What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Norgy]

Good list.  He doesn't mention revenge.

Eco's list will never encompass all, but the idea of the mutilated victory seemed to very strong among the first cadres of squadristas in the Italian fascist movement. A movement I still struggle to define in any meaningful way.

Except for the two basic ideas of betrayal and loss.

Think I recommended Scuracci's "M" before, but here is an excerpt of what I got out of it.
The old elite's had failed (see: drain the swamp), the Italian troops had suffered such losses, but had their special stormtroopers who made up the core of the movement. Mussolini, as an editor, was anti-war. And then. Very pro-war. This caused a huge split in the socialist movement, and he became persona non grata.

The fascism in Italy started with D'Annunzio, really. Who was almost everywhere along the spectrum of politics and had a life most of us would say "Wow, just wow" when reading about it. The town of Rijeka, or Fiume in Italian, became a fulcrum of gathering rejects, veterans and the disaffected. The commune fell apart quite quickly.

But I think the great takeaway (except for Gung Bao) is that fascism or authortarianism is not "left" nor "right". It feeds on discontent. And who were the willing hands building the discontent?

The media. People like me.

Fascism is hard to define. Authoritarian leadership less so. Chavez could easily have been described as fascist. Maduro ticks all boxes. That Argentinian president is racking up points. Orban in Hungary. Putin.

Thing is, people like me and others on the left were calling Dubya a Nazi. So we watered the word which used to be a full-size Long Island Iced Tea down to a Coors Lite.

[crazy canuck]

We now have the details of how Trump is selecting who he will nominate.  At first is a trouble at the most powerful nation on the planet will be administered by such incompetence.  But, on the other hand, I take some comfort and the fact that there is obviously no master plan in place.  The selections are based entirely on Trump's whim.

From the New York Times

President-elect Donald J. Trump chose his attorney general almost on a whim, in the sky between Washington and Palm Beach, Fla. He scoffed at a candidate for the Department of Homeland Security, then abruptly changed his mind. His defense secretary pick was a snap judgment during a slide presentation at Mar-a-Lago.

Emboldened, confident in his instincts and more contemptuous than ever of Washington expertise, Mr. Trump is staffing the most important roles in his government at breakneck speed. Advisers have been stunned at how fast he is ticking through his choices, filling the government's most important positions roughly a month sooner than he did in 2016.

Much of the action has taken place under the chandelier in the tearoom at Mar-a-Lago, where Mr. Trump surveys his potential Cabinet nominees on giant video screens.

He flicks through shortlists that his transition team, led by the billionaire Howard Lutnick, has drafted over the past months. If Mr. Trump shows an interest in a candidate, the presentation is designed to allow him to immediately watch videos of the potential nominee's TV appearances — essential for any would-be Trump cabinet official.

[Iormlund]

We truly live in the stupidest timeline.

[Razgovory]

This seemed appropriate.  

[Valmy]

We now have the details of how Trump is selecting who he will nominate.  At first is a trouble at the most powerful nation on the planet will be administered by such incompetence.  But, on the other hand, I take some comfort and the fact that there is obviously no master plan in place.  The selections are based entirely on Trump's whim.

That was our saving grace last time.

We'll see what happens this time. His most toxic supporters have a plan, we will see if they can manipulate him into doing some of it.

[crazy canuck]

We now have the details of how Trump is selecting who he will nominate.  At first is a trouble at the most powerful nation on the planet will be administered by such incompetence.  But, on the other hand, I take some comfort and the fact that there is obviously no master plan in place.  The selections are based entirely on Trump's whim.

That was our saving grace last time.

We'll see what happens this time. His most toxic supporters have a plan, we will see if they can manipulate him into doing some of it.

Read what I pasted from the NYT article, it doesn't actually look like anyone has a plan beyond ensuring Trump is happy.

[Oexmelin]

I am not that optimist. I don't think the NYT « got » the first Trump presidency. I am not sure they are getting it this time.

[Razgovory]

They know it sold a lot of news paper subscriptions.

[crazy canuck]

I am not that optimist. I don't think the NYT « got » the first Trump presidency. I am not sure they are getting it this time.

Not optimistic about what?

I have the feeling that people just read my introductory remark and didn't actually read the text I copied and pasted for your reading pleasure.

I am simply making the point that Trump's appointments are not the result of some master plan.

This isn't a question of the New York Times getting Trump or not. This is the New York Times quoting people who are in the room as Trump was making the appointments and the New York Times is reporting what they said they saw him doing.

[grumbler]

Trump's appointments are based on the "fuck you" level of the nominee.  The Heritage Foundation handed Trump a plan for this transition, but everybody has a plan until you get Trumped in the face.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Trump's appointments are based on the "fuck you" level of the nominee.  The Heritage Foundation handed Trump a plan for this transition, but everybody has a plan until you get Trumped in the face.

Yeah.  He was elected out of spite and will be counted on to govern the same way.

[Sheilbh]

I am simply making the point that Trump's appointments are not the result of some master plan.

To an extent I think some of them are a rejection of a master plan.

I said this when Project 2025 came out and then Trump disowned. Apparently he was furious about it, partly because he felt it was taking attention away from him but also because the head of Heritage was going round saying they would staff the next Trump administration to make it function. Trump won't like the implicit argument that his first term was a failure because he failed to staff it well (it was, he'd argue, a fantastic term etc etc) - but also he hates being managed.

I listened to a podcast on reporters on this sort of thing and they pointed out there were two right-wing think tanks working on personnel plans for a new Trump administration. One was Project 2025 by Heritage, the other was the America First Policy Institute (who Trump initially disliked because he felt they were passing off basically). Both of them were basically told to stop talking so much about how they're doing the groundwork for a Trump administration because Trump was doing that - AFPI shut up, Heritage didn't and here we are. I've heard that at the minute anyone with any ties to Project 2025 is having their resume scrapped, so the AFPI group are winning on the staffing choices.

But I think that's likely at the more junior level (and won't last because there's a lot of posts to fill and a limited pool of talent). At the top I think Trump is just making very clear - as we should have all known for a while - that he's not going back to the Rex Tillersons, Jess Sessions, Reince Priebus style appointment. He wants Trump loyalists first - that may not necessarily matter for what the AFPI/Heritage types are doing at Under-Secretary etc level (unless it pisses Trump off when he'll ditch it and them immediately).

I'm not sure that necessarily goes to competence or a plan more broadly though. The entire right-wing ecosystem has been Trumpified. In 2016, it really was a hostile takeover. All of the think tanks, almost all of the Congressional republicans, all the political apparatus are directed towards Trumpiness (there is a degree of working towards the leader here because Trump is not particularly ideological or fixed in his views). I think that means that he has the resources to act more than in 2016 and there are factions (and there will be many fights). Given that while his first term was, in many ways, very standard Republican (tax cuts, judges, bit of deregulation), I think this one will be more radical - and may well over-reach.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Overreach? There is nothing he can do that would change his fans' devotion - or make them stop and think that maybe things have gone too far. The country is given over to government by social media influencers and spite.

[viper37]

I am not that optimist. I don't think the NYT « got » the first Trump presidency. I am not sure they are getting it this time.

It's very easy to get.
Here are proud Ohio Republicans parading this week-end:





I think I can see the plan clearly now.

Even if the Democrats could, by some miracle, manage to regain the Presidency, something I doubt would be possible because there will be a hard lock in most key States, there won't be any State left to manage.

It's going to be dismantled the way the USSR was dismantled after the cold war, to the profit of Trump's friends.

The military will be a shadow of its former self, only serving to empower Trump.  Croneys from the lower ranks will be promoted based on their loyalty to the boss, others will be purged.

Most control agencies will be dismantled and government assets will be sold to the private sector.

[Razgovory]

Looks like your fellow antizionists.