A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[yossarian22c]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/us/politics/white-house-prohibits-cabinet-from-addressing-democratic-convention.html

The White House counsel, Neil Eggleston, and members of his staff have stepped up their warnings to White House officials and other top administration appointees to exercise care that their political activity stays within the law, which limits the use of official resources for partisan activities.

2016 article, detailing the ways in which the Obama admin tried to avoid violating the hatch act. I like this was written 4 years ago so we don't have to worry about this just being historical revisionism.

[TheDrake]

Still sounds like quibbling to me. Blah blah blah, the smoking memo, winking and nodding of the Obama administration to skirt the letter of the law while flaunting the intent.

Administration officials must walk a fine line, one that sometimes involves hairsplitting differences.

Hurling a personal insult at Mr. Trump from a White House lectern? Off limits. But Mr. Earnest can note the many ways in which Mr. Trump’s positions are at odds with the president’s.

Headlining a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton? No problem for a cabinet secretary, as long as the secretary does not use his or her official title or ask for contributions.

Sounds a lot to me just like "I'm doing this on my personal time."

[TheDeamon]

What you're citing above is guidelines for positions that while appointed positions, are not cabinet posts

Further to this: the state department legal memo was written specifically to inform all state department employees.  It is inconceivable that those writing the legal opinion were unaware that the secretary of state is a cabinet level post, so the wording that "Senate-confirmed Presidential appointees may not even attend a political party convention or convention-related event" pretty clearly includes the secretary of state.  Otherwise, the wording would have included a disclaimer explicitly for the secretary of state or for cabinet level positions.

Ah, it's a legal memo? So it is advisory, and not binding in its own right then?

Basically it is then essentially saying "if you do these things, you risk your job." Good thing the Secretary of State had clearance with his boss then.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/us/politics/white-house-prohibits-cabinet-from-addressing-democratic-convention.html

The White House counsel, Neil Eggleston, and members of his staff have stepped up their warnings to White House officials and other top administration appointees to exercise care that their political activity stays within the law, which limits the use of official resources for partisan activities.

2016 article, detailing the ways in which the Obama admin tried to avoid violating the hatch act. I like this was written 4 years ago so we don't have to worry about this just being historical revisionism.

If anyone tries to interpret the Hatch Act in such a manner as to limit the political speech of a Cabinet Level official(hard to imagine any process aside from Impeachment being employed however), I'd expect such actions as to result in SCotUS striking that aspect of the law down as being Unconstitutional.

Which means it's an illegal law as it is Congress trying to limit the power of the Executive Branch. The Cabinet member works for PotUS, while the rest of their respective departments (ostensibly) work for the public(and Congress). So while Congress would likely get court approval on restricting others, the Cabinet positions are an entirely different ball game.

I'd agree fully with the Hatch Act being used to limit a Cabinet Level official from using government resources to carry out partisan political goals.

[TheDeamon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

he 1939 Act forbids the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibits using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It forbids officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support. It provides that persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen, but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns, using this language to specify those who are exempt:

(i) an employee paid from an appropriation for the Executive Office of the President; or
(ii) an employee appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose position is located within the United States, who determines policies to be pursued by the United States in the nationwide administration of Federal laws.

I guess condition 2 actually creates an interesting twist on things. but as the Secretary of State position is "located in Washington D.C." even if that isn't where they happen to be at the time....

But Wiki does seem to clearly indicate anyone in a policy making position is exempt from the provisions on political speech. Last I checked, cabinet secretaries are policy makers alongside PotUS.

Unless you're arguing the cabinet secretaries don't make or set policy for their departments and they're even more at the mercy of PotUS than we previously understood?

[DonaldD]

Ah, it's a legal memo? So it is advisory, and not binding in its own right then?

Basically it is then essentially saying "if you do these things, you risk your job." Good thing the Secretary of State had clearance with his boss then.

Absolutely - if Pompeo wanted to, he could demand that the rules be changed.  Of course, that would make explicit that he is doing something different - something that no other secretary of state has done in the modern era, and actually, something that other secretaries have studiously avoided doing exactly because of the mandate of the state department.  And that is exactly the point. 

The rationale for not doing what he just did is the very basis of the state department's raison d'être.  Diplomats are constrained by those policies for a reason.

[DonaldD]

The Hatch act is not in question.  It is completely separate from state department ethical guidelines and policies.

[DonaldD]

Colin Powell 2004: "As secretary of state, I am obliged not to participate in any way, shape, fashion, or form in parochial, political debates. I have to take no sides in the matter."

Glenn Kessler on Condoleezza Rice: "During the 2008 RNC, I was traveling in North Africa with Secy of State Condoleezza Rice. Off the record, she was keenly interested in the race, constantly checking the Real Clear Politics website. But she made sure she was far away from public partisanship"

[TheDeamon]

The Hatch act is not in question.  It is completely separate from state department ethical guidelines and policies.

Good for you on jumping on that grenade before I found it:
https://employment.laws.com/hatch-act-text

...
SEC. 9.

 (a) It shall be unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, to use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering ;with an election or affecting the result thereof. No officer or employee in the executive branch of the Federal Government, or any agency or department thereof, shall take any active part in political management or in political campaigns. All such persons shall retain the right to vote as they may choose and to express their opinions on all political subjects. For the purposes of this section the term "officer" or "employee" shall not be construe to include

• the President and the Vice Presdent of the United States;
• persons whose compensation is paid from the appropriation for the office of the President;
• heads and assistant heads of executive departments;
• officers who are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and who determine policies to be pursued by the United States in its relations with foreign powers or in the Nation-wide administration of Federal laws.

(b) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be immediately removed from the position or office held by him, and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any Act of Congress for such position or office shall be used to pay the compensation of such person.

What you are referencing however is the saw that "the Foreign Policy of the United States isn't partisan" which Obama threw out the door the moment he assumed office, even if he paid a small degree of lip service to it.

[DonaldD]

Of course he did, wmLambert.

[DonaldD]

The President, on his goals for a second term:

But so I think, I think it would be, I think it would be very, very, I think we'd have a very, very solid, we would continue what we're doing, we'd solidify what we've done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done.

The idea that this guy is promoting his opponent as suffering from dementia would be hilarious, if not for the vast number of people who actually buy into it.

[TheDrake]

The President, on his goals for a second term:

But so I think, I think it would be, I think it would be very, very, I think we'd have a very, very solid, we would continue what we're doing, we'd solidify what we've done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done.

The idea that this guy is promoting his opponent as suffering from dementia would be hilarious, if not for the vast number of people who actually buy into it.

Actually, I buy into it. Not because of trump, but because of facts. Do we have a clip? Just like trump apologists say "he was joking", Biden apologists say "that's just a gaffe".

[DonaldD]

This is more of a silent message (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) but in the same week as the leader of the Russian opposition party was poisoned for the second time by the Russian government, this also happened, without a peep from the US administration:

Washington (CNN) - Multiple US troops were injured in a collision with a Russian military convoy in eastern Syria Tuesday, several US officials tell CNN.

The official said that the injuries occurred when one of the Russian vehicles apparently deliberately collided with the American vehicle causing the crew to suffer "concussion-like injuries." Initial reports indicate as many as four Americans may have been injured.

...

Multiple US officials familiar with the matter told CNN that the White House was involved in discouraging the Pentagon from publicly confirming the incident in Syria.
One US official said there was a draft statement from the military about the altercation but that it wasn't ultimately signed off on by the White House. The official explained that the reasons for caution from the White House weren't clear, though said it was likely officials wanted time to discuss the situation with Russian counterparts.

It's shocking - shocking I say! - that Russian troops would dare such an audacious move, given how forcefully Washington has come down on Russian aggression recently (including those infamous bounties.)

[wmLambert]

Of course he did, wmLambert.

What are you referring to?

As for the Hatch Act, where was it when Obama sent his reelection team to Israel to spend money and campaign against Netenyahu?

[TheDrake]

Of course he did, wmLambert.

What are you referring to?

As for the Hatch Act, where was it when Obama sent his reelection team to Israel to spend money and campaign against Netenyahu?

You mean the 100% legal use of grant money by an ngo supportive of Obama, as determined by a bipartisan comission?

That use of government-funded resources for political purposes after the end of the grant period was permitted by the grant because the State Department failed to adequately guard against the risk that campaign resources could be repurposed in that manner or place limitations on the post-grant use of resources.

Which in any event would not have anything to do with the hatch act, which applies to us elections.

[DonaldD]

Trump retweets white supremacist and... oh, who really cares? At this point, we would be surprised if he didn't support white supremacists.

[DonaldD]

Dan Scavino, the Trump' administration's social media director, tweets video manipulated to make it look like Joe Biden was sleeping during an on air interview.

In fact, the video was from 2011 "when [Harry] Belafonte was doing a series of press junket interviews and lost audio contact with the local station in Bakersfield, CA."

Yes, as is so often the case, if you live in the USA, whether you are Republican, Democrat or independent, you are paying this man's salary, so he can publish the basest propaganda against political foes.  And 40% of the population will think there is nothing wrong with this.

[rightleft22]

Nor will Trump followers see the contrition between the LAW and ORDER President offering up excesses for Rittenhouse
Tacitly approving white militia vigilantism. It would be a different case and outcome if the militia waving guns around were black.

The few bad apples in the police do not represent the Police on as a whole (even though holding those bad apples accountable is really difficult)  = no systemic racism
While those who riot represent the protest movement as a whole.

The issue is systemic exactly because the contradictions on how the rules are applied are not acknowledged.

[TheDeamon]

Nor will Trump followers see the contrition between the LAW and ORDER President offering up excesses for Rittenhouse
Tacitly approving white militia vigilantism. It would be a different case and outcome if the militia waving guns around were black.

/sigh

I guess war it will be. If you cannot see that Rittenhouse was operating within the constraints of the law, there is no hope for you.

Rittenhouse also did attempt to avoid the situation, but certain people didn't want to let him run away.

[DonaldD]

I don't think anybody knows exactly what happened with Rittenhouse, whether he was faultless or a murderer running to escape justice - and I think it is silly to pontificate one way or the other, and base one's house of cards argument on either guess.

[rightleft22]

Nor will Trump followers see the contrition between the LAW and ORDER President offering up excesses for Rittenhouse
Tacitly approving white militia vigilantism. It would be a different case and outcome if the militia waving guns around were black.

/sigh

I guess war it will be. If you cannot see that Rittenhouse was operating within the constraints of the law, there is no hope for you.

Rittenhouse also did attempt to avoid the situation, but certain people didn't want to let him run away.

So its within the law to have a armed militia on the streets out after curfew and that that armed militia can be made up of kids? How could that go wrong.
And if their are no laws about militias acting in this way maybe a real Law and Order guy might want to address that.
Be careful what you wish for. Lets see how Trump and you respond when its a black militia out patrolling?

Rittenhouse had no businesses being in the city out after curfew.. Oh but the curfew law only applied to black protesters which as the police chief explained had they obeyed Rittenhouse wouldn't have had anyone to fight with. 

[DonaldD]

So in the past 3 days, we've seen at least 4 instances of high profile Republicans or Republican groups broadcast easily verifiable lies in support of their election efforts:

• The Trump campaign cut out a 3 second clip of Biden paraphrasing Trump and Pence, but attributing the words to Biden.  Biden, in a longer response said "Trump and Pence [are claiming] quote 'you won't be safe in Joe Biden's America', unquote".  Yet the Trump campaign put out a video of only the "you won't be safe in Joe Biden's America" portion
• Trump retweeted a white supremacist's tweet showing a several-year-old video of a serial subway crazy person pushing people into trains, and claiming it was BLM.
• Steve Scalise tweeted a video that had been manipulated to resequence and add words in an interview between Biden and Ady Barkan, a progressive activist who suffers from ALS and who uses a computer generated voice to communicate.
• And of course Dan Scavino with his fake Biden sleeping video.

Do so many Republicans believe that getting caught lying is less damaging to themselves than the effect on their opponents of putting out dishonest propaganda?  Are they simply oblivious? Are americans simply so polarized that they will cheer on liars just because they are on the same 'team'?

As an aside, maybe the perceived 'bias' against conservatives is actually earned responses. Sure, Trump has been lying and dishonest for the past 5 years, but maybe it is a more general Republican issue?

[rightleft22]

So in the past 3 days, we've seen at least 4 instances of high profile Republicans or Republican groups broadcast easily verifiable lies in support of their election efforts:

• The Trump campaign cut out a 3 second clip of Biden paraphrasing Trump and Pence, but attributing the words to Biden.  Biden, in a longer response said "Trump and Pence [are claiming] quote 'you won't be safe in Joe Biden's America', unquote".  Yet the Trump campaign put out a video of only the "you won't be safe in Joe Biden's America" portion
• Trump retweeted a white supremacist's tweet showing a several-year-old video of a serial subway crazy person pushing people into trains, and claiming it was BLM.
• Steve Scalise tweeted a video that had been manipulated to resequence and add words in an interview between Biden and Ady Barkan, a progressive activist who suffers from ALS and who uses a computer generated voice to communicate.
• And of course Dan Scavino with his fake Biden sleeping video.

Do so many Republicans believe that getting caught lying is less damaging to themselves than the effect on their opponents of putting out dishonest propaganda?  Are they simply oblivious? Are americans simply so polarized that they will cheer on liars just because they are on the same 'team'?

As an aside, maybe the perceived 'bias' against conservatives is actually earned responses. Sure, Trump has been lying and dishonest for the past 5 years, but maybe it is a more general Republican issue?

Fox and the social media echo chambers are the only place many Republicans get their information from where the statements are amplified so they don't see any information that might make them question things. Confirmation bias. And yes Democrats do the same thing although there isn't a single primary news source they depend on.   

[DonaldD]

When asked about his supporters, who showed up at the Kenosha protests, some using pepper spray, some with paint guns, firing paintballs and in some cases firing marbles, this is what the president had to say:

Well I understand they had large numbers of people that were supporters, but that was a peaceful protest. And paint is not… paint is a defensive mechanism.

He then went on to rationalize Rittenhouse’s actions - notwithstanding that the shooter has been arrested and charged with murder, suggesting at the very least that the police believe there is may be sufficient evidence for a conviction.

Now, compare and contrast that to what Biden is saying:

Let me be very clear about all of this: rioting is not protesting; looting is not protesting; setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting - it’s lawlessness, pure and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted.

It's almost as if one of them thinks that stating that rioting, looting, setting fires and other forms of violence during protests is necessary regardless of who perpetrates the acts, whereas the other thinks that it is unthinkable to even question the actions of his own supporters, and that violence should only be denounced if perpetrated by political opponents, and if it benefits one politically.

[rightleft22]

The contradictions of this 'Law and Order' President is mind boggling. One set of laws for him, one for his followers and ones for those that don't

[TheDeamon]

He then went on to rationalize Rittenhouse’s actions - notwithstanding that the shooter has been arrested and charged with murder, suggesting at the very least that the police believe there is may be sufficient evidence for a conviction.

He turned himself in to his home town police department, his charging is actually somewhat unusual according to some lawyers, and most likely an action undertaken in order to appease the mob. Chances are decent that as more evidence is gathered aside from the video, that the case will be dropped. In any case, if they do take it to court, just from the video, it is highly unlikely a Wisconsin jury will convict.

Let me be very clear about all of this: rioting is not protesting; looting is not protesting; setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting - it’s lawlessness, pure and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted.

It's almost as if one of them thinks that stating that rioting, looting, setting fires and other forms of violence during protests is necessary regardless of who perpetrates the acts, whereas the other thinks that it is unthinkable to even question the actions of his own supporters, and that violence should only be denounced if perpetrated by political opponents, and if it benefits one politically.

Biden only came out strongly against the rioting the day after CNN had a freakout that the riots are hurting Biden and the Democrats as a whole, in the polls. Having an unarmed Republican get gunned down in Portland doesn't help the Dems either.

But we go back to their National Convention, and they certainly seemed to be hitching their cart up with those "mostly peaceful protesters."

[DonaldD]

He turned himself in to his home town police department, his charging is actually somewhat unusual according to some lawyers,

Yes, and many people think Vince Foster was murdered, and many people said that wasn't Obama's birth certificate.  Some people say a lot of things.

Biden only came out strongly against the rioting the day after CNN had a freakout that the riots are hurting Biden and the Democrats as a whole, in the polls. Having an unarmed Republican get gunned down in Portland doesn't help the Dems either.

So, was that CNN freakout before May 31, when Joe Biden Urges Peaceful Protests: ‘We Must Not Allow this Pain to Destroy Us’?

In a Medium post published early Sunday morning (full post below), Biden said “protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”

Of course you wouldn't know it by listening to his opponents, but Biden has been consistently middle of the road on this for months.  Did he ramp up his attacks on Trump's weakness recently? No question.  That doesn't mean that he is wrong, and that Trump simply cannot say anything against his supporters, be they white supremacists, violent protesters or Russian troll farms.

But we go back to their National Convention, and they certainly seemed to be hitching their cart up with those "mostly peaceful protesters."

And why wouldn't he?  The question is why aren't you doing so as well?  You should be supporting the mostly peaceful protesters, instead of attacking them and lumping them in with the minority of the violent activists.

[TheDeamon]

And why wouldn't he?  The question is why aren't you doing so as well?  You should be supporting the mostly peaceful protesters, instead of attacking them and lumping them in with the minority of the violent activists.

I only support the peaceful protesters, the "mostly peaceful" ones are rioters.

[rightleft22]

And why wouldn't he?  The question is why aren't you doing so as well?  You should be supporting the mostly peaceful protesters, instead of attacking them and lumping them in with the minority of the violent activists.

I only support the peaceful protesters, the "mostly peaceful" ones are rioters.

When it comes to bad apples Trump suggest that the few bad apples in the police don't represent the whole (not mentioning how difficult it is to hold the bad apples accountable which suggests a systemic problem as that is a system problem not a bad apple one). While on the other hand his rhetoric suggests the few bad apples within the protesters, represents the protests as a whole negating any issues that the protests might have or entering into dialog.

Where do you stand to the few bad applies in the protesters represent the whole?   

[TheDeamon]

When it comes to bad apples Trump suggest that the few bad apples in the police don't represent the whole (not mentioning how difficult it is to hold the bad apples accountable which suggests a systemic problem as that is a system problem not a bad apple one). While on the other hand his rhetoric suggests the few bad apples within the protesters, represents the protests as a whole negating any issues that the protests might have or entering into dialog.

I've already said that reforms to the legal need to happen to address the issue of limited immunity enjoyed by law enforcement. And that certain other statutes may need specific additions made in order to specifically address LEO actions that would not otherwise "fit the crime."

Where do you stand to the few bad applies in the protesters represent the whole?

We've covered this before. If you're able to see, or "are otherwise aware" that illegal activities are taking place in the protest you're part of, if you remain and do nothing to stop them, you have tacitly endorsed that activity.

If you went "the next step" and dressed in "black block" you're actively aiding and abetting them.

Oddly enough, that is comparable to the standard many AntiFa and BLM members want to hold law enforcement to. If they have "a few bad apples" they want the entire institution disbanded. So in that respect, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. It is their own standard after all.

[TheDrake]

they want the entire institution disbanded.

And you've had this explained to you multiple times as well. Nobody is trying to disband the police, that's not the slogan and that's not the policy.

I'm not sure why you put the actions of a leaderless mob of people on an equivalent level as a civic organization. Do you think they go to protest training, and learn their responsibilities from George Soros? Even assuming that you had someone who organized the protest, like BLM leaders, do you think that they can put a bad apple on suspension from your future events? Do you really think that if a person is  marching in a large group and someone throws a rock through a window that they have a civic duty, and if so to do what? Detain the person? I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Run away from the area because now they have become rioters and so they have to go home so as not to be tainted by it?

[DonaldD]

(Trump's response to the announcement by German Chancellor Angela Merkel that the poison Russian president Putin ordered used on Russian opposition leader Navalny was actually Novichok, a Russian nerve agent recently used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, England, and which accidentally killed two UK nationals in a nearby town.)

[DonaldD]

I only support the peaceful protesters, the "mostly peaceful" ones are rioters.

No, you don't.  You have claimed that peaceful protesters that are in the vicinity of rioters become complicit, and must disperse immediately or should be considered co-conspirators.  And strangely, you don't use this same logic when evaluating the actions of police or CBP stormtroopers.

[DonaldD]

And... the president in a speech suggests people commit voter fraud to test the system. In jest?  Maybe he thinks it would be a valid test?  Who knows what this man thinks, if he actually does.  But it's almost a certainty many people will listen to him and act on his words.

So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote

[TheDrake]

And... the president in a speech suggests people commit voter fraud to test the system. In jest?  Maybe he thinks it would be a valid test?  Who knows what this man thinks, if he actually does.  But it's almost a certainty many people will listen to him and act on his words.

So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote

Well if they get caught and convicted, he'll just pardon them.

[DonaldD]

Well if they get caught and convicted, he'll just pardon them.

It's sad because it's true...

[oldbrian]

The Deamon,
   I know you are a... paramedic(?), so I assume you interact with police regularly.

What is your take on the Blue Wall of Silence?  Are police who observe, or hear about, another officer doing a 'bad apple' thing also complicit if they do not immediately remove themselves from the vicinity?  And if they dress in the same 'uniform' as the bad apples are they declaring unity with them?

And is the general view of Internal Affairs as seen on TV or in movies accurate?  DO the regular cops hate IA?  I'm actually not sure if your area is big enough for the police force to even have an Internal Affairs.  I know mine certainly doesn't.

[yossarian22c]

Well if they get caught and convicted, he'll just pardon them.

It's sad because it's true...

It's sad because I bet we'll have hundreds or thousands of voter fraud cases now linked to this. There's always a couple every cycle now where some Republican who has been listening to too much fox news about how easy voting fraud and double voting is go and do it "to prove that its being done" only to end up facing criminal charges as a result of their self designed election security test. Now the president is up there telling people to vote by mail then vote in person. We're going to have a lot of new senior citizen felons as a result.

[TheDrake]

Well if they get caught and convicted, he'll just pardon them.

It's sad because it's true...

It's sad because I bet we'll have hundreds or thousands of voter fraud cases now linked to this. There's always a couple every cycle now where some Republican who has been listening to too much fox news about how easy voting fraud and double voting is go and do it "to prove that its being done" only to end up facing criminal charges as a result of their self designed election security test. Now the president is up there telling people to vote by mail then vote in person. We're going to have a lot of new senior citizen felons as a result.

And they probably live in a state that doesn't give ex-felons voting rights.

[rightleft22]

Well if they get caught and convicted, he'll just pardon them.

It's sad because it's true...

It's sad because I bet we'll have hundreds or thousands of voter fraud cases now linked to this. There's always a couple every cycle now where some Republican who has been listening to too much fox news about how easy voting fraud and double voting is go and do it "to prove that its being done" only to end up facing criminal charges as a result of their self designed election security test. Now the president is up there telling people to vote by mail then vote in person. We're going to have a lot of new senior citizen felons as a result.

Where have the true conservatives gone

These types of reasonable statement should trouble everyone.
Trump is essentially creating what he 'fears' so that he can use it as a excuse to further undermine democracy.

[DonaldD]

An interesting read in The Atlantic: Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’.  The article makes the not-particularly-novel observation that Trump views nearly every interaction in life as transactional, and simply cannot fathom people making choices that do not immediately benefit themselves.

Specifically, it looks at Trump's worldview as it pertains to military personnel, veterans and the fallen.  I know true believers in the great orange god will discount it as a hatchet job, but it will be illuminating to those interested in why he sometimes acts incoherently.

When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.

Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

...

On Memorial Day 2017, Trump visited Arlington National Cemetery, a short drive from the White House. He was accompanied on this visit by John Kelly, who was then the secretary of homeland security, and who would, a short time later, be named the White House chief of staff. The two men were set to visit Section 60, the 14-acre area of the cemetery that is the burial ground for those killed in America’s most recent wars. Kelly’s son Robert is buried in Section 60. A first lieutenant in the Marine Corps, Robert Kelly was killed in 2010 in Afghanistan. He was 29. Trump was meant, on this visit, to join John Kelly in paying respects at his son’s grave, and to comfort the families of other fallen service members. But according to sources with knowledge of this visit, Trump, while standing by Robert Kelly’s grave, turned directly to his father and said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” Kelly (who declined to comment for this story) initially believed, people close to him said, that Trump was making a ham-handed reference to the selflessness of America’s all-volunteer force. But later he came to realize that Trump simply does not understand non-transactional life choices.

“He can’t fathom the idea of doing something for someone other than himself,” one of Kelly’s friends, a retired four-star general, told me. “He just thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker. There’s no money in serving the nation.” Kelly’s friend went on to say, “Trump can’t imagine anyone else’s pain. That’s why he would say this to the father of a fallen marine on Memorial Day in the cemetery where he’s buried.”

[TheDeamon]

they want the entire institution disbanded.

And you've had this explained to you multiple times as well. Nobody is trying to disband the police, that's not the slogan and that's not the policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

[TheDeamon]

And... the president in a speech suggests people commit voter fraud to test the system. In jest?  Maybe he thinks it would be a valid test?  Who knows what this man thinks, if he actually does.  But it's almost a certainty many people will listen to him and act on his words.

So let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote

There's already a case of this, and a republican did it.

He registered his dog, his cat, and his dead father. Voted as them too. He was prosecuted and jailed for voting as his deceased father. No charges pending for voting as his pets. They only caught him because he told them he'd done so.

[TheDeamon]

An interesting read in The Atlantic: Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’.  The article makes the not-particularly-novel observation that Trump views nearly every interaction in life as transactional, and simply cannot fathom people making choices that do not immediately benefit themselves.

Specifically, it looks at Trump's worldview as it pertains to military personnel, veterans and the fallen.  I know true believers in the great orange god will discount it as a hatchet job, but it will be illuminating to those interested in why he sometimes acts incoherently.

Trump has a very "colorful" history with regards to the treatment of veterans prior to 2016. I could fully believe he "doesn't get it" how people could volunteer to sign up for taking such risks. In some ways I think his outlook has likely changed on that since assuming Office. But the underlying issue still remains, he "doesn't understand it" but he has to accept that those people have placed their lives almost literally in his hands. So in some respects, I think he's probably one of the better Commander in Chief's the nation has had recently as while he cannot understand the why behind that choice, he can understand the inherent value in their having done so. The value is beyond measure, and as such, is not treasure you spend frivolously. In any other context he may consider them "suckers" but for now, they're in his care, and he can appreciates that aspect far more than most could.

It may not be the best of reasons for making decisions involving the Military, but there certainly are far worse criteria that could be used... Like LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, and Obama.

[DonaldD]

Sure.  That's why he still hasn't pushed back in any way on Russia having placed bounties on their heads. 

But that's not really what the article is about, anyway.  It's just interesting the pretzels your mind is willing to twist itself into.

[DonaldD]

Or maybe you can believe the president when he tells you what he means...

The president told senior advisers that he didn’t understand why the U.S. government placed such value on finding soldiers missing in action because they had performed poorly and gotten caught and deserved what they got, according to a person familiar with the discussion

The president views the military, and military personnel, in exactly the way he sees most everything else: will it help him "win", and how can it help him "win"?

[TheDeamon]

Or maybe you can believe the president when he tells you what he means...

The president told senior advisers that he didn’t understand why the U.S. government placed such value on finding soldiers missing in action because they had performed poorly and gotten caught and deserved what they got, according to a person familiar with the discussion

The president views the military, and military personnel, in exactly the way he sees most everything else: will it help him "win", and how can it help him "win"?

Oh more "anonymous sources report" stories. 

It would be somewhat consistent with the other view, so I could believe it to a fair degree. I'd hope that DoD managed to explain there is more nuance to it than that when it comes to many POW/MIA's but based on his comments about McCain he may still continue to have blinders on in regards to some of that.

"Why risk the expenditure of XXX Million dollars worth of assets to 'rescue' X million dollars worth of defunct assets? Just declare bankruptcy and move on."

[DonaldD]

Oh more "anonymous sources report" stories. 

And... what's your point?  Are you suggesting that the journalist was making it up?  That his sources were?  Is it supposed to be somehow less believable now that unnamed sources have corroborated the stupid and sociopathic things that Trump has repeatedly said?

So come clean - what are you implying here?

As an aside, if Trump truly did not say those things, he could successfully sue for libel (not threaten to sue - actually sue).  Let's see if that happens.

[TheDrake]

they want the entire institution disbanded.

And you've had this explained to you multiple times as well. Nobody is trying to disband the police, that's not the slogan and that's not the policy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abolish-defund-police.html

I wonder what's in the article you didn't read, just love the headline?

"But don’t get me wrong. We are not abandoning our communities to violence. We don’t want to just close police departments. We want to make them obsolete.

We should redirect the billions that now go to police departments toward providing health care, housing, education and good jobs. If we did this, there would be less need for the police in the first place."

[TheDeamon]

Police will never be obsolete, evolution argues against it.

The best you can do further limit the number of things they're "on the front line" for but even that is challenging.

The idea of an unarmed person responding to domestic disputes sounds great in theory.

Until you find out many domestic disputes involved one partner or the other weilding a knife, improvised club, or just simply being a brawler. That isn't even getting into the nightmare which is domestic dispute involving a gun. In none of those scenarios is that unarmed responder capable of doing well, unless they're at a level where they could do well in a MMA tournament.