I unsubscribed, but came back to see how the Presidency was being assessed. Hegseth replaced a Black 4-star general. A Black Air Force general was replaced by a white general who needs a waiver to be Chair of the Joint Chiefs. Haitians accused of eating pets and the DC plane crash blamed on DEI.
We will see if Republicans can pass a budget. Democrats should let Republicans implode. The only Blacks benefiting from Trump are a handful of Black athletes and celebrities.
I'd like to know from anyone who is a defender of Trump how exactly it makes good sense to fire hundreds of people involved with maintianing the US nuclear stock;pile on one day and then start scrambling to rehire them on the next. What about that says "good management by people who know what they are doing"?
Is it "Trump Derangment Syndrome" to think that federal employees that the Trump Adminsitration itself deems important should not be fired?
I would normally agree with you, Glenn. The first few months, even years, are just as much a reflection of the previous POTUS than sitting POTUS. However, this is a guy who promised to fix inflation and such on day 1. This is a guy, when asked why Biden's job numbers were so much better than his, said "I created them all". He was handed solid economic numbers and so far has made them worse. This is a guy that contributed to the debt moreso than any POTUS in history, and now is "concerned" about it. No, he's not concerned about the debt. It's all about redistribution of wealth to his liking. I'm all for trimming waste, fraud, and abuse, but have zero confidence we'll be the benefactors.
Remember, 49% of those that voted, and 32% of eligible voters, went with Trump. They voted for a variety of reasons. The idea that "America has spoken" about any specific issue is nonsense. Criticism much quicker than normal is warranted.
"He’s got a litany of things he promised voters he would change"
Trump also disavowed association with Project2025. In fact, Trump said lots of contradictory things. Which of the litany of things that Trump said were promises and which were falsehoods? This was unknowable to most voters; so there cannot be a mandate. I can only conclude that most votes for Trump were votes for "change".
Now, as Yair Rosenberg wrote: "With every policy he implements and offhand remark he makes, Trump is falsifying the imaginary versions of himself that inspired many of his supporters."
That said, Trump won and should be given a chance, but only within lawful bounds.
By the way, the oft-repeated idea that Trump received a majority of votes is wrong: Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris 48.3% Other 1.9%. In fact, more eligible voters (36%) did not vote than voted for Trump (32%). Harris (31%), Other (1.5%)
Actually, I think it more appropriate to word it this way: "With every policy he implements and offhand remark he makes, Trump is falsifying the imaginary versions of himself that inspired many of his detractors."
I am not a detractor. I supported him for his solid support for Israel, his opposition to the viciously destructive racialized bigotry of DEI, his support for energy sanity for a change, and a thwarting of the apocalyptic climate fanaticism, his defense of free speech, his ending of lawfare (except for the Adams decision, a mistake). So far, his EOs, his choices for Energy, EPA and Interior, his choice of Stefanik for the UN, Rubio at State, etc. are all pretty much consistent with the "versions of himself" he presented during the campaign.
During the election campaign, DJT said they were going to do audits before cutting. If they were interested in cutting waste, fraud and abuse why was their first action to fire inspector generals? Break some eggs? How about people dying from lack of food and medicine? How about mistakenly firing experts working on nuclear weapons? How about scientists working on bird flu? There are many serious issues, and to dismiss them as "breaking eggs" is irresponsible.
Ideology tends to blind people. Many people have been complaining about waste, fraud and abuse in government for decades. If they were serious about it, I would think they would have by now a detailed, specific list. But they don't, because they are not serious. They think any cut is a good cut, without considering the consequences probably because they a blinded by ideology.
And the problem is not limited to the blind cutting staff and spending. There are also concerns about legalities and international alliances. Recently discussed by Professors Francis Fukuyama and Larry Diamond of Stanford and the Hoover Institution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlsql_N2Fg
I absolutely feel relief. The lawfare was a bridge too far. The anti-Trump effort went far, far beyond acceptable limits. The ugly underbelly of American politics that I preferred thinking did not exist.
Lawfare?!? If Kamala had organized fraudulent electors and tried to use them as a pretense to break the ECA and overturn the election you would be calling for her head. But if Trump does it then any attempt to call him to account is lawfare, eh?
An attempt to call him to account in the proper way, via impeachment, was tried. It failed, in part because of how self-defeating the Democrats were in the way they framed the impeachment charges. In any case, that's it. Long gone in the past.
There’s nothing ‘improper’ about the cases Jack Smith laid out. Throwing around the term ‘lawfare’ is just a lazy attempt to sweep these charges under the rug. Trump broke the law and should be in jail.
From the perspective of many of us (especially, I think, those of us not living in America), the feeling is that the US under Trump is a kind of terrifying Jenga tower. I’m Australian, and every morning when I read the news it feels like another few blocks have been added overnight.
I hope you’re right Glenn about premature consternation. And I appreciate your podcast because it helps me understand how Republican voters feel and think.
If you're Australian, I think you should be paying more attention to the "Jenga Tower" of insane and mounting antisemitism in your country. From my perspective, as you put it, it looks to be a lot taller and more "terrifying" a tower than whatever it is that terrifies you about Trump.
For sure, antisemitism, growing right now in Australia and around the world, is horrifying.
But in your comment, you write that antisemitism "looks to be a lot more "terrifying" a tower than whatever it is that terrifies you about Trump". The implication here seems to be that my concerns about Trump are overblown and a bit silly. *This* is what is hard for me to understand. What could possibly be terrifying about Trump, right? I mean, just in the last three days he has stated he's above the rule of Law, that he is essentially the rule of Law, not to mention lies that the Ukraine invaded Russia, and Zelensky is a dictator with no popular support.
I guess I find it weird that pro-Trumpers seem not to even acknowledge there's at least the potential for things to get a little... dictator-y.
Whenever the gov't wants more invasive power with no checks or oversight, the advocates always roll out the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" BS.
Well...if they have done nothing wrong, then why are they worried about an audit?
McWhorter is indeed the poster child for this moral preening crowd. He is an insecure man trying to protect himself from being dirtied by association with Trump, whom his colleagues and associates abhor as a vulgar barbarian.
I unsubscribed, but came back to see how the Presidency was being assessed. Hegseth replaced a Black 4-star general. A Black Air Force general was replaced by a white general who needs a waiver to be Chair of the Joint Chiefs. Haitians accused of eating pets and the DC plane crash blamed on DEI.
We will see if Republicans can pass a budget. Democrats should let Republicans implode. The only Blacks benefiting from Trump are a handful of Black athletes and celebrities.
I'd like to know from anyone who is a defender of Trump how exactly it makes good sense to fire hundreds of people involved with maintianing the US nuclear stock;pile on one day and then start scrambling to rehire them on the next. What about that says "good management by people who know what they are doing"?
Is it "Trump Derangment Syndrome" to think that federal employees that the Trump Adminsitration itself deems important should not be fired?
I can''t find what John was quoting on Twitter (x). Does someone have the link for that?
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1890831570535055759
Search for "Trump tweets that saving country is not illegal"
What he posted to X is:
"He who saves his Country does not violate any Law."
I would normally agree with you, Glenn. The first few months, even years, are just as much a reflection of the previous POTUS than sitting POTUS. However, this is a guy who promised to fix inflation and such on day 1. This is a guy, when asked why Biden's job numbers were so much better than his, said "I created them all". He was handed solid economic numbers and so far has made them worse. This is a guy that contributed to the debt moreso than any POTUS in history, and now is "concerned" about it. No, he's not concerned about the debt. It's all about redistribution of wealth to his liking. I'm all for trimming waste, fraud, and abuse, but have zero confidence we'll be the benefactors.
Remember, 49% of those that voted, and 32% of eligible voters, went with Trump. They voted for a variety of reasons. The idea that "America has spoken" about any specific issue is nonsense. Criticism much quicker than normal is warranted.
"He’s got a litany of things he promised voters he would change"
Trump also disavowed association with Project2025. In fact, Trump said lots of contradictory things. Which of the litany of things that Trump said were promises and which were falsehoods? This was unknowable to most voters; so there cannot be a mandate. I can only conclude that most votes for Trump were votes for "change".
Now, as Yair Rosenberg wrote: "With every policy he implements and offhand remark he makes, Trump is falsifying the imaginary versions of himself that inspired many of his supporters."
That said, Trump won and should be given a chance, but only within lawful bounds.
By the way, the oft-repeated idea that Trump received a majority of votes is wrong: Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris 48.3% Other 1.9%. In fact, more eligible voters (36%) did not vote than voted for Trump (32%). Harris (31%), Other (1.5%)
There's neither mandate nor majority.
Actually, I think it more appropriate to word it this way: "With every policy he implements and offhand remark he makes, Trump is falsifying the imaginary versions of himself that inspired many of his detractors."
I am not a detractor. I supported him for his solid support for Israel, his opposition to the viciously destructive racialized bigotry of DEI, his support for energy sanity for a change, and a thwarting of the apocalyptic climate fanaticism, his defense of free speech, his ending of lawfare (except for the Adams decision, a mistake). So far, his EOs, his choices for Energy, EPA and Interior, his choice of Stefanik for the UN, Rubio at State, etc. are all pretty much consistent with the "versions of himself" he presented during the campaign.
During the election campaign, DJT said they were going to do audits before cutting. If they were interested in cutting waste, fraud and abuse why was their first action to fire inspector generals? Break some eggs? How about people dying from lack of food and medicine? How about mistakenly firing experts working on nuclear weapons? How about scientists working on bird flu? There are many serious issues, and to dismiss them as "breaking eggs" is irresponsible.
Ideology tends to blind people. Many people have been complaining about waste, fraud and abuse in government for decades. If they were serious about it, I would think they would have by now a detailed, specific list. But they don't, because they are not serious. They think any cut is a good cut, without considering the consequences probably because they a blinded by ideology.
And the problem is not limited to the blind cutting staff and spending. There are also concerns about legalities and international alliances. Recently discussed by Professors Francis Fukuyama and Larry Diamond of Stanford and the Hoover Institution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlsql_N2Fg
This is all so utterly silly it is beyond belief. Panic? Some of us feel relief.
I absolutely feel relief. The lawfare was a bridge too far. The anti-Trump effort went far, far beyond acceptable limits. The ugly underbelly of American politics that I preferred thinking did not exist.
Lawfare?!? If Kamala had organized fraudulent electors and tried to use them as a pretense to break the ECA and overturn the election you would be calling for her head. But if Trump does it then any attempt to call him to account is lawfare, eh?
An attempt to call him to account in the proper way, via impeachment, was tried. It failed, in part because of how self-defeating the Democrats were in the way they framed the impeachment charges. In any case, that's it. Long gone in the past.
There’s nothing ‘improper’ about the cases Jack Smith laid out. Throwing around the term ‘lawfare’ is just a lazy attempt to sweep these charges under the rug. Trump broke the law and should be in jail.
From the perspective of many of us (especially, I think, those of us not living in America), the feeling is that the US under Trump is a kind of terrifying Jenga tower. I’m Australian, and every morning when I read the news it feels like another few blocks have been added overnight.
I hope you’re right Glenn about premature consternation. And I appreciate your podcast because it helps me understand how Republican voters feel and think.
If you're Australian, I think you should be paying more attention to the "Jenga Tower" of insane and mounting antisemitism in your country. From my perspective, as you put it, it looks to be a lot taller and more "terrifying" a tower than whatever it is that terrifies you about Trump.
For sure, antisemitism, growing right now in Australia and around the world, is horrifying.
But in your comment, you write that antisemitism "looks to be a lot more "terrifying" a tower than whatever it is that terrifies you about Trump". The implication here seems to be that my concerns about Trump are overblown and a bit silly. *This* is what is hard for me to understand. What could possibly be terrifying about Trump, right? I mean, just in the last three days he has stated he's above the rule of Law, that he is essentially the rule of Law, not to mention lies that the Ukraine invaded Russia, and Zelensky is a dictator with no popular support.
I guess I find it weird that pro-Trumpers seem not to even acknowledge there's at least the potential for things to get a little... dictator-y.
Whenever the gov't wants more invasive power with no checks or oversight, the advocates always roll out the "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" BS.
Well...if they have done nothing wrong, then why are they worried about an audit?
Ol' BLM Johnny has the TDS fever.
John McWhorter definitely has some TDS but he has never been a BLM supporter.
I have never used this term before but John has TDS. He could be the poster child.
What exactly is deranged about John’s opinion of Trump?
Indeed. Labelling someone as having 'TDS' is an ad hominem attack that adds no value or depth to the dialogue.
McWhorter is indeed the poster child for this moral preening crowd. He is an insecure man trying to protect himself from being dirtied by association with Trump, whom his colleagues and associates abhor as a vulgar barbarian.