Shakes
2mo ago
How is either of those a “fix everything” button Trump is refusing to push? One requires Congress, which makes it extremely unlikely. The other is just some idea. I admit I don’t even know much about it. Can Trump withdraw unilaterally? Would this erode his political capital? Does it actually do anything? How much time does it take to draft up the provisions to withdraw? How high should this be on the Presidents agenda relative to the ten thousand other policy items competing for his attention? Are there better uses of his time? How well-understood and well-known is this policy fix?
Or is withdrawing from a UN migration treaty really just the one idea that fixes everything with no cost and zero downside that Trump and his team know all about but are refusing to do because they’ve betrayed us all or are lazy or don’t know how to govern?
I get it, I want more too, but this is watching the President accelerate in real time and complaining he hasn’t reached top speed, while every faction not aligned with Trump is trying to slam on the breaks.
Shakes
2mo ago
This is just an argument for never voting, and being cynical and dejected, and feeling smug about it because you can always be right. Trump doesn’t listen to his voters? That’s pretty patently false
Shakes
2mo ago
That sounded too good to be true and it was.
Within the realm of the possible this is one of the most dramatic federal turnarounds in generations.
Ten years ago presumed Republican frontrunner Jeb Bush called illegal immigration an act of love. Now the president is openly talking about remigration. Come on, if you think this is a good thing, this “betrayed again” eeyore attitude is just a bad model of politics. Trump is mainstreaming mass deportations. Not a single other American politician comes anywhere close. Do you really want to complain that it’s not good enough? Because if you have the option to help row the boat and instead get out your signs wailing “THE END IS NEAR” that says more about you than Trump.
Trump is using BBB to amass the largest deportation force in American history. Net migration is down. H1B restrictions. Benefits shut down. Remittances taxed. It’s not as though Trump is refusing to push the “fix everything” button. These are extremely controversial policies that are facing concerted pushback and lawfare. Trump’s new travel ban is even trying to deny citizenship ceremonies to new immigrants who have otherwise qualified. So, what? Let’s blackpill because we want to be going 88mph and Trump has only taken us from 0 to 50?
Shakes
2mo ago
Who’s going to prosecute? Everyone is treating Trump attacking the autopen as more ridiculous than the autopen itself
Shakes
2mo ago
I do not believe that the US has the tech to identify drugs on boats from satellites.
Military technology does not lend itself to a sources-cited I-make-my-claims you-make-yours open debate. So I’m not sure I have much to add here in the good nature of this forum. But I can tell you that you are completely wrong. I can’t really convince you of that when again we’re talking about military secrets. So it would be easier if you said you don’t trust Trump, or the government in general if you prefer, because then we’ve reduced the argument to its real essence. Otherwise I can’t say very much productively, because our priors about US military capabilities are wildly far apart.
If it is any consolation, I was against these invasions/interventions as well.
Well, that’s not really what I’m concerned about, because this isn’t really about whether you as an individual are arguing in good faith. (And I assume you are.)
This story doesn’t just fall out of the sky and then journalists put on their truth suits and we sit around debating what it all means. Every phase of these stories are political and carry political connotations. “War crime?” Nobody in the public knows what that means or how important that is, so someone has to pick a few pieces of context to give that meaning. “Anonymous sources?” Someone has to stake some credibility asserting that these people are telling the truth, not those other people making denials. “Fishermen” Now we need part of this story to deny Trump’s / Hegseth’s determination that these are narcoterrorists, because the story is a non-story if it’s accepted on Trump’s terms.
Every part of this story involves relying on assumptions made by people acting out of political motives. Moreover, many of these political actors don’t care when we do it in Ukraine, supported the Iraq War, allowed millions of illegal immigrants at the border, etc. Many of these same journalists and senators pushed hoaxes about Trump and Russia, Kavanaugh, January 6 and 2020, Corona, etc. Why should I take them at their word?
So no this isn’t about your good faith as an individual. I’m calling bad faith on the entire media complex that reifies this as a story I have to care about, as though I’m somehow a hypocrite if I don’t jump through exactly the right rhetorical proofs while denying that Hegseth did anything wrong. Especially today, a day later, as the New York Times reports that WaPo got the story wrong, I feel increasingly good about my priors and attitude toward the latest anti-Trump hoax.
Candace Owen’s is reporting today that the French government is trying to have her killed. Should we kick France out of NATO? Is Israel behind it? Actually it’s ok to just call that one bullshit
Shakes
2mo ago
This is no longer a moral argument but a political argument. At that point, it’s more parsimonious to admit this is just another anti-Trump hoax. That is, none of this press coverage exists as an organic natural concern about what’s best for America’s interests in the world. Those are just arguments made up to get the sexy “war crimes” headline into the news right as Mark Kelly is calling for soldiers to be prosecuted.
Shakes
2mo ago
The “laws of war” aren’t real and don’t apply to terrorists. This kind of bloviating about moral principle might work on the DC politicians who read the Washington Post, but we here simply don’t have to participate in this. We do not have to accept moral lectures from the same politicians behind Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. The purpose of a military is to kill people. We’re not playing these nice legal lawyer games where we can’t kill our enemies or else they win. We don’t have to care about the latest high-level inflammatory anonymous “sources familiar with say” nonsense story about how Trump is doing this evil evil thing that was normal until five minutes ago.
My position is that it didn’t happen and it’s a good thing if it did.
Curious that the targeted smuggling boats have large crews, rather than conserving space and weight capacity for drugs...
If your belief is that Trump is lying about who was killed, you should just say that. Because a passing knowledge about American satellite tech reveals that we have an extremely good idea of who we’re targeting and the risk that these drug smugglers are actually innocent fish peddlers is on the same order of magnitude as discovering we lost the moon.
Shakes
2mo ago
What if I drug the president and lock him in a wheelchair so me and five aides can run a shadow presidency? What does historical precedent say about the case where I keep the president in a back room and you aren’t allowed to see him? Am I a hypocrite if I think that’s different from a secretary lying?
Shakes
2mo ago
Overall, I feel like this is kind of a misplay from Trump - I think that it guarantees that the next Democrat administration will do the same to his executive orders and pardons.
Biden already did that. Biden’s first months were spent canceling even good or anodyne Trump orders. That’s how we got a crisis at the border and the Afghan deal changing. They undid Trump’s order about creating a statue garden.
In theory, Biden, or an authorized spokesperson for him, could outright state that all pardons/executive orders were done on his behest;
Maybe you don’t understand the issue here.
The issue is not that Joe Biden didn’t check all his boxes and dot his eyes when filling out paperwork so now Trump has the excuse.
The issue is that there is good proof Biden didn’t himself actually issue the orders signed under his name.
What makes an executive order or pardon valid? Well, it’s issued by the President. That’s how that works.
I, the poster Shakes, could issue an executive order banning tuna on toast. Who cares? Nobody, I’m not the president.
I could sign Joe Biden’s name on the executive order banning tuna on toast. Who cares? I’m not the president.
What if I sign my executive order from the Oval Office? And I use a Joe Biden’s name? And Joe Biden is taking a nap?
It is alleged that scores of presidential decisions were made by presidential aides acting without presidential authority. Because Joe Biden was obviously going senile in the Oval Office. (The official story is Biden just decided to sign an order dropping out of the 2024 race one day. The official story is Biden was diagnosed with this rare slow-growing cancer only after his term ended.)
Republicans in the House are actively investigating the possibility that Biden staffers sold pardons to anyone willing to pay the bribe. Are those valid pardons merely because someone stamped Biden’s signature on them while he was taking a nap?
So it’s not impressive if you suggest that, to diffuse this crisis, Biden could have one of his aides issue a denial…
Shakes
2mo ago
Because I think Trump is right. James Comey lied before Congress and he knew Russiagate was a sham.
Shakes
2mo ago
What you are describing is the inadequacy of Republicans in Congress, which is the exact failure of leadership that created the opportunity for Trump’s election in the first place.
Shakes
2mo ago
This is like a form of gaslighting, where the actions of Trump’s enemies are reconfigured as Trump’s fault. No, these things don’t happen haphazardly, people worked hard to make them happen.
Shakes
2mo ago
This is all political. Competence has nothing to do with it. There is no threshold at which procedural pretexts stop being invented. It’s as if you said, “Muhammad Ali should be fighting, not getting punched. Amateur hour!”
Shakes
2mo ago
This is silly. Trump has many competent operatives. They are here outnumbered by DC saboteurs.
Shakes
2mo ago
A lot of IMO naive discussion under this post. Lawfare is a rigged game and discussing bias political outcomes as if they were normal legal procedures is silly.
Trump: “2+2=4”
Judge: “Actually, 2+2=5. Case dismissed!”
Commentariat: “How could Trump screw up this badly? Why doesn’t Trump have competent lawyers? Does Trump hire too many bimbos? Why was his 2+2=4 case so weak?”
Etc etc
Shakes
2mo ago
Well I guess Trump isn’t threatening anyone but merely highlighting the death penalty for treason as a thing that might happen in the future.
Shakes
2mo ago
“The mods should ban you for conduct that breaks the rules. … What? I’m not calling for you to be banned! I’m just stating the hypothetical that if you were to break the rules, then the mods should ban you. You wouldn’t disagree with that right?”
I think we all understand that this hypothetical would be disingenuous.
I think we all understand that hypotheticals often carry literal meaning. Out of the infinite hypotheticals you could be speaking, you chose this one. You’re singling something out. There’s a specific implication. The hypothetical voice is saying something.
In this case, Democratic senators are saying they want the military to violate Trump’s unlawful orders. They’re singling out Trump. They’re singling out the military. They’re singling out Trump’s orders to the military. We all understand what they’re implying. They want the military to disobey Trump.
Now, I’m sure they believe he is committing unlawful acts, in which case disobedience would be righteous. But it’s a pretty thin figleaf to suppose that, well, they’re just speaking hypothetically, they’re not saying anything really. Then why speak at all? Why that emphasis? Why now? If we pretend the hypothetical voice doesn’t convey literal meaning, we have to pretend they’re saying nothing at all.
That is, as long as someone says the magic word, “hypothetically,” they’re absolved for all responsibility. If Tanks roll up to the White House tomorrow, why, these Democrats didn’t call for that at all, unless Trump were breaking the law, in which case the thing they said had nothing to do with it.
“If Trump were breaking the law then…” If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle!
Shakes
2mo ago
I think this is basically right. In addition Trump isn’t just A/B testing the base but the Republican leadership in Washington. I would guess it’s about 50/50 or 40/60 in his favor, with a little over half of Republicans still hoping we can go back to the days of “decency” and tax cuts.
Shakes
2mo ago
Somehow the United States needs to keep importing “the best and brightest” forever, or we’ll lose. What happened to the best and brightest we already imported? Guess they weren’t the bestest and brightestest.
Shakes
2mo ago
Trump’s loyalty to himself is widely known
I don’t know how there are people who aren’t loyal to themselves.
Shakes
2mo ago
This is like when Russia had Trump’s pee tapes. Or when Stormy Daniels had Trump’s blackmail. Or when the courts would finally prove Trump raped that woman in a shopping plaza thirty years ago and she forgot about it until just now.
There is no pedophile network running Washington DC, Donald Trump is neither a child rapist nor a sex trafficker, Trump’s connections to such are extremely thin and the emails being discussed don’t even show what people claim they do.
No one will remember this in a few years because the evidence is so embarrassing it expires and becomes unappetizing like refrigerated fast food. Cold French fries. Hopefully sooner.
Shakes
2mo ago
In this metaphor Democrats are Putin: the shutdown / war would not have happened but for… Maybe Zelensky should have negotiated with Russia and they wouldn’t have had to invade. Maybe Trump should have conceded what Chuck Schumer wanted, and then they wouldn’t have had to filibuster.
Shakes
2mo ago
Trump took his father’s modest low-rent real-estate empire and turned it into one of the most iconic brands on earth. He built a tower at the center of the world and put his name on it. He succeeded at real estate and then transitioned into media, to the point that the name “Donald Trump” was synonymous with the 80s. (American Psycho, Back to the Future, the Wikipedia Page “Donald Trump in Music”, “You’re Fired!”).
After all that Trump ran for President, of the United States, president, with no political experience, and achieved the most shocking underdog victory maybe ever in American history. He then made in 2024 the greatest comeback in American political history since Nixon. And is probably the most consequential President since Nixon, if not since FDR.
“Replacement Level CEO”? Look at the objective facts of this man. Fred Trump owning some apartment buildings in Queens did not put Donald Trump on a guaranteed collision course with Michael Jackson and Mohammed Ali.
I sometimes feel as though the perception of TDS and “the MAGA cult” has created this third strain middle wave Trump revisionism that has to somehow desacralize him into being just some guy. Well, let’s not exaggerate, we have to be reasonable and acknowledge Trump’s flaws, he’s just a man after all… In some sense the TDS people have a more accurate view of Trump’s importance. “Replacement Level”? Trump is a Great Man of History. Acknowledging that doesn’t preclude us from discussing his failures in the same way we can acknowledge that Napoleon gave too much preference to his family or that Washington was actually mediocre at tactics. But Trump is undeniably a great man. And we’re fascinated by him.
Is that the same as James Bond? Trump is certainly a character that represents a huge domineering vision of the future. Maybe that vision doesn’t speak to you specifically, but it has completely changed the arc of American right-wing politics. Trump inspired hundreds of millions of people with a new vision for success. Maybe that’s not the same as James Bond, maybe the media category is a separate field and Jason Bourne and Liam Neeson are all derivatives and we still haven’t moved on from Sherlock Holmes. The sex(-less) appeal is all in video games now and Mario and Pikachu aren’t ideas of the Renaissance Man.
But in the real world the 2020s are full of colorful men-of-action, the fascination of the Tech CEO, scrying not the CCP but Xi Jinping, “Putin’s War,” the rise of the streamer and “content creators” personalized individuated “influencer” brands. The 90s was more obsessed with the corporate archetype than we are now (The Matrix, Fight Club, Work From Home didn’t exist, what happened to all the boy bands?).
After all James Bond is just a media image, he doesn’t exist, he is one archetype bubbling up through the collective unconscious by whatever arbitrary and random process that happens. He says more about the 50s than the 90s. But there are lots of figures like Trump who speak to the 2020s and they don’t point to a culture lacking in ambition.
I wanted to write some brilliant cutting metaphor about the futility of reducing everything to one number, but I think I’ll just copy-paste this tweet:
https://x.com/sethjlevy/status/1996203702034870491?s=46
More options
Context Copy link