because I was doing some big jobs that were finishing up, which I wanted to do. My children were younger. And four years makes a big difference. And I also had a signed contract to do “The Apprentice” with NBC. Which in all fairness, you know, sounds like — when you’re talking about “president” it doesn’t sound much, but when you have a two-hour show, prime time, every once a week on a major network . . .  .

Certainly. It’s a tough choice. When you star on a quality show like The Apprentice, that’s stiff competition…if you think of the presidency as a chance to get more celebrity and money, and nothing else.

So, Woodward asks, when did the presidency win? It’s a big decision.

BW: This is the big one.

DT:  Big decision. Yeah, this is a big decision. And I say, sometimes I’ll say it in the speeches. It takes guts to run for president, especially if you’re not a politician, you’ve never . . .  .

BW: When did it become yes?

In other words, don’t go off on a tangent on how gutsy you are, answer the fucking question.

DT: What happened is, during that time that I was just talking about, I started saying I’d like to do it, but I wasn’t really in a position to do it. I was doing a lot of things, and I had a signed contract with NBC. But I started thinking about it. And the press started putting me in polls, and I was winning in the polls. In fact, the day before, I was on “Meet the Press” the day before I announced I wasn’t going to do it, and I got signed for another two years of “The Apprentice” and everything else. Which, by the way, I don’t know if you saw, but “The Apprentice” is a big thing. I made two hundred . . .  .

BW: You made a lot of money.

DT: Yeah. You were shocked. Remember this crazy man, Lawrence O’Donnell — he’s a total crazy nut — he said, Donald Trump only made a million dollars with “The Apprentice.” I said, “A million dollars?” You know, when you have a show that’s essentially number one almost every time it goes on, you can name it. . . . So anyway, when they added it all up — and these are certified numbers, because you have to do certified numbers — it came out to $213 million. Okay? That’s what I made on “The Apprentice.” That’s just — and that’s one of my small things. That’s what I made. You know? So it was put at $213 million, and it was certified. And your friend Joe in the morning said, “There’s no way he only made. . . .” They had a big fight, and O’Donnell, Lawrence O’Donnell started crying. I never saw anything like it. Do you remember? He started crying. [Laughter] He actually started crying. But that shows the level of hatred that people have. But what happened is, I made — I had a very, very successful show. And they put me in polls, and I was essentially leading right at the top, without doing any work. Not one speech, not one anything. But any time I was in a poll, I did very well in the poll.

And there you have it. We owe the fact that this stupid, ignorant, conceited, cruel, lying, cheating fraud of a man is president and could trigger a global nuclear apocalypse the next time he loses his temper to an idiotic television show. Donald Fucking Trump is president because of The Apprentice.

Neil Postman wrote a book called Amusing Ourselves to Death. He didn’t mean it this literally.

Trump then describes what he calls his thought process.

RC: What happened between 2011 and 2014?

DT: Well, that’s what — I mean. . . . Between 2011 and 2014? I would say, just thought process. Only thought process.

HOPE HICKS: A lot of deals.

DT:  Yeah, I mean, I was doing — but in terms of this, only thought process. So what happened, but during this period of time, I said, you know, this is something I really would like to do. I think I’d do it really well. Obviously the public seems to like me, because without any . . .  .

Why? Why did he think he would do it really well? It’s an utterly ridiculous thing to think, so why did he think it? High name recognition is not a reason.

Eventually he decided. Did the family object? Oh sure.

BW: Did anyone recommend no? Did your wife, or did your son?

DT: Oh. Yeah.

BW: Did anyone say, “Dad, Donald, don’t do it?”

DT: I think my wife would much have preferred that I didn’t do it. She’s a very private person. She was a very, very successful — very, very successful model. She made a tremendous amount of money and had great success and dealt at the . . .  .

BW: What’d she say?

DT: She was, she said, we have such a great life. “Why do you want to do this?” She was . . .  .

BW: And what’d you say?

DT: I said, “I sort of have to do it, I think. I really have to do it.” Because it’s something I’d be — I could do such a great job. I really wanted to give something back. I don’t want to act overly generous, but I really wanted to give something back.

BW: Well, that’s the important moment, when you say, I have to do it.

DT:  Yeah, I had to.

BW: That’s the product of the endless internal dialogue.

DT: Well, she’s a very private person, and very smart person. I’m sure you’ve seen a couple of interviews that she’s done. She’s very smart. And there’s no games. You know, it’s boom, it’s all business. But a very smart person. And considered one of the great beauties.

She’s some of the very best arm candy. Very best. Top. Other rich dudes don’t have.

Also he has an excellent grip on all the things. Excellent.

RC: Let’s say you’re the president, though. How do you see the office of the presidency?

BW: Other words, what’s the definition of the job?

DT: Okay. I think more than anything else, it’s the security of our nation. That’s always going to be – that’s number one, two and three. After that, many things come into focus. It’s health, it’s health care. It’s jobs. It’s the economy. But number one —and I say number one, two, three — is the security of the country. The military, being strong, not letting bad things happen to our country from the outside. And I certainly think that that’s always going to be my number one part of that definition.

Oh yay. I feel so cozy and safe now.

End of part one.



The list

Jan 1st, 2017 10:10 am | By

Reina in Istanbul joins Pulse in Orlando, Le Bataclan in Paris, the Sari in Bali, and the Hippodrome in Mali in the class of nightclubs that have been the scene of terrorist mass murders by Islamists. It’s not yet known that the mass murderer at the Reina in Istanbul is an Islamist, but slaughtering people at nightclubs is a fad with Islamists and not with anyone else (that I know of).

Police in Istanbul are hunting for a gunman who opened fire at a well-known nightclub, killing at least 39 people.

The attack happened at Reina nightclub early on Sunday, as hundreds of revellers marked the new year.

Officials say some 15 foreigners were killed, including citizens from Israel, France, Tunisia, Lebanon, India, Belgium, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The killer escaped into the crowd.

The attack unfolded some 75 minutes into the new year as around 700 people gathered in the waterside Reina club, one of Istanbul’s most upmarket venues.

The attacker shot dead a policeman and a security guard at the entrance before heading into the club, which is popular with celebrities and foreigners.

At least 69 people are being treated in hospital, officials said, with three in a serious condition.

The motive for the attack is not clear, but suspicion has fallen on the Islamic State group.

Or a freelance fan of said group, or a rival Islamist group, or who knows. But not everyone with a political grievance and a determination to murder wants to target people in nightclubs. There’s a particular ideology behind that choice of target.



There is only one way to live

Dec 31st, 2016 3:33 pm | By

Muhammad Sabir is the founder of Slumabad, an organization that works to give homeless children access to education and economic opportunities. He posted a photo on Facebook yesterday and asked people to share it.

Please share it onward
ہم ایک گھر کے لیے خوار اور حاکم شہر
شمار گنبد و محراب کرتا رہتا تھا

This photo tells a story of poverty, inequality and deprivation of basic human dignity and rights. It puts all human development in question and asks basic simple questions from us:

Can we call ourselves civilized, while we see our fellow human beings living on footpath like animals?

Is there only one way to live left for millions of deprived souls?

کہ ہم غریب ہوئے ہیں انہیں کی دولت سے

Let us hope sun also rises for marginalized souls, I mean sun of equality, development and justice.

Image may contain: 1 person, outdoor

[It’s a billboard advertising Trump Tower Mumbai, with a big photo of Trump and the text “THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO LIVE. THE TRUMP WAY.”]

Who is the better human being? Donald Trump or Muhammad Sabir?



Tweeting in a more dignified manner

Dec 31st, 2016 3:03 pm | By

Dan Rather is underwhelmed by the New Year tweet by Donnie from Queens. I’m kidding: he’s not underwhelmed, he’s disgusted.

I guess the President-elect’s New Year’s resolution doesn’t involve tweeting in a more dignified manner?

Donnie from Queens doesn’t know from dignified. He’s vulgarity personified. He’s a living breathing insulting demonstration that vulgarity has nothing to do with poverty, except poverty of feeling and sense and consideration.



Enemies

Dec 31st, 2016 11:47 am | By

NYT reports Trump continues to be more childish every day.

Americans woke up on the last day of 2016 to a message from President-elect Donald J. Trump wishing them a happy new year.

But the holiday missive, posted on Mr. Trump’s official Twitter account around 8 a.m., came with a pointed jab.

“Happy New Year to all,” Mr. Trump wrote, “including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!” (Some social media users homed in on Mr. Trump’s use of the word enemies, rather than opponents or another word for those who oppose him.)

That’s so typical, isn’t it, and so symptomatic. We have no right to oppose him or disagree with him or describe him accurately. We’re not legitimate critics, we’re just enemies. His Majesty the Baby speaks again.

Even a holiday known for its good cheer, it seems, could not dull Mr. Trump’s penchant for doling out taunts and insults via Twitter.

And this is the guy who will be president of the US in 21 days – a guy who loves to taunt and insult people on Twitter. He’s just another Milo Yiannopoulos, but he’ll be president.

The Times goes on to make the inevitable point that it’s a distraction. Sure, it is, but we can talk about both.



In the interest of our country and its great people

Dec 31st, 2016 10:16 am | By

I’ve been marveling at Trump’s “statement” on the Russian hack.

It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things. Nevertheless, in the interest of our country and its great people, I will meet with leaders of the intelligence community next week in order to be updated on the facts of this situation.

I’ve been marveling at the grandiosity of it. He says it as if he’s doing us some big favor, some spectacular concession out of his deep love for our greatness and out of his own remarkable generosity.

He is such a lying fraud.

Taking a security briefing is not some kind extra favor he’s doing us, it’s an important part of his job, the job he got in part, it appears, because Putin helped throw it to him. It’s his job. He doesn’t get extra credit for doing his god damn job.

He gets worse every day, and there are more than 365 x 4 days to go, unless he’s impeached as a traitor and lying piece of shit.