[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-10, 05:46, said:

I must have suppressed his contributions in this area...

Can you point some of them out?

He apparently confuses knowledge of statistics with the ability to enter formulas into excel, so if you google jogs excel site:bridgebase.com you will get a long list, I am sure you remember some of them.

[diana_eva]

helene_t, on 2017-February-10, 06:26, said:

He apparently confuses knowledge of statistics with the ability to enter formulas into excel, so if you google jogs excel site:bridgebase.com you will get a long list, I am sure you remember some of them.

Ah, what fun memories...

You only need a complete understanding of algebra, that's it.

[Winstonm]

Oh, I see. We thought they were deplorables.

Quote

PublicPolicyPolling ✔ @ppppolls
By 51/23 margin, Trump voters say the Bowling Green Massacre shows why his Executive Order on immigration is needed: http://www.publicpol...hing-trump.html …
8:01 AM - 10 Feb 2017

Turns out, they really are just idiots.

[PassedOut]

Because Trump reads no books, it is understandable that he is impressed by a character who reads a lot: Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists

Quote

ROME — Those trying to divine the roots of Stephen K. Bannon’s dark and at times apocalyptic worldview have repeatedly combed over a speech that Mr. Bannon, President Trump’s ideological guru, made in 2014 to a Vatican conference, where he expounded on Islam, populism and capitalism.

But for all the examination of those remarks, a passing reference by Mr. Bannon to an esoteric Italian philosopher has gone little noticed, except perhaps by scholars and followers of the deeply taboo, Nazi-affiliated thinker, Julius Evola.

“The fact that Bannon even knows Evola is significant,” said Mark Sedgwick, a leading scholar of Traditionalists at Aarhus University in Denmark.

Evola, who died in 1974, wrote on everything from Eastern religions to the metaphysics of sex to alchemy. But he is best known as a leading proponent of Traditionalism, a worldview popular in far-right and alternative religious circles that believes progress and equality are poisonous illusions.

Evola became a darling of Italian Fascists, and Italy’s post-Fascist terrorists of the 1960s and 1970s looked to him as a spiritual and intellectual godfather.

They called themselves Children of the Sun after Evola’s vision of a bourgeoisie-smashing new order that he called the Solar Civilization. Today, the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn includes his works on its suggested reading list, and the leader of Jobbik, the Hungarian nationalist party, admires Evola and wrote an introduction to his works.

More important for the current American administration, Evola also caught on in the United States with leaders of the alt-right movement, which Mr. Bannon nurtured as the head of Breitbart News and then helped harness for Mr. Trump.

“Julius Evola is one of the most fascinating men of the 20th century,” said Richard Spencer, the white nationalist leader who is a top figure in the alt-right movement, which has attracted white supremacists, racists and anti-immigrant elements.

In the days after the election, Mr. Spencer led a Washington alt-right conference in chants of “Hail Trump!” But he also invoked Evola’s idea of a prehistoric and pre-Christian spirituality — referring to the awakening of whites, whom he called the Children of the Sun.

Of course reading is not the same as agreeing, but Bannon's the connection with the alt-right suggests that something is going on there. That, and his tendency to wear a monocle on formal occasions...

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-10, 14:31, said:

Oh, I see. We thought they were deplorables.
...
Turns out, they really are just idiots.

The problem is that they drink the Kool-Aid, and believe all the BS coming out of Sean Spicer's and Kellyane Conway's mouths. She said the Bowling Green Massacre is a reason, that's good enough for them.

Does Bannon think that he can re-mold America to his vision by getting Trump to institute all his policies?

One problem we have is that there's no provision in the Constitution to remove a President other than impeachment, which requires that he commit a "high crime or misdemeanor". Maybe the next 4 years will prompt amending the Constitution to provide for recall elections (although most states don't allow recalls of their officials, either -- only 19 do).

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-February-10, 18:59, said:

The problem is that they drink the Kool-Aid, and believe all the BS coming out of Sean Spicer's and Kellyane Conway's mouths. She said the Bowling Green Massacre is a reason, that's good enough for them.

Does Bannon think that he can re-mold America to his vision by getting Trump to institute all his policies?

One problem we have is that there's no provision in the Constitution to remove a President other than impeachment, which requires that he commit a "high crime or misdemeanor". Maybe the next 4 years will prompt amending the Constitution to provide for recall elections (although most states don't allow recalls of their officials, either -- only 19 do).

Well, there is the 25th amendment, but I guess that requires that the President be physically incapable of performing his job. Is he physically incapable if he spends too much time tweeting about people who have hurt his feelings? Maybe.

But impeachment over Trump University is a possibility.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2017-February-10, 06:26, said:

He apparently confuses knowledge of statistics with the ability to enter formulas into excel, so if you google jogs excel site:bridgebase.com you will get a long list, I am sure you remember some of them.

Thanks for the memories. They don't make comedy like this anymore!

Rik

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 20:18, said:

Well, there is the 25th amendment, but I guess that requires that the President be physically incapable of performing his job. Is he physically incapable if he spends too much time tweeting about people who have hurt his feelings? Maybe.

We wish.

Quote

But impeachment over Trump University is a possibility.

If anything, it will probably be the emoluments clause.

I wonder how many "Word of the Year" lists "emoluments" will end up on this year. Before Trump, this word was practically never used (Google Ngrams shows that its use has been steadily declining for centuries, so it was more common when the Constitution was written), now everyone has heard it.

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-10, 20:18, said:

Well, there is the 25th amendment, but I guess that requires that the President be physically incapable of performing his job. Is he physically incapable if he spends too much time tweeting about people who have hurt his feelings? Maybe.

But impeachment over Trump University is a possibility.

Its so cute the way that people believe that impeachment has anything to do with laws or anything like that...

Trump will be impeached just as soon as he is no longer useful to the house republicans...
Who cares what the actual charges are...

However, for now he's their ablative armor...

[Winstonm]

These are rather remarkable numbers:

Quote

Greg Price
International Business Times
February 10, 2017

Americans were split on impeaching President Donald Trump, with a majority preferring to have Barack Obama back in the White House. A plurality would even prefer election loser Hillary Clinton over the embattled billionaire and mogul less than a month into the administration, a new Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released Friday showed.

The new national data showed a major increase in Trump’s disapproval rating while 46 percent are for impeaching the 45th president and the same percentage are against the extreme measure. PPP’s first poll showed 44 percent both approved and disapproved of Trump, but now his approval rating has slipped to 43 percent and disapproval has reached 53 percent.

Two weeks ago only 35 percent were for impeaching Trump.

In turn, 52 percent of those polled would rather have Obama back in the Oval Office, compared to 44 percent who don’t. Forty-nine percent would rather have Clinton at the helm of the executive branch. At first, only 65 percent of Clinton voters were for impeaching Trump but that figure has since climbed to a commanding 83 percent.

A big problem with impeachment of Trump is a Pence presidency with god-knows-who as VP.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-11, 13:58, said:

A big problem with impeachment of Trump is a Pence presidency with god-knows-who as VP.

Yes, the Donald will not, it seems, succeed in doing much of what he wants. President Pence would merely have to dial down the crazy a little bit to seem reasonable.

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2017-February-11, 11:46, said:

Its so cute the way that people believe that impeachment has anything to do with laws or anything like that...

Trump will be impeached just as soon as he is no longer useful to the house republicans...
Who cares what the actual charges are...

However, for now he's their ablative armor...

It has been a long time since anyone has described me as cute. I find any discussion along the lines of "Let's get the votes and impeach him" to be truly repulsive. The proper sequence is first the impeachee performs an act that, constitutionally, requires impeachment. Then, reluctantly, we impeach. This view is totally independent of how I view the politics of the person in question. And it is independent of any bad choices made by others in the past. Call me cute or anything else, I won't be changing my mind on this.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2017-February-11, 17:54, said:

It has been a long time since anyone has described me as cute. I find any discussion along the lines of "Let's get the votes and impeach him" to be truly repulsive. The proper sequence is first the impeachee performs an act that, constitutionally, requires impeachment. Then, reluctantly, we impeach. This view is totally independent of how I view the politics of the person in question. And it is independent of any bad choices made by others in the past. Call me cute or anything else, I won't be changing my mind on this.

But I don't think it makes you cute to believe that impeachment ought to be based on legal (not political) arguments.

[awm]

Trump's use of the office to enrich himself and his family leads pretty easily to constitutional violations. His embrace of Russia (both during and after the election) is arguably treasonous. His order that US green card holders be detained without cause at airports and initial defiance of court orders barring this practice is also arguably illegal.

I don't think it would be hard to come up with legal justification to impeach, certainly much better justification than the last impeachment (Clinton cheated on his wife and then lied about it under oath).

This is not to say that impeachment will happen -- it likely has far more to do with his degree of unpopularity and how the Republicans feel they can best achieve their goals of cutting taxes and shredding the social and regulatory safety nets.

[mike777]

Strange as it sounds I WOULD BE surprised if republicans shred the safety net. In fact I would be willing to bet they will spend more not less over the next 4 years. The debate will be how democrats feel it is still far too little. keep in mind trump is for big government, more spending...not less.

In the townhall meeting on cnn from Chicago the message was for more and more resources, money, were needed on the south side ...


As for the impeachment discussion I agree with the posters who correctly suggest the actual path will be step one is you want to impeach him...step two is find some crime.....you just need to convince a tiny tiny number of republicans...less than 100...not millions.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2017-February-11, 18:37, said:

Trump's use of the office to enrich himself and his family leads pretty easily to constitutional violations. His embrace of Russia (both during and after the election) is arguably treasonous. His order that US green card holders be detained without cause at airports and initial defiance of court orders barring this practice is also arguably illegal.

I don't think it would be hard to come up with legal justification to impeach, certainly much better justification than the last impeachment (Clinton cheated on his wife and then lied about it under oath).

This is not to say that impeachment will happen -- it likely has far more to do with his degree of unpopularity and how the Republicans feel they can best achieve their goals of cutting taxes and shredding the social and regulatory safety nets.

The problem I have is that the tone here has been exactly what is suggested by your phrasing: "I don't think it would be hard to come up with legal justification to impeach".
First we decide to impeach, after we decide that then we will find some grounds, it should not be hard. This is the approach that I find unacceptable.
For me, this approach is unacceptable beyond discussion. For those who want ,more practical grounds, I very much believe it will further weaken the Democratic Party. I would not vote for a Senate or House candidate who took this approach and I believe I am far from unique in this. Dems managed to lose an election to Trump. They should try hard not to make matters even worse.

[mike777]

kenberg, on 2017-February-11, 20:08, said:

The problem I have is that the tone here has been exactly what is suggested by your phrasing: "I don't think it would be hard to come up with legal justification to impeach".
First we decide to impeach, after we decide that then we will find some grounds, it should not be hard. This is the approach that I find unacceptable.
For me, this approach is unacceptable beyond discussion. For those who want ,more practical grounds, I very much believe it will further weaken the Democratic Party. I would not vote for a Senate or House candidate who took this approach and I believe I am far from unique in this. Dems managed to lose an election to Trump. They should try hard not to make matters even worse.

there has been talk of impeachment since the election....why wait.


Numerous articles on day one found plenty of reasons to impeach

Democrats are ready to impeach now...before a charge...before a trial
This is about politics...do not confuse with justice or fairness....that may help explain what is going on

[nige1]

awm, on 2017-February-11, 18:37, said:

Trump's ... embrace of Russia (both during and after the election) is arguably treasonous.

We seem paranoid about Putin and Russia. The US has supported revolution all over the world (South America, Afghanistan, Chechnya, The Balkans). For instance, the US spent billions, replacing the elected government of the Ukraine and plunging the country into civil war. Europe (and to a lesser extent Russia) suffers from economic sanctions that we imposed on Russia. Currently, we are fighting another terrifying proxy-war in the Middle-East, supporting Al Qaeda against Syria (our former ally, to whom we sent suspects for "rendition") and Russia.

In this surreal maelstrom, we should welcome any tentative step-back towards world-peace -- especially peace with Russia. Instead, Intelligence services claim that Russia influenced the US Presidential Election. Admittedly, Russia would have been mad not to try, since Hilary Clinton seemed set on starting WWIII. Russia was accused of acting as a whistle-blower -- by leaking evidence that Hilary was breaking her party's rules, disenfranchising a rival candidate, and undermining a fair election. Putin might not be a good guy but, If that allegation is true, then he deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, rather than vilification

[mike777]

nige1, on 2017-February-11, 21:40, said:

We seem paranoid about Putin and Russia. The US has supported revolution all over the world (South America, Afghanistan, Chechnya, The Balkans). For instance, The US spent billions, replacing the elected government of the Ukraine and plunging the country into civil war. Europe (and to a lesser extent Russia) suffers from the Economic sanctions that we imposed on Russia, Currently, we are fighting another terrifying proxy-war in the Middle-East, supporting Al Qaeda against Syria (our former ally) and Russia.

In this surreal maelstrom, we should welcome any tentative step-back towards world-peace -- especially peace with Russia. Instead Intelligence services claimed that Russia influenced the US Presidential Election. Admittedly, they would have been mad not to try, since Hilary seemed set on starting WWIII. Russiia was accused of acting as a whistle-blower -- leaking evidence that Hilary Clinton was breaking her party's rules. She was disenfranchising a rival candidate and undermining a fair election. Putin might not be a good guy bit If the allegation is true, then he deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom rather than vilification

You are talking about Scotland when you say we are paranoid? Who is this we?

[nige1]

mike777, on 2017-February-11, 21:44, said:

You are talking about Scotland when you say we are paranoid? Who is this we?

The West. And we are as culpable as the US for the current hellish state of Syria, Afganistan, etc)