I think it’s the incompetence and the cruelty and the corruption. I’m not sure about the collusion, since a heck of a lot of people voted for him anyway. But there’s no reason to pick just one reason he’s a terrible, awful, historically abysmal president.
Unfortunately, the image does slander pigs.
Nice teeth.
They do clarify that they are not naming his worst or most dangerous trait, but his worst political liability.
My personal take on the whole collusion bit is that his campaign staff was ass-deep with Russian intelligence, with Russian-backed activists, and with Wikileaks/Assange, but Trump probably had no clue. This would have required a little intelligence, some self-awareness, a dash of knowledge of campaign laws and criminal laws, some political savvy, and some international awareness. Which is, to put it mildly, not Trump at all.
Wife (who is the smart one in my family (obviously)) wonders just how much Trump owes to Russian banks and Russian mobsters. The only thing that seems to get through Trumps thick skull is greed (thus the self-dealing (though he (and his Tang Dynasty) are (luckily) incompetent at that, too), so all Putin has to do is smile knowingly at Trump and say, “Do you want us to call in the $1,900 million that you owe me — sorry — Russian banks? Or will you ‘cooperate’? Wouldn’t you like all those loans to just, shall we say, disappear?”
I find his casual cruelty the least surprising thing about him. I know people (all white and privileged) who really do think that eliminating welfare will make everyone work instead of living in luxury on welfare, WIC, and other programmes that keep people alive. I know people (all of them white, most in lower income brackets) who really do think that their economic problems are not due to lack of education, not due to alcohol and/or drugs, not due to their penchant for violence, but, rather, are due to all those Mexicans coming in and stealing jobs, buying homes, opening up businesses that have been shuttered for a score of years or longer. I know people (all white) who love Trump because he is willing to attack his foes and use the power of his office for retribution (whether the slight was real or not (and (usually) the slight was merely being honest about what Trump and the Tang Dynasty are trying to do). I know people (again, all white) who love the tax cut because they know that corporations not making enough money is the reason they are stuck in a dead-end, low-wage job. His cruelty sickens me, but it does not surprise me.
(Damn. I think (maybe) I just used up my weekly quantum of parentheses in that comment)
Damn. “Quantum” should (of course) be “quote”. Sorry.
Er, QUOTA, not quote.
Have I mentioned that I really can’t get the hang of Thursdays?
definitely no reason to pick just one… i’d go for narcissism, though
I completely believe the collusion theory. I think he displays a love of dangling proof of his crimes in public, while committing his crimes in private, so that he can laugh at the world, and probably rub it in the faces of those close to him.
He publicly asks Russia for help in recovering Clinton’s emails, even mentioning a specific number of 33,000. That was kind of a big tell.
@6 Oggie … you seem to have a bit of a loose grasp on Wednesdays as well. Best of luck tomorrow!
efogoto:
HHGTTG reference.
Of course, for me, today is Tuesday.
Better minds than mine have come up with this, so please bear with me: the U.S. or treaty nations or international community puts sanctions on some government or person or company or casino or other entity. The OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) is charged with a bunch of the enforcement of international deals.
From the applicable site: “Business, trade, and other financial and economic dealings with certain countries, entities, and individuals are considered a threat to the foreign policy, economic stability, AND NATIONAL SECURITY of the United States.” (Caps mine.)
Is there a scenario in which Drumpfh knowingly borrowed or laundered or otherwise transacted something yuuuge with certain countries, entities, or individuals under sanction? Yes. And any lawyer who actually passed the bar exam in any state EVER knows better than to let Drumpfh even open his mouth with respect to Mueller or his guys. They are bloodhounds, sharks, experts, whatever. They can smell your sweat and tell how big the lie was. When you take a break to go pee they can small the coffee you had that morning or the beer last night.
I say yes–Drumpfh’s financial dealings are notoriously shady. It is a slight stretch . . . but possible . . . to put this together and come up with treason . . . when they talk national security.
Russia, Russia, Russia. Trump and company have done one thing very well. They’ve distracted much of the nation with Russia and away from global capitalist billionaires. There’s an overlap, of course, but Russia, or should I say Putin and company is only one of the many players in this game of collusion and corruption from all over the world, including the UK, Israel, the Persian Gulf kingdoms, and the US.
Re: archanel @ #11…
“Treason” is the one crime that is actually specified in the US Constitution and it has very specific meaning and requirements, right down to a requirement that there be two witnesses to the same act or confession in open court (the framers were probably well aware of Henry VII’s little invention, the Star Chamber).
Much as I dislike Trump, and I think that there are plenty of crimes he could be charged with or impeached for, treason isn’t one of them.
re “collusion”
I have settled on accepting “collusion” in the passive sense, whether it has one or not. Meaning collusion where the two are working cooperatively to achieve the same end, where “active collusion” is more conspiratorial where there is active discussion between the two parties about strategy and tactics. “Passive collusion” is enjoying receiving the benefits not directly asked for.
I know this is only a mind game solitaire to calm myself of the fuckup occurring in DC.
oh well
sigh
?
whheydt #13
“…treason isn’t one of them…”
That is too bad. Are you really sure?
It was a year ago, November
A day I well remember
I was walking up and down in drunken pride
When my knees began to flutter
And I fell down in the gutter
And a pig came by and lay down by my side
As I lay there in the gutter
Thinking thoughts I could not utter
I thought I heard a passing lady say,
“You can tell a man who boozes
By the company he chooses…”
And with that, the pig got up and walked away
Oggie: [blockquote] My personal take on the whole collusion bit is that his campaign staff was ass-deep with Russian intelligence, with Russian-backed activists, and with Wikileaks/Assange, but Trump probably had no clue. [/blockquote]
Maybe he had no clue, but my money is on Trump being a Russian agent. Putin has something over him, and money is the obvious. Trump has only two interests: Himself ,and the public’s perception of himself. Is Trump actually solvent., given his love of debt, and the wall of Russian money he has borrowed? I think not. Putin can bring his business down, and it shows.
Re: chigau @ #15…
Yes, unfortunately, I’m sure.
Weird capitalization is in the original. Any other typos are mine., To the best of my non-lawyer knowledge, part (1) requires that there be a war with said enemy going on. (That is, technically I think one could be charged with treason for giving “aid and comfort” to North Korea, but not to Russia.)
@ whheydt & chigau:
I think “enemies” means opponents in a declared war. The United States hasn’t had any enemies since 1945. And as for “levying war”–when they couldn’t convict Aaron fucking Burr on that, it became a dead letter, IMO.
oh well