Banana republic

[jeffmori7]

Honestly, the Trump administration is transforming the US into a banana republic. It has nothing to do with left or right, they are a bunch of amateurs with 1st level thinking and I am really afraid of the damage they will do. I hope people will stop defend everything they do just because it could be good for investment in the really short term...Some actions are really leading to a dangerous path.

 

Ok, let's have a totally useless conversation here, but I had to do it  :P

[Mephistopheles]

Are you referring to them banning cnn and nyt from the "gaggle"?

 

Yep, quite scary

[Guest]

I'm not a trump fan (I didn't vote) but they're amateurs that suffer from "1st level" thinking? They beat what, 15 other republicans, and a much more heavily financed democrat? These guys are unorthodox but not simple.

 

I just watched Generation Zero - a documentary Bannon produced. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he is doing this to "blow up" the system. It seems to me he feels it's corrupt and wants to unravel the whole thing. He's got some similarities to Sanders.

[jeffmori7]

Are you referring to them banning cnn and nyt from the "gaggle"?

 

Yep, quite scary

 

I'm referring to everything that happened since the election, banning selected medias being the last stupid move of a long list!

[Desert_Rat]

Honestly, the Trump administration is transforming the US into a banana republic. It has nothing to do with left or right, they are a bunch of amateurs with 1st level thinking and I am really afraid of the damage they will do. I hope people will stop defend everything they do just because it could be good for investment in the really short term...Some actions are really leading to a dangerous path.

 

Ok, let's have a totally useless conversation here, but I had to do it  :P

 

Awesome thread. I can't add anything more than that I feel sorry for you people and your mindset of leaving things be, they've been great!

 

MAGA and foremost, stop the PC shit that is ruining our world. That PC shit is all you have against the man.

 

[LC]

That PC shit is all you have against the man.

 

"If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would have never burned down."

 

Said women should be punished for abortions

 

Said there should be "beyond databases" for Muslims.

 

"I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future."

 

"If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"

 

"But we’re not going to be opening our borders or closing our borders based on executive orders.

 

“Q: Seven in ten voters told us in a CNN poll they want to see you cut ties with your business while you are running for president — TRUMP: I will do that. Q: Will you do that while — TRUMP: Oh yea, I’ll do that. Q: — while you’re running though? TRUMP: I will do that.”

 

 

Stupidity, racism, sexism, incest, and flat out lies. But you know....

 

Just that damn PC shit!

[jeffmori7]

Honestly, the Trump administration is transforming the US into a banana republic. It has nothing to do with left or right, they are a bunch of amateurs with 1st level thinking and I am really afraid of the damage they will do. I hope people will stop defend everything they do just because it could be good for investment in the really short term...Some actions are really leading to a dangerous path.

 

Ok, let's have a totally useless conversation here, but I had to do it  :P

 

Awesome thread. I can't add anything more than that I feel sorry for you people and your mindset of leaving things be, they've been great!

 

MAGA and foremost, stop the PC shit that is ruining our world. That PC shit is all you have against the man.

 

Sorry, what does PC shit mean?

[no_free_lunch]

Probably one of the first banana republics to do wide spread tax cuts.

[rb]

Probably one of the first banana republics to do wide spread tax cuts.

I think that taxes are very low in a lot of banana republics

[Mephistopheles]

That PC shit is all you have against the man.

 

"If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would have never burned down."

 

Said women should be punished for abortions

 

Said there should be "beyond databases" for Muslims.

 

"I am being proven right about massive vaccinations—the doctors lied. Save our children & their future."

 

"If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"

 

"But we’re not going to be opening our borders or closing our borders based on executive orders.

 

“Q: Seven in ten voters told us in a CNN poll they want to see you cut ties with your business while you are running for president — TRUMP: I will do that. Q: Will you do that while — TRUMP: Oh yea, I’ll do that. Q: — while you’re running though? TRUMP: I will do that.”

 

 

Stupidity, racism, sexism, incest, and flat out lies. But you know....

 

Just that damn PC shit!

 

All good points, but at least he's not crooked Hillary !

[physdude]

I really can't believe that Trump thinks that Alex Jones is a serious news person!  :o The guy is a ranting nutcase at best or an evil person exploiting a bunch of people who want to listen to one at worst. I have to seriously wonder about global security in the future if Trump actually believes or shares Alex Jones' worldview.  :-\

[wachtwoord]

All the ad hominems show how completely lost the socialists are. I'm absolutely loving that at least  ;D

[no_free_lunch]

Probably one of the first banana republics to do wide spread tax cuts.

I think that taxes are very low in a lot of banana republics

 

Not ARE low, are being lowered.  That's the difference.  No one in a real banana republic is thinking of stimulating the economy by shrinking their own piece.

[RichardGibbons]

I'm actually pretty grateful to the right wingers on this threat.  I mean, I look at the most recent things Trump's doing--starting down the path to becoming a theocracy like Iran by removing the separation between church and state, and persecuting the press--and I think, "how could anyone American support these actions?"

 

And then watchword and rat step forward and give me clear indications of why they support the destruction of American ideals.  I find it pretty useful to form a mental model of why people allow support the decent from a free democracy to a theocratic dictatorship.

[Packer16]

I feel bad for the folks who think Trump is turning the US into a banana republic.  They either do not understand the US system where the power of the President is limited more than practically any other head of state & has limited impact on citizens lives, they have allowed politics to pollute their rationale thinking (a Munger observation) or the joke is on me as this thread is comedy that I do not get.

 

As to the separation of church and state, it is pretty far apart now as you have no "state" church & the churches in the US are pretty diverse so the possibility of collusion is pretty remote.  Also, folks in the US are pretty independent lot that believe what they want to believe regardless of who is President.  As a matter of fact, if there ever was collusion, I think most Americans would rebel against it.

 

I would hardly call questioning the presses right to do what they do just because they call themselves "the press" a bad thing.  Who died & made them kings & queens.  When the press was more reporting facts versus opinion and channels of communications less diverse, you could make a case for providing a privilege but now with as much or more opinion vs. facts in stories & more diverse sources, IMO this privilege does not make sense.  You saw this beginning with Obama & his attitude towards Fox & now you are seeing the opposite with other news outlets.  The way out is for news be more facts and less opinion but this is going to be tough sell for those who think they have a right to express their opinions as facts on both sides of the aisle.

 

Packer

[LC]

I feel bad for the folks who think Trump is turning the US into a banana republic.  They either do not understand the US system where the power of the President is limited more than practically any other head of state & has limited impact on citizens lives,

 

...

 

.  When the press was more reporting facts versus opinion and channels of communications less diverse, you could make a case for providing a privilege but now with as much or more opinion vs. facts in stories & more diverse sources, IMO this privilege does not make sense.

 

 

Your first point on Presidential influence, I have two comments:

 

1. The president obviously has influence, beyond just Tump. For example, Obamacare has had such a huge influence that one of Trumps biggest campaign points was promising to repeal it. Then we get to trade agreements like TPP, etc. Finally we can point to Trumps executive order attempting to close the borders...this had an immediate and large impact on people's lives (people being stopped at the border, everyone else traveling thru Int'l airports, to the lawyers and protestors)

 

2. Isn't this exactly what one would say when another is doing a really, really bad job? "Well, at least he doesn't have any power!"

 

The press: irregardless of their "spin", news outlets (especially big name ones i.e. NY Times, BBC) disseminate information to the entire country. Limiting their access of dissenting news outlets is limiting the information available to the entire country. In this case, Trump allows only the "spin" that Trump wants heard. That is pretty undemocratic if you ask me.

 

Also, i learned this recently (just some fun trivia): the word "ostracize" comes from the Ancient Greek word for "shell". Athenians would write the name of a person they believed a "threat to the democracy" on seashells. After the tally, that person was ostracized from the country.

[Packer16]

Interesting point about the ACA.  IMO the name Obamacare was more marketing than anything else.  The Dems were capitalizing on the Obama name to sell the program.  Congress had to approve something before it effected folks & the truth is that even with approval without consensus from the Reps is leading to a dismantle today.  It will be interesting to see if the Rep plan is more dependent upon state & local control or some other mechanism than rule making from Washington.  IMO ACA's major flaw was not the concept but the idea that the national government could enforce national rules on all the population.  Without these national rules, ACA is easy pass.

 

As to the Spicer interview, I really do not see the big deal here.  Obama selectively chose who he wanted to speak to also & am I sure favorites were given access others did not get.  As a matter of fact, one of Fox's reporters (Rosen) got on the Justice department's bad boy list under the last admin.  I think the main difference with Trump is that he will be more overt about his biases than Obama.  Just because you are covert about your biases dose not mean you do not have them as we have seen the Obama exec orders & legislation.  They key here IMO for the press is to facilitate compromise for benefit of all Americans.  Why would you even try to deal with people who are not even open to this possibility?

 

Packer

[RichardGibbons]

They key here IMO for the press is to facilitate compromise for benefit of all Americans.  Why would you even try to deal with people who are not even open to this possibility?

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.  Can you explain what you'd like CNN to do?  Thanks.

[Packer16]

CNN can have a rationale discussion about the issues.  Most of these issues have portions that both sides can agree upon and some they do not.  If you had a balanced discussion you would get more viewers & be part of the compromise.  If you watch their programming, you would think Trump had no good ideas and was the second coming of Hitler (which we can now see was nonsense).  I know this is not true and treating viewers like this is condescending & only appeals to true believers.  CNN is not the only one doing this.  Some of Fox programs are similar (like Hannity).

 

Packer

[rb]

I would hardly call questioning the presses right to do what they do just because they call themselves "the press" a bad thing.  Who died & made them kings & queens.

Oh, I know this one! It was the founding fathers.

 

Funny how people of the right are so jacked about the 2nd amendment but so easily forget about the 1st. Oh and there's not stuff about being "well regulated" either.

 

Regarding checks and balances in the US. That sounds good in principle maybe it even works if powers are split between parties. But now you have a republican senator declaring that it makes no sense to have republicans investigating republicans. The chairman of the Congress Intelligence Committee doesn't seem too concerned about Russian connections and involvement in the election. In the past this would have been equivalent to a declaration of war. But I guess winning changes things - now you have people waving Russian flags at CPAC. Oh and the House Oversight Committee for the past 8 years investigated everything down to what kind of underwear Obama was wearing but now suddenly everything is squeaky clean with Trump administration and the top item to investigate is a national park's tweets. Checks and balances indeed.

[DooDiligence]

I would hardly call questioning the presses right to do what they do just because they call themselves "the press" a bad thing.  Who died & made them kings & queens.

Oh, I know this one! It was the founding fathers.

 

Funny how people of the right are so jacked about the 2nd amendment but so easily forget about the 1st. Oh and there's not stuff about being "well regulated" either.

 

Regarding checks and balances in the US. That sounds good in principle maybe it even works if powers are split between parties. But now you have a republican senator declaring that it makes no sense to have republicans investigating republicans. The chairman of the Congress Intelligence Committee doesn't seem too concerned about Russian connections and involvement in the election. In the past this would have been equivalent to a declaration of war. But I guess winning changes things - now you have people waving Russian flags at CPAC. Oh and the House Oversight Committee for the past 8 years investigated everything down to what kind of underwear Obama was wearing but now suddenly everything is squeaky clean with Trump administration and the top item to investigate is a national park's tweets. Checks and balances indeed.

 

++

[LC]

Interesting point about the ACA.  IMO the name Obamacare was more marketing than anything else.  The Dems were capitalizing on the Obama name to sell the program.  Congress had to approve something before it effected folks & the truth is that even with approval without consensus from the Reps is leading to a dismantle today.  It will be interesting to see if the Rep plan is more dependent upon state & local control or some other mechanism than rule making from Washington.  IMO ACA's major flaw was not the concept but the idea that the national government could enforce national rules on all the population.  Without these national rules, ACA is easy pass.

 

As to the Spicer interview, I really do not see the big deal here.  Obama selectively chose who he wanted to speak to also & am I sure favorites were given access others did not get.  As a matter of fact, one of Fox's reporters (Rosen) got on the Justice department's bad boy list under the last admin.  I think the main difference with Trump is that he will be more overt about his biases than Obama.  Just because you are covert about your biases dose not mean you do not have them as we have seen the Obama exec orders & legislation.  They key here IMO for the press is to facilitate compromise for benefit of all Americans.  Why would you even try to deal with people who are not even open to this possibility?

 

Packer

 

Yes Congress is a check on the President's actions...my sense is that Trump really shook up the republican party, and the republican congressmen don't know where their allegiances lie...so even if they did disagree with Trump, they are hesitant to really "check" him. But you're right: we're lucky enough to have a strong foundation with a gov't with checks and balances, unlike a blatant dictatorship or oligarchy.

 

In terms of Obama's biases, my view is that, although the biases were there, Obama at least let his opponents have a seat at the table. Take the White House Correspondents Dinner (Trump just announced he will not attend). Obama attended and, admittedly, took blatant shots at his opponents, but he showed up and let them show up as well.

 

Finally, in terms of the Press. To me it's pretty simple...regardless who is the President, we live in a democracy. He doesn't get to define what is "rational" enough to get aired. Freedom of the Press is pretty straightforward.

 

Trump can argue that  that the Press is unfair to him.

The other side can rebut: Well if Trump thinks entire Press is out to get him, maybe it's because they have valid reasons.

 

In some sense, it comes with the territory (as the saying goes, if you cant take the heat...)

[Parsad]

Interesting point about the ACA.  IMO the name Obamacare was more marketing than anything else.  The Dems were capitalizing on the Obama name to sell the program.  Congress had to approve something before it effected folks & the truth is that even with approval without consensus from the Reps is leading to a dismantle today.  It will be interesting to see if the Rep plan is more dependent upon state & local control or some other mechanism than rule making from Washington.  IMO ACA's major flaw was not the concept but the idea that the national government could enforce national rules on all the population.  Without these national rules, ACA is easy pass.

 

As to the Spicer interview, I really do not see the big deal here.  Obama selectively chose who he wanted to speak to also & am I sure favorites were given access others did not get.  As a matter of fact, one of Fox's reporters (Rosen) got on the Justice department's bad boy list under the last admin.  I think the main difference with Trump is that he will be more overt about his biases than Obama.  Just because you are covert about your biases dose not mean you do not have them as we have seen the Obama exec orders & legislation.  They key here IMO for the press is to facilitate compromise for benefit of all Americans.  Why would you even try to deal with people who are not even open to this possibility?

 

Packer

 

Yes Congress is a check on the President's actions...my sense is that Trump really shook up the republican party, and the republican congressmen don't know where their allegiances lie...so even if they did disagree with Trump, they are hesitant to really "check" him. But you're right: we're lucky enough to have a strong foundation with a gov't with checks and balances, unlike a blatant dictatorship or oligarchy.

 

In terms of Obama's biases, my view is that, although the biases were there, Obama at least let his opponents have a seat at the table. Take the White House Correspondents Dinner (Trump just announced he will not attend). Obama attended and, admittedly, took blatant shots at his opponents, but he showed up and let them show up as well.

 

Finally, in terms of the Press. To me it's pretty simple...regardless who is the President, we live in a democracy. He doesn't get to define what is "rational" enough to get aired. Freedom of the Press is pretty straightforward.

 

Trump can argue that  that the Press is unfair to him.

The other side can rebut: Well if Trump thinks entire Press is out to get him, maybe it's because they have valid reasons.

 

In some sense, it comes with the territory (as the saying goes, if you cant take the heat...)

 

+1!  Absolutely correct.  I don't remember the Obama Administration taking any such stance with the press or even a single Republican with all of the crap that was spewing out about Obama's nationality or religion.  Forget everything else...just this one simple issue was carried as a torch by Trump and Tea Party members for nearly the entire 8-year term of his presidency.  Even Glenn Beck was one of those stating that Obama was a muslim, born in Kenya.  Even now, there are millions of Trump supporters who believe this shit.  Cheers! 

[Desert_Rat]

Personally I don't care where Obama was born. Sure, there's the constitutional issue but that'll be changed one day as it really shouldn't be a qualification. You shouldn't need to be born here to become our best leader. In Obama's case, even if he were born elsewhere, if our presidents primary job is to represent our country I think he did a bang up job, and voted twice for him for that alone. That said, what he actually accomplished he can go to hell for.

 

But I wouldn't call the birthers crazy either. There are plenty of issues with both Obama's birth certificate and college record that he could have been more forthright with them. It took him years to share his birth certificate, and that thing is sketchy as hell, and to this day he has refused to share his college record. Given that and all the suspicions, I'd take terrible odds on a bet that he actually isn't a US citizen. But again, that doesn't matter to me.

 

Note: if you're curious why I would vote twice for a guy based only on the way he carried himself, even though I detested what he was actually doing, pre-Trump they all sucked beans. I felt, what the hell, Romney will be as bad anyway. They all lied, they all bullshitted, not an iota of their public appearance was ever real. They did what their party's and pac's told them to do, America be damned. Between Reagan to Trump the swamp had become so bad no one cared about voting anymore.

 

I still vote. I don't know why because it's become a circus, but i do.

 

Edit: MAGA

[onyx1]

Interesting point about the ACA.  IMO the name Obamacare was more marketing than anything else.  The Dems were capitalizing on the Obama name to sell the program.  Congress had to approve something before it effected folks & the truth is that even with approval without consensus from the Reps is leading to a dismantle today.  It will be interesting to see if the Rep plan is more dependent upon state & local control or some other mechanism than rule making from Washington.  IMO ACA's major flaw was not the concept but the idea that the national government could enforce national rules on all the population.  Without these national rules, ACA is easy pass.

 

As to the Spicer interview, I really do not see the big deal here.  Obama selectively chose who he wanted to speak to also & am I sure favorites were given access others did not get.  As a matter of fact, one of Fox's reporters (Rosen) got on the Justice department's bad boy list under the last admin.  I think the main difference with Trump is that he will be more overt about his biases than Obama.  Just because you are covert about your biases dose not mean you do not have them as we have seen the Obama exec orders & legislation.  They key here IMO for the press is to facilitate compromise for benefit of all Americans.  Why would you even try to deal with people who are not even open to this possibility?

 

Packer

 

Yes Congress is a check on the President's actions...my sense is that Trump really shook up the republican party, and the republican congressmen don't know where their allegiances lie...so even if they did disagree with Trump, they are hesitant to really "check" him. But you're right: we're lucky enough to have a strong foundation with a gov't with checks and balances, unlike a blatant dictatorship or oligarchy.

 

In terms of Obama's biases, my view is that, although the biases were there, Obama at least let his opponents have a seat at the table. Take the White House Correspondents Dinner (Trump just announced he will not attend). Obama attended and, admittedly, took blatant shots at his opponents, but he showed up and let them show up as well.

 

Finally, in terms of the Press. To me it's pretty simple...regardless who is the President, we live in a democracy. He doesn't get to define what is "rational" enough to get aired. Freedom of the Press is pretty straightforward.

 

Trump can argue that  that the Press is unfair to him.

The other side can rebut: Well if Trump thinks entire Press is out to get him, maybe it's because they have valid reasons.

 

In some sense, it comes with the territory (as the saying goes, if you cant take the heat...)

 

+1!  Absolutely correct.  I don't remember the Obama Administration taking any such stance with the press...

 

The Obama administration literally spied on reporters and eavesdropped on family member's private phone calls.  They used the threat of jail time in federal prison by naming one reporter a co-conspirator for doing his job. 

 

How do you not remember that?