Trump claimed this photo showed him writing his inaugural speech. The Wall Street Journal reports his contributions were minimal at best. CREDIT: Twitter.
Let’s get this ridiculous idea that Trump wrote his own speech out of the way first. As to the photo he tweeted, supposedly of him busy writing, it was already torn apart prior to the speech. It’s rather obvious the pad of paper is blank; Trump isn’t know for using Sharpie markers, and he’s sitting at the reception concierge desk at Mar-A-Lago. Trump must really think that every person on the planet is an idiot. He doesn’t even make an effort, for fuck’s sake. The WSJ has also concluded that he had little to do with the speech. Not a difficult conclusion, the man can barely speak, who on earth would think he could put a comprehensive speech together?
The inaugural speech was noted to be dark and ominous (perhaps he wanted to continue in the whole dark Batman mode, given his theft of lines from Bane), painting The States as being in dire straits. That much serves Trump’s purpose, as those lies help to paint himself as an ersatz savior. There’s another reason for the speech’s tone though, and it’s a discomfiting one: it was authored by white nationalists.
“Much of the speech was written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, two of Mr. Trump’s top advisers,” the Journal reports, citing a White House official.
Politico reports that Miller, senior White House adviser for policy, wrote most of the prepared speeches Trump delivered last year, including his keynote address at the Republican National Convention. That speech, like the inaugural address, painted a dire picture of an America besieged by threats within and without, with Trump presenting himself as the only hope for salvation.
[…]
During his inaugural address, Trump said “America First” is the “new vision [that] will govern the land.” The phrase “America First” was popularized by a 1940s isolationist, anti-Semitic group that opposed America’s entry into World War II. Bannon’s ex-wife accused him of anti-Semitism.
[…]
Bannon praised the speech while speaking to the Wall Street Journal.
“I don’t think we’ve had a speech like that since Andrew Jackson came to the White House,” he said. “It’s got a deep, deep root of patriotism.”
Bannon added that the speech was “an unvarnished declaration of the basic principles of [Trump’s] populist and nationalist movement.”
Ah, citing Indian Killer Jackson. That’s a bad sign. White supremacist nazis adore Jackson. Obviously, Bannon is not concerned about being open about the nationalist administration now in power. It’s not a good thing he’s feeling so comfortable about this. People should be woke; they should be very concerned; they should be scared; and they should be resisting. I expect history will simply repeat itself once more, and most people won’t wake up until it’s too late.
Full story at Think Progress.
Yeah, but did he use a teleprompter? #sad #lame
There was some sort of clipboard thingy hanging to the front and side, it obscured Pres. Obama’s face.
Some might find the Cartoons on this Language Log post interesting
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=30553
Those are…so on point! Thanks, AndrewD! I’m going to add them to the post.
Is anybody else finding it, how to describe it, funny? hilarious? facepalming? that he claims to have written “America First” in front of a wall covered in mudejar style? You know, fekkin Arab Muslim Art?
Giliell:
I wish I found it funny. I don’t know that anyone commented on that, but I’m sure at least one person did, kind of hard to miss.
I find it terrifying that Trump is so fucking willfully oblivious. All that matters to him is gold -- look, it has lots of gold, shiny! Fuck.
@Giliell #5 Well, he thinks he is winnint a reconquista of sorts, taking America back from muslim Mexicans who took over it under that muslim african Obama. So it is fitting to use their former mosque as a church afterwards, spoils of war and whatnot…
Unfortunately, it is not funny. It is tragic. I do not think he even has enough knowledge to even know what reconquista is. It is “elitist” to know such things.
Steven Colbert and Trevor Noah make a lot of spot-on jokes about the worlds mighties ignoramus. I like to watch them, but I just cannot laugh.
Caine
Nah, funny isn’t the right word. There is none, at least none that I know.
Charly
You’re presupposing that Trump ever heard about the Muslim rule in Spain or the Reconquista…
Giliell:
Also, Trump doesn’t read. Ever. He’s proud of not reading. I doubt he has deep conversations about books, history, comparative religion, architectural styles, art, or anything else.
From the perspective of much of the rest of the world, a period of US isolationism (like Western civilisation) would undoubtedly be a good thing. This isn’t the late 30s, and you’re not opposing (or not opposing) the fascist hegemon of the day -- you are the fascist hegemon of the day, and many nations want nothing more than for you to leave them in peace.
Dunc
I don’t think it’s that simple.
Also that top picture, of Donald ‘writing’ -- does anyone actually write like that, with the pad lifted up? Is he hiding his text? And: why isn’t he using a computer…? He is, however, very obviously thinking very hard, but seems to be having some obstructive issues (in the written word department, of course).
So I have my doubts about the authenticity of what that photosays it portrays.
I never knew that Dr. Seuss was so political. Good on him! I have a bunch of his books from my childhood. I recognized his style immediately before even seeing the signature at the bottom. Too bad he isn’t around now to poke the orange pussy-grabber. Today’s journalists and editorial cartoonists would do well to emulate Dr. Seuss.
I think the problem is that the Trumpistats same as the Brexiteers don’t actually want isolationism. They want full access to the world without having to heed any of those pesky playing rules. I think figurative pussy grabbing is what Trump would like to do with the rest of the world.
@Giliell #14
Very well said!
US trumpets, just like UK brexiters are yearning for the “good ole times” when they could steal from other countries with impunity. They see themselves as the only real people and the rest of us as trash that is suitable to be mere serfs at best.
Plus the fact that actual isolationism, in the day of the internet, would be difficult to achieve -- they might isolate themselves (taking the Cold War and the Iron Curtain as example), but they would still have an effect and a kind of influence on the rest of the world (others taking example, working around them, leaking information, etc.), whether by being a positive space or a negative one (in the art sense).
… And I mean obviously the isolation during the Cold War was complete 100% leak-free seals, right?
I don’t think anybody imagines that the USA is going to turn into Albania, but a bit less bombing, fewer drone assassinations, and a reduced overseas military presence would all be steps in the right direction. Maybe not give quite as much money or quite so many guns, bombs, and military aircraft to the likes of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps stop picking fights with Russia in other people’s countries. Stuff like that.
Dunc:
Given recent events, you’d have to be beyond delusional if you think any of that will happen. If anything, the exact opposite of that shit will happen.
Who is responsible for starting this bullshit idea that Trump wants to leave the world alone?
Saad:
I don’t know, but that is not what the America First crap is about, in any way. Yes, it harks back to fascist isolationist policy, but that has nothing to do with withdrawal, it has to do with delusions of conquering.
Donny thinks America is the greatest, best, bigliest, yuugest, whatthefuckeverist. He thinks America (him) should rule over the whole planet. His views are very similar to Hitler’s, and Hitler was not content to hang about in Germany. Trump doesn’t want to leave the world alone, he wants to own it.
I’m not saying that I expect it to happen, I’m just saying that it wouldn’t be a bad thing if it did.
It’s kind of implied by the use of the term “isolationism”. Unless that word doesn’t mean what I think it means…
I would argue the opposite: a country like USAmerica suddenly isolating itself away from the world? Cause for alarm and mass paranoia, also for how long? When do they come back to the world stage, and how? I could agree on the less drones and bombs and money to foreign militaries, but those are vaccuums that will be filled by someone else (to their profit, no doubt). Increased tension all-’round, is what I think would happen.
I’ve never found the “if we don’t do [evil thing], somebody else will do it anyway” sort of argument particularly persuasive.
rq@23, I believe Dunc@22 & @18 was only referring to “a bit less bombing, fewer drone assassinations, and a reduced overseas military presence”. Broadly speaking, I concur with the desire for those three objectives to happen, but I also concur it is “delusional” to expect them to happen — and that, at least in the case of reduced military presence, that’s difficult to accomplish without bad side-effects such as those previously mentioned.
On the drone killings specifically: As far as I am aware, most or all of the drone killings are extrajudicial, which is sufficient reason to stop them completely. They are also known to kill others, and quite possibly have killed more bystanders than pre-attack† targeted individuals, strengthening the case for total stoppage.
† It would not surprise me if, post-attack, the not-initially-targeted but killed people are added to an “approved targets” list, albeit perhaps not by name (e.g., “so-and-so and his guards“). The extrajudicial drone murder progreamme is run by the CIA, who have never(?) been much concerned with either due process or accountability.
Dunc
It’s not meant to be a persuasive argument, because I’m not arguing for the necessity to have more drone attacks or shuffle more and more powerful weapons to other countries. I’m trying to say that, even if the US were to retreat from world affairs, this won’t guarantee stabilization or peace or an actual reduction in violence around the world. In other words, isolationism isn’t much of a solution.
Then again, I don’t know what would be, so you’ve got me there.
blf
?
No, you’re right, it certainly won’t offer any guarantees. However, “first, do no harm” is a fairly good maxim in most circumstances. If you want peace, the first step is usually to stop making war. Yes, other people also export death and destruction around the world, but the US is by far the world’s leading exporter of death and destruction, and the rest of the world would really have to up its game quite significantly to make up the difference if you stopped.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
Anyway. I doubt Trump is going to isolate himself or America at any predictable future date, because to be honest, my one worry is the perception of reduced USAmerican influence could lead to increased pressure from the east (for us). But then, the US isn’t the entirety of NATO, so there’s that.