Senate The US Politics discussion

What in the world would be "illegal" about that question as opposed to just brazenly cynical? Admitting a new state is an inherently political process with political ramifications. Trump wants to know what those ramifications would be in evaluating whether or not to support this particular statehood movement. There's no actual "selling" or bribery going on here.

 

Except the one he is insinuating. Even if its not possible, the fact that he goes ahead and insinuates as much speaks volumes about his character, which of course is already shot. Just lends more credibility to those of us who call him a scumbag.

 

Reading Julia Ioffe's story in GQ about Don Jr., my mind went to another son of a famous father who failed at one thing after another. I'm referring to George W. Bush, of course. It's unfortunate that we can't keep our famous family psychodramas from infecting the entire country.

 

He was probably told by some GOP ****head or another that Puerto Rico would likely send Democrats to congress (the reason D.C. won't get such rights, at least not until it's fully gentrified) and vote Democrat for president, so that was the first thing that came out of his mouth.

 

What? What is "the one" you are referring to? Seriously, do you not think that the consequences of Puerto Rico statehood on electoral politics is not a question that every single member of Congress will factor into their decision on whether to support it or not?

Of course. I'm just wondering how it could possibly be construed as "illegal."

 

It's not. As an actual condition of statehood, it probably is.

 

If anyone needed any proof of Trump's complete divorce from reality - the very fact that he was even asking whether Puerto Rico would have "Republican Senators" after everything that happened last year, and continues to happen now - is really all you need.

One of the reason that Scott is breaking with Trump (at least publicly) on immigration is because of the significant Puerto Rican population in Florida, even before the refugees poured in. Scott seems to be the rare conservative that knows that Puerto Ricans are actually US citizens.

 

I think it's fair to say that Trump has tendencies or characteristics that would be recognized as fascist although I don't think his political movement has gained the popular support needed to transform the US government into an explicitly fascist regime. Even his most horrible acts like the family separation program are actually just extensions of existing government policies. In any case, Fascism is notoriously difficult to define, in part because so few governments throughout history have positively identified themselves as fascist. Personally I think the term is better understood as political tactic rather than a system of government.

Umberto Eco, an Italian writer who lived under fascism as a child, wrote a fascinating account of his own experiences (which I highly recommend to everyone) and concluded that there were 14 characteristics common to all fascist movements which he classified as Ur-Fascism. I see some of them as being frighteningly applicable to Trump and responsible for his popularity:

• [Fascism] also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. (With Trump, he presents himself as being constantly active, always signing orders or having meetings even though much of it is a show.)

• To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. (In the case of Trump, his politics are intertwined with a fear of foreign immigration which is destroying America, a paranoia part and parcel with White Supremacy.)

• Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show. (I’d argue that Trump’s twitter account, which is full of unusually simple and vulgar language for a US president, qualifies as Newspeak as it has a massive impact on US journalism and media.)

To the point of whether the “Resistance” in the US will stop him, I worry that the US political establishment (the social/professional networks at the top of both political parties) dislike him not so much for his policies per se but for his style of politics which renders them obsolete. He has essentially removed their status as gatekeepers to the highest levels of government, proving that anyone bypass them as long as their message resonates.

As to the extent of his popularity, it’s hard to say, but I think it’s worth acknowledging that Hillary Clinton was a very poor candidate, at least in terms of the skills needed to win over voters in a modern US election. This point is still furiously debated by her network of surrogates, in part because their professional reputations depend on it. Many agree that Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders would have beaten him, myself included.

 

Isn't the only "actual condition" of statehood whether or not Congress approves a new State or not? Is there some law on the books for "not supporting admission of a new State for nakedly partisan reasons"? Isn't this just another iteration of the reason why the Three Californias idea is such a non-starter for the Democrats? (Why partition a guaranteed 55-Electoral-vote bloc?)

 

I meant a written condition for statehood, requiring that Puerto Rico seat two Republican senators and however many representatives they would be apportioned. It would be against its rights as a state and the rights of its people to elect whomever they wish.

And partitioning California is a non-starter mainly because it's stupid and unnecessary.

 

@JediVision--

This was my point to begin with.

It may seem to the casual observer that Trump was simply "voicing an opinion", but you can be damn sure that as soon as the room cleared out, he was on the phone with someone asking if there were any way to guarantee the election of GOP Puerto Rican Senators as a condition of statehood.

At the very least we know he was thinking it. But that's not the problem. The issue is that he wants to turn that thought into reality, and nothing either his own party or the opposition has done to date leads him to believe that he can't get away with pretty much whatever he wants. If there's a way for him to pull it off, he will.

And therein lies the problem. From a flawed character flows flawed thoughts and actions. We're all affected by what he does, and not in a good way.

 

Umberto Eco is a writer whose fiction and non-fiction are equally wonderful. Italy could've used him right now as a voice for sanity.

Actually, the "Three-Californias" is also a non-starter for the Republicans, considering that 4 of the 6 Senators would almost certainly be Democrats, and the final two would be toss-ups. It's hard to see who would actually want it, other than the millionaire shelling out big bucks to make it happen... in the best interests of the people, no doubt.
But it truly is a profoundly stupid idea and unlikely to go through.

 

This one has long stood out to me as relevant to the American right, especially these days.
"13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. To have a good instance of qualitative populism we no longer need the Piazza Venezia in Rome or the Nuremberg Stadium. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People."
A corollary to this is the need to distinguish "the People", who obviously support their Leader, from "the Other" whose opinions are cast as alien and a threat to the consensus, (see: "Real Americans" exclusivity, protesters depicted as Soros-employed agitators or "Black identity extremists", and Peterson's "Liberal Postmodern Cultural Marxists want to destroy civilization!" nonsense).

Another that's relevant to the false dichotomy of "economic anxiety" vs racism that some centrists keep pushing:
"6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority."
(I would quibble a bit with his class analysis, but the point stands regardless.)

 

Umm... I'm pretty sure he checks all of these:
Powerful and continuing nationalism: the dude is a total proponent of American exceptionalism
Disdain for human rights: maybe not disdain but he clearly doesn't care too much about them (ie current crisis with kiddos chilling in tents in Texas in 106 degree weather, away from their parents)
Identification of enemies as unifying cause: Lock Her Up, Muslim ban, The Wall
Supremacy of the military: He definitely does this but I think this is kind of an American thing in general
Rampant sexism: do I even need to go here?
Controlled mass media: It didn't start with him but I'd say Fox News is pretty controlled by the Republican Party
Obsession with National Security: see current crisis, the Muslim ban, the Wall
Religion and Government intertwined: He's a Republican, he's advocated for prayer in schools, Mike "Christian, Conservative, Republican in that order" Pence is his VP
Corporate power protected: Again, he's a Republican, but he's also a total shill for the establishment
Labor power suppressed: I wonder how unions are doing these days...
Disdain for intellectuals & arts: "I love the poorly educated!"
Obsession w/ crime & punishment: "I will be the law and order president"
Rampant cronyism and corruption: His business is being operated by his children. His daughter is an advisor to the president, her husband is working on peace in the middle east. Everyone but Tiffany has a seat at the table. DeVos has the EdSec job because she donated a ****-zillion dollars to the campaign. Shall I continue?
Fraudulent elections: lol

 

The US checked at least nine of those before Trump came along.

 

Yeah as I went through them I was like "i mean he does this, but so does every other Republican not named Susan Collins, and some Democrats too."

 

We're not at the beginning of the path to Fascism, we're at the step of "Oh ****, is that where we've been heading?".
I'm not sure if it's too late to turn around.

 

Yeah, but tbf, Trump takes them to exciting new levels.

 

Trump wishes he could control the media. The media is not controlled by him. And while there's been some election funny business, not outright fradulent elections. Supremacy of the military is arguable, there's still checks and balances. Rampant sexism by Trump the person, but not translated into policies. Intertwining of religion has been stronger under past presidents, like Bush.

 

He should first wish to bring himself and his followers under control. If he would not constantly make catastrophic statements, crazy political acts, aggression against everyone and PR disasters, he would not have a problem with the majority of the media.

 

I really don't get the Melania jacket. Under any other circumstance, it might have been funny. While visiting detained children on the border? Like, how stupid is she, and everyone who saw her and talked to her before she arrived there? "Let them eat cake"

 

That is indeed unbelievable and in the end it's frightening.

The excuse is even worse

 

Trump got voted in and he will either get voted out or his term will expire. For all of the stupidity and xenophobia of the trump administration, this reality is decidedly unfascist. If he unravels maximum terms of office, bans elections and declares himself to be the supreme leader for life I will reconsider my position.

 

Tweets about how the Nobel Prize is overrated in 3..2..1..