The terrorist have won. - Muslim migration ban

I'm a bit uncertain, here, but just to take a swing at it: If I say, "This isn't actually the ‘Muslim ban’", does it help clarify if I add explicitly that the real Muslim ban is still yet to come?

As with myriad similar frameworks, to what degree does our attendance of the most obvious sleights reinforce perceptions of their argumentative propriety or, at the very least, viability? And no, I don't have either a good answer to the question itself or solution to the larger problem it describes. Still, though, there are in the American context a lot of legal particulars going into what President Trump is attempting, and if we get too hung up on the idea of a "Muslim ban", the next round is going to clobber our gobs. Yes, we can all see what it is and what is coming. But insofar as Mr. Trump is willing to tell us this isn't the Muslim ban, I am willing to believe him because the only thing it can possibly mean is that the real, full-spectrum, full-force Muslim ban is yet to come.

Toward that, think of it this way: He has some architects in place to construct an argumentative framework that bears the same sort of fault we see elsewhere in the conservative spectrum, like that one #NeverTrump potential candidate, French, who was the head of an organization that harassed universities for not hiring enough revisionist historians, and other such notions. That is to say, the Trump administration shares this particular fault with their intraparty opposition; it's nearly stock issue among movement-oriented conservatives.

I can't wait to see what they come up with, a great white whale-ish, hope-ish sack of excrement so synthetic and complicated and fragmented all those jagged edges must have really, really hurt to pass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just thoughts:
I guess to extend the point when Trump says "This isn't the Muslim ban" it might be worth suggesting that even though it is the truth, it really isn't. The personality of Trump is so fractured that his ability to be sincere ( perhaps a better word) is hugely compromised.

So when he states a "truth" he does it always in a disingenuous way. (the extreme politician from hell so to speak - or "forever the stage actor who writes his own lines")

I tend to think this stems way back to his childhood under the mixed up influence of a mother who migrated out of severe poverty and a father who was already extremely wealthy when he was born. In psychological terms just to give relevance, his preoccupation with size is related directly to the size of his ...hands. His hands are that of a 13 or 14 year old (?)...thus a perceptive observer would note that we may have a very extreme example of a child trapped in an adults body. So much so that the size of his hands reflect this dichotomy. You will also note the way he uses his hands when making a point and perhaps even recognize just how influential they are. The hand use suggest a sincerity that is actually non-existent.

If you do the research you will note that he has real difficulty discussing his early years with out gross distortion and lies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The sickness is so severe that he has a history of pretending to be someone else ( John Baron (?)) on an extended number of occasions and over extended amounts of times so he could market his finer qualities by using a pseudonym. (a ploy to solicit admiration)

As an aside:
I am currently researching the possible link between Baron Von Trapp 1880 - 1947 and Friedrich Trump 1869 – 1918 (D.Trumps grand father ) inspired by D.Trumps often use of the name "title" Baron and striking similarities between Donald Trump's style of leadership and that of Adolf Hitler ( whom also had a severe narcissistic streak and a hypochondriac)

Baron Von Trapp was a decorated naval officer that escaped Nazi Ideology and migrated/sort asylum/traveled to the USA in 1939. (Portrayed in the famous film "The Sound of Music" staring Christopher Plummer. released April 1965)
Donald Trump was born: June 1946
Baron Von Trapp died, Stowe, Vermont; Lung Cancer: May 1947

Hypothesis : That Grandfather Friedrich Trump son Frederick Trump, may have mentored or aided or facilitated the Trapps in their migration to the USA ( and subsequent activities) and that Baron Von Trapp's story and relationship to the family may have made a huge impression on Donald Trump as a child, reinforced by the release of the Plummer film in his late teens/early adult hood.
Might get no where but it is fun doing any how...

The first rendition of the story was The Trapp family ( movie ) 1956
Donald would have been only 10 years old.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The courts have issued a stay order on Trump's Muslim ban.

 

Perhaps they can also order a psychiatric assessment for Trump as well ....( seriously )

 

Trumps reaction to the stay will be fascinating....if anything like Adolf Hitlers style he will go ballistic...maybe even issue another proclamation about the USA Court system.

 

That has been his modus operandi. We'll see how much influence his staff and family have on him.

He may not attack the courts at large yet, but you can bet he'll attack the judge.

Trump's order is a stupid order, and poorly executed. But ultimately I think the stay will be removed. The POTUS has vast power with respect to immigration.

But the stay gives people in transit time to clear the system.

 

I'm hoping he loses his shit entirely... because then maybe, just MAYBE, the Republicans that have been commenting on his mental stability will take action and start the process to oust him.

Then, we just have to get rid of Pence...

 

This will be extremely interesting - I can't wait for his reaction to being told "no", even if only temporarily.

 

The only positive thing I can see coming from his nonsense is that the more outrageous his actions are the more the mid-term elections in 2 years may change the power in Congress.

Without Congress he will be a lame duck for the last two years before getting tossed out.

 

He may lose Congress long before then if he creates a trade war or removes the sanctions on Russia.

I think Trump is chomping at the bit to remove the Russian sanctions. He has been put on notice that if he does Congress will intervene.

A trade war wouldn't go over well with Trump's base either after it hit them in the pocketbook.

 

That was my hope but as spineless as politicians are I think it will take two years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

An interesting notion I don't think Weber ever properly attended is that in our American society that is genuinely tremendously influenced by the Judeo-Christian heritage in Western history also seems to rely on certain nods and winks that bump and grind up against our definitions of honesty, truth, and virtue.

Sales, law, and politics.

When I was a kid, there was an ethic to being a "salesman"; it doesn't seem to be in effect anymore, so where a nod and wink was acceptable once upon a time, it now often seems a question of at what point am I no longer not lying. And say what we will about ambulance chasers, divorce lawyers, and skeezy defense attorneys, but American society also likes a little bit of crookedness in prosecutors.

No, really: Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Eliot Spitzer. All prosecutors, and, really, who here is going to pretend to be surprised at the outcomes? You probably wouldn't know the name Dan Satterberg, but what can I say of a guy who looks at an incident report not only failing to match witness descriptions but stirring public expressions of outrage from the witnesses, and also failing to match the physical evidence with some persuasive suggestion that the physical evidence was tampered with, and says the State seens no reason to file charges? What do I say of the former U.S. Attorney for Seattle who would later write, in commiserating with Ferguson protesters, that she wanted to file charges but just didn't think she could overcome the burden of good faith? In the face of the prospect that he lied in good faith, federal prosecutors decided they just couldn't win. There comes a point at which these sorry outcomes are what people want and expect.

Then again, what's the other point? Something about politicians.

The standard conservative method involves attempting to not say anything explicitly untrue. Donald Trump's method involves some manner of sales pitch combined with the expectation that he can just bull through pretty much anyone. When he states a truth it is true because he states it. The disingenuousness is the post hoc calculation to blame everyone else.

I'm sorry, did I say post hoc? It's probably constant neurotic noise in his psyche by now. He is smart enough to have pulled off the part that he has; he must necessarily, "on some level", as the saying goes, know just how corrupt and full of excrement he really is.

 

From what I have read the stay order, whilst welcome is terribly limited.
I am monitoring Reaction News from Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and a few other Muslim majority nations... so far they remain relatively quiet....
Early days...

 

There is a question of perspective to consider. In Australia population say 20M we have similar issues of judicial process etc. In the USA the issues would be compounded by the fact that your population is just shy of 319 million and of course the burden of error and judicial injustice etc is greater.
I wonder though if the numbers per capita are really that different. Given differences in crime and litigation stats etc...
I guess what I am suggesting is that it is easy to conflate the problem by using single event issues. (Premise: All systems are flawed to begin with.)

But the point that the lack of personal integrity and good conscience has been evolving towards the negative is taken.
However in Trumps case I feel, unprecedented extremes are being set with the potential to further normalize behavior that has less good faith and integrity associated. This normalization can be historically demonstrated by the German population evolving from pacifism to out right encouragement of war and multi race genocide, during the course of Hitlers ascension and eventual capitalization of Emperor/God status prior to and during ww2.

 

That's not what happened with Reagan and W.

 

Reagan was actually effective and a good communicator. W had 9/11 going for him.

 

Reagan's administration was a mess, his tenure riddled with corruption and incompetence and perennial disaster, his public utterances a national embarrassment of falsehoods and mental glitches.

The similarities with Trump are borderline identities - Trump is much like Reagan, although of course more vulgar (his wife might be less vulgar than Nancy Reagan, similarly with his children).

He was the first President ever to have journalists compiling his quotes for their comedy value - during his second term a book of straight quotes of his, verbatim quotations presented with nothing more than brief accounts of their time and place of delivery, was for sale in the "humor" section of most bookstores.

That 9/11 and W's Keystone Kops reaction to it was "going for him" rather than sinking him utterly illustrates my point - this stuff we are mocking Trump for can get him re-elected, just as it got Reagan and W re-elected.

Neither Reagan or W was impeached. On that pattern, there is little reason to think Trump will be either. He's a Republican President - he has de facto impunity for stupid, corrupt, treasonous, and damaging behavior while in office.

Every so often the country seems destined to suffer and wade through another ROUS Presidency (Republican Of Unusual Size). It might be good if we can cut one off at one term - and not rewrite the histories to obscure what it was like, this time - but not easy to do.

 

I agree that he might be reelected just as any President can easily get reelected if they don't screw up the public relations battle too badly. Reagan had advantages there. He also lowered taxes, saw the Berlin Wall fall and the economy was decent during his tenure.

As they say, he was the "Teflon" President. G.W.Bush was more of a bumbler, didn't have the gift of gab or rather he could gab but not speak coherently. The public tends to support Presidents in time of war.

Trump will get credit for "decisive" action from his core constituents but due to political inexperience and dysfunctional personality traits he has a greater chance of just blowing it. That's not given however.

Some things could go right for him. If the economy picks up he gets reelected. If he spends a lot of money on infrastructure that could spur economic growth and then leave the bill for the next administration.

Business guys are good at stepping into companies, trashing them for short-term gain and then leaving.

Trump seems to be to be more like Hitler than Ronald Reagan.

 

The economy was a shaky and troubled mess during his tenure - banking collapses, ballooning deficits, stagnant wages, massive corruption, declining infrastructure, grandiose and dysfunctional boondoggle public spending (Star Wars, et al).

He raised taxes on the working class - his extra boost in the Social Security withholding alone wiped out any nominal Federal income tax break, and there was a proliferation of sales taxes and State taxes to cover the reduction in Federal largesse to the States. He also launched the wave of economic migration from Mexico whose continuation got us where we are today - the idea was to break unions and suppress wages, the means was a varied assortment of policies and funding distributions, in particular a decision to poorly pay and understaff the Border Patrols as well as the Justice Dept enforcement personnel.

Reagan and W blew it. Seriously - screwed the pooch, both of them. So if that's all Trump does wrong, he's a solid Republican candidate for two terms.

Mussolini, maybe, without the intellectual sophistication - Hitler was a decorated war veteran who built his Party from scratch over years of work, the consensus leader of that Party and a very articulate speaker. He wrote his own book, choreographed his own speeches.