What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Tonitrus]

As might make sense, it looks most of them were set up to support involvement in WW1 and WW2.  No doubt a good amount of the officer corp by that time were Southern good 'ol boys , thus BB's point has merit.

[PDH]

When there were loads of veterans waving their bloody shirts in the late 19th century, it might well have been harder to pass these.  By the 20th century the veterans were dying, and everyone was secure in the nationally shared identity of the Lost Cause mixed with Jim Crow.

[Barrister]

I stand corrected on the timeline.

[garbon]

Given the US is moving to remove confederate names, doesn't seem like an apt comparison.

[Jacob]

Given the US is moving to remove confederate names, doesn't seem like an apt comparison.

It's Mono. Not-apt-comparisons are pretty on brand for him.

[alfred russel]

Republican leaders are expecting about 10 to 20 House Republicans to vote for impeachment but sources tell CNN there are many more members who "want to vote to impeach but they legitimately fear for their lives and their families' lives," CNN's Jamie Gangal reports.

"Liz Cheney, these Republicans who have announced, they are showing courage at the same time as I have been told by Republican sources that members, Republican members, have said they are not going to vote for impeachment because they are still scared of Donald Trump," Gangal told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

That will make those Capitol cops feel better.

This comes back to what may be my new pet peeve: misuse of anonymous sources. "Sources tell CNN"....WTF does that mean? It would be meaningful if a representative told CNN: "I want to vote for impeachment but am scared of retribution"--and reporting that anonymously. But there is no guarantee of that--CNN isn't even asserting that to be the case. They aren't even asserting that the "sources" have hearsay evidence. For all we know it could be a couple democratic staffers telling CNN their speculation of what is going on in the republican caucus.

[Jacob]

That's not a misuse, that's just you disliking a particular practice.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I don't see the issue - we know it's "Republican sources" which gives some indication and they clearly trust them.

If we didn't have this sort of practice we'd only know what politicians wanted to tell us.

[saskganesh]

Such sources are declared to the editor, so the publication can cover it's legal posterior if seriously challenged. I'm not a lawyer, but this is a longstanding practice with a huge amount of case law behind it. Dorsey is likely to have no case.

[grumbler]

There were ships named USS Stonewall Jackson and USS Robert E Lee commissioned in the 1960s (both boomers).  The US government clearly has no beef with honoring traitors.

[crazy canuck]

Republican leaders are expecting about 10 to 20 House Republicans to vote for impeachment but sources tell CNN there are many more members who "want to vote to impeach but they legitimately fear for their lives and their families' lives," CNN's Jamie Gangal reports.

"Liz Cheney, these Republicans who have announced, they are showing courage at the same time as I have been told by Republican sources that members, Republican members, have said they are not going to vote for impeachment because they are still scared of Donald Trump," Gangal told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

That will make those Capitol cops feel better.

This comes back to what may be my new pet peeve: misuse of anonymous sources. "Sources tell CNN"....WTF does that mean? It would be meaningful if a representative told CNN: "I want to vote for impeachment but am scared of retribution"--and reporting that anonymously. But there is no guarantee of that--CNN isn't even asserting that to be the case. They aren't even asserting that the "sources" have hearsay evidence. For all we know it could be a couple democratic staffers telling CNN their speculation of what is going on in the republican caucus.

What other pillars of democracy are among your pet peeves?

[alfred russel]

Yeah I don't see the issue - we know it's "Republican sources" which gives some indication and they clearly trust them.

If we didn't have this sort of practice we'd only know what politicians wanted to tell us.

Point taken that you know it is a republican source, but there are over 1000 republican staffers on capitol hill and who knows how many consultants, lobbyists, etc. You can talk to the right assortment to give you whatever angle you are looking for on this. You want this angle? I'm sure you can get it talking to staffers of republicans voting to impeach. You want an angle that the republicans voting to impeach have ulterior motives? Probably won't be hard to find. It is politics: how hard can it be to find people willing to shittalk each other off the record?

Sask: I'm not talking about having a case for anything.

[HVC]

Yeah I don't see the issue - we know it's "Republican sources" which gives some indication and they clearly trust them.

If we didn't have this sort of practice we'd only know what politicians wanted to tell us.

Point taken that you know it is a republican source, but there are over 1000 republican staffers on capitol hill and who knows how many consultants, lobbyists, etc. You can talk to the right assortment to give you whatever angle you are looking for on this. You want this angle? I'm sure you can get it talking to staffers of republicans voting to impeach. You want an angle that the republicans voting to impeach have ulterior motives? Probably won't be hard to find. It is politics: how hard can it be to find people willing to shittalk each other off the record?

Sask: I'm not talking about having a case for anything.

when those potential sources want to continue being a cog in the machine, probably pretty hard.

[Barrister]

I dunno - I've heard for 5 freaking years how much most GOPers don't like Trump, constantly bad-mouth him off the record to anyone who will listen...

I know a handful have now come out, but surely with Trump on the way out the door and after ham-handedly attempted a putsch to stay in power more of them would actually say these things on the record?

[Sheilbh]

Point taken that you know it is a republican source, but there are over 1000 republican staffers on capitol hill and who knows how many consultants, lobbyists, etc. You can talk to the right assortment to give you whatever angle you are looking for on this. You want this angle? I'm sure you can get it talking to staffers of republicans voting to impeach. You want an angle that the republicans voting to impeach have ulterior motives? Probably won't be hard to find. It is politics: how hard can it be to find people willing to shittalk each other off the record?

Yeah. But isn't that the job of the reporter? Hearing what people say also working out who's credible and who's not and what shit-talk matters and what doesn't? And they can signal some of that to us - Republican sources, sources in the White House, senior White House sources etc. Otherwise they're just stenographers for things people are willing to say on the record which will be the message they want to give, not what they're really thinking.

Also my understanding is that more and more US politicians only talk on background now even when they're saying quite anodyn things so I think if that's the game they're playing about the day-to-day stuff then it's only fair for hacks to respond in kind.

I know a handful have now come out, but surely with Trump on the way out the door and after ham-handedly attempted a putsch to stay in power more of them would actually say these things on the record?

Yeah and there's a motion to remove Liz Cheney from her role as chair of the conference because she's bringing the Republican conference into disrepute and produced discord

I think it's safe to say that despite everything many Republican reps are either true believers or utter cowards.