A coup d'état in the USA is/is not brewing ...

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

A foreign Head of State breaks his silence over the astonishing attempt to undermine, even overthrow, the newly-elected POTUS and some babblers think a personal attack on the messenger is a good contribution. 

Rocket scientists, I salute you.  

A foreign head of state breaks his silence regarding the internal US political debate in order to laud his prefered candidate.

Not how silent China is on all this.

China has a firm policy of respecting the internal debates of other countries and only commenting when drawn in. They ahve a stake in asking other countries to mind their own business. Not so the US or Russia.

**************

Disclaimer: I do not support NATO aggression nor do I support US imperialism and my criticism of either country does not imply that I am supporting the other.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

James Petras: Regime Change Comes Home

No need for those rocket scientists who fawn over the "new" and "improved" Guardian to read this piece as it has been posted on the off-Guardian site. 

You know. Some of those nasty Western dissidents. 

"Round up the usual Russian suspects."

Mobo2000

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-russia-story-reaches-a...

"Meanwhile, Ynet in Israel is reporting that Israeli intelligence officials are deciding not to share intelligence with the incoming Trump administration. The report indicates they came to this conclusion after a recent meeting with American intelligence officials, who told them the Russians have "leverages of pressure" to use against Trump.

 This is an extraordinary story. If our intelligence community really believes this, then playtime is over.

 No more Clapper-style hedging or waffling. If Israel gets to hear why they think Trump is compromised, how is the American public not also so entitled?   But if all they have are unverifiable rumors, they can't do this, not even to Donald Trump.

 The only solution is an immediate unveiling of all the facts and an urgent public investigation. A half-assed whispering campaign a week and a half from a Trump presidency, with BuzzFeed at the center of the action, isn't going to cut it. We need to know what the likes of Clapper and Comey know, and we need it all now, before it's too late."

Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

James Petras: Regime Change Comes Home

No need for those rocket scientists who fawn over the "new" and "improved" Guardian to read this piece as it has been posted on the off-Guardian site. 

You know. Some of those nasty Western dissidents. 

"Round up the usual Russian suspects."

While interesting the bias in the article is massive. For example comment like this:

"The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump’s overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason."

Agree with it or not this was not the allegation.

The rest of the article speaking about fabrications and lies pretends to oppose this development in US politics but instead, by pretending that this was only happening on one side, becomes a contributor to the war.

A more reasonable interpretation of what has happend in the US is an escalation of dirty tricks justified by the fact that both sides are trading in falsehood, misrepresentation and exaggeration of a kind that previously was considered beyond the pale. A reasonable understanding of what has happened there would require asking why this has happened. Did people suddenly get morally worse in this area? I don't think so. Look at the simple explanation. Both sides when caught out point to the behaviour of the other and both have a point.

Each side beleives it is in a struggle with new rules. Each side justifies what was previously unacceptable by pointing to the other side.

Let me be clear that I am not suggesting an equivalency in the campaigns and behaviours. However, the willingness to lie is justified by each based on acceptance that this is the war they are fighting and not to participate means certain loss.

This article by failing to acknowledge this is part of the problem rather than either an explanation of it or a proposal for a solution.

I have raised this in the past when we were speaking of Stephen Harper's legacy. The rules Harper went by threatened to leave a legacy where both sides for ever feel free to lower their standards based on what they see as competative survival. I have seen a decline in all parties when it comes to this (and when I point this out when the NDP does I have been lambasted). But it is the willingness to respond in kind that really lowers the debate -- even if you think you are not as bad as the other. The difference in interpreation will exist on both sides and so on.

This is why observers have said things like there is now a post fact age. I cannot respect any article that points to this phenomenon and pretends that only one side is engaging in it. when it does this the article is not observing the problem but aiding it and participating in it.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Mobo, Clapper and John Brennan (the Head of the CIA) are going to be toast in a few days. These people are insubordinate to their new boss. 

I even have fantasies of Trump closing the CIA down. But perhaps I've had a few too many. lol. 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

James Petras wrote:
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

A good summary from Petras in bringing the evidence together. 

josh

ikosmos wrote:

James Petras wrote:
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

A good summary from Petras in bringing the evidence together. 

What a bunch of horseshit. Fundamental election norms also include non-interference by a foreign country. And the 2000 election aftermath was even more bitter than this one. With the election not decided until over a month after Election Day, And the deciding state was controlled by the brother of one of the candidates, who rigged the recount, the voter machinery and the voting lists. According to the above logic, once an election is over, fraud or illegality should never be investigated. We never would have had the Watergate hearings and investigation.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

josh wrote:
ikosmos wrote:

James Petras wrote:
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

A good summary from Petras in bringing the evidence together. 

What a bunch of horseshit. Fundamental election norms also include non-interference by a foreign country. And the 2000 election aftermath was even more bitter than this one. With the election not decided until over a month after Election Day, And the deciding state was controlled by the brother of one of the candidates, who rigged the recount, the voter machinery and the voting lists. According to the above logic, once an election is over, fraud or illegality should never be investigated. We never would have had the Watergate hearings and investigation.

Trump's groupies live in an alternate universe free of facts,with their own interpretation of reality,forever drunk on their made up talking points.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

josh wrote:
ikosmos wrote:

James Petras wrote:
The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over ‘Al’ Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the ‘defeated’ candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

A good summary from Petras in bringing the evidence together. 

What a bunch of horseshit. Fundamental election norms also include non-interference by a foreign country. And the 2000 election aftermath was even more bitter than this one. With the election not decided until over a month after Election Day, And the deciding state was controlled by the brother of one of the candidates, who rigged the recount, the voter machinery and the voting lists. According to the above logic, once an election is over, fraud or illegality should never be investigated. We never would have had the Watergate hearings and investigation.

Trump's groupies live in an alternate universe free of facts,with their own interpretation of reality,forever drunk on their made up talking points.

I think it is interesting how it seems to be on the way to being a criticism of Trump before the pivot to claiming he is the victim.

bekayne

ikosmos wrote:

I even have fantasies of Trump closing the CIA down. But perhaps I've had a few too many. lol. 

Do you have fantasies of Trump riding a flying unicorn? It would be more realistic.

Sean in Ottawa

bekayne wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

I even have fantasies of Trump closing the CIA down. But perhaps I've had a few too many. lol. 

Do you have fantasies of Trump riding a flying unicorn? It would be more realistic.

Well you never know. Just imagine what he might replace it with. Some secret police accountable only to himself because everything else is so sad and overrated, you know.

Webgear

Well Trump is a Russian Intelligence Agent, I say the CIA will be replaced with the FBS.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

josh wrote:
What a bunch of horseshit. Fundamental election norms also include non-interference by a foreign country.

For which there is zero evidence.

Quote:
And the 2000 election aftermath was even more bitter than this one. With the election not decided until over a month after Election Day, And the deciding state was controlled by the brother of one of the candidates, who rigged the recount, the voter machinery and the voting lists.

When the Director of the CIA, intelligence figures from other countries, leading members of his own party, the MSM, and the little dog Toto attack the President-elect, we are in a new domain of attacking the new guy. It's funny how you guys keep looking the other way in regard to facts like this, go "la la la" with your fingers in your ears, and noisily denounce those who point out such facts.

Quote:
According to the above logic, once an election is over, fraud or illegality should never be investigated. We never would have had the Watergate hearings and investigation.

The Watergate Hearings took place in the summer of 1973. I know. I listened to most of them. That was not in the period immediately after an election and before the Inaguration of the new President so you are mixing apples and oranges. 

Nice try. Can we go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really add up?

Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

josh wrote:
What a bunch of horseshit. Fundamental election norms also include non-interference by a foreign country.

For which there is zero evidence.

That is false.

There is lots of evidence. You can believe it or not question it or not but it does exist.

https://news.vice.com/story/strong-evidence-for-russias-u-s-election-int...

You can search and find a lot more than this. It is not hard.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Vice is publishing the same shit as elsewhere. When paragraphs start with expressions such as  "What if ...." , turning their "factual" report into a work of fiction, or they quote the same already exposed lurid tales "that can't be revealed due to national security" , or they quote operatives of foreign government (UK) intelligence services who claim the same, or use the made up name of "Fancy Bear" by the intelligence agencies, or their privatized contractors to encourge brain dead readers to make the connection, etc., etc.,

... what's not hard is seeing this for the same garbage that was breathlessly passed off as "evidence" of WMDs i Iraq resulting in a million dead Iraqis. And of course, they try hard, and fail, to argue that this is "just so different" from that, you know, little mistake in 2003, ...

ooh rah.

josh

ikosmos wrote:

josh wrote:
What a bunch of horseshit. Fundamental election norms also include non-interference by a foreign country.

For which there is zero evidence.

Quote:
And the 2000 election aftermath was even more bitter than this one. With the election not decided until over a month after Election Day, And the deciding state was controlled by the brother of one of the candidates, who rigged the recount, the voter machinery and the voting lists.

When the Director of the CIA, intelligence figures from other countries, leading members of his own party, the MSM, and the little dog Toto attack the President-elect, we are in a new domain of attacking the new guy. It's funny how you guys keep looking the other way in regard to facts like this, go "la la la" with your fingers in your ears, and noisily denounce those who point out such facts.

Quote:
According to the above logic, once an election is over, fraud or illegality should never be investigated. We never would have had the Watergate hearings and investigation.

The Watergate Hearings took place in the summer of 1973. I know. I listened to most of them. That was not in the period immediately after an election and before the Inaguration of the new President so you are mixing apples and oranges. 

Nice try. Can we go for Double Jeopardy where the scores can really add up?

Well I watched most of them. So there. Most of the important Woodward and Bernstein reporting took place before and in the immediate aftermath of the election. Mark Felt had left the FBI by the summer of '73. Of course, you would have considered Felt one of the intelligence figures attacking poor old Dick Nixon. But once again, your deep concern for Donald Trump is noted.

Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

Vice is publishing the same shit as elsewhere. When paragraphs start with expressions such as  "What if ...." ,

I checked to see if the words "what if" appeared in the article. When the search turned up nothing, it was clear that this is the latest misleading propaganda put out to imply without actually saying something directly.

Ironically, the post does exactly what it is pretending Vice is doing in the article.

****

Sure Vice is part of the MSM (styled for youth) but really if you dismiss all MSM you then get to make up anything you want. This is the brilliance of Trump.

We have cause to question but across the board dismissal means you get to deny all current fact that you do not like.

We should be critical and vigilant but writing off all outlets who publish what you do not like is cult forming.

 

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Quote:
In an unbelievably brazen and somewhat unnerving report, CNN decided to openly brainstorm what would happen if President-elect Donald Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were assassinated at Friday's inauguration ceremony. Their conclusion? That a member of the Obama cabinet would be selected to take over as president.

CNN prophesizes Trump, Pence getting assassinated during inaguration.

"Bizarre in and of itself, Todd's report was prefaced by anchor Wolf Blitzer, who uncomfortably led into the story by dramatically asking "What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?"

CNN then played scenes from "Designated Survivor" (an assassination scenario) .

It's all just a fun scenario, right? I mean, so what if there has been a enormous increase in death threats against the President-elect?

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

See "Who is the Designated Survivor" at Inaguration, etc. from CNN.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

SouthFront picked up on this story here. One of their commentators noted that "alternative" media PBS had a special on the assassination of Lincoln last night.

The Clinton dream as "Galadriel", Queen of War,  lives on for another day.

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, how can I see this Trump take a fall?"

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

ikosmos wrote:

SouthFront picked up on this story here. One of their commentators noted that "alternative" media PBS had a special on the assassination of Lincoln last night.

The Clinton dream as "Galadriel", Queen of War,  lives on for another day.

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, how can I see this Trump take a fall?"

Garbage.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Really? Lurid stories of assassination of the President, including stories of past assassinations on the "public" TV network, voyeuristic political necrophilia, and on the day before the inaguration of a President already threatened by the head of the CIA, leading members of his own party (McCain), etc.,  are "garbage" ?

Maybe you just agree with the imagined outcome.  I understand if you're reluctant to admit it.

josh

alan smithee wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

SouthFront picked up on this story here. One of their commentators noted that "alternative" media PBS had a special on the assassination of Lincoln last night.

The Clinton dream as "Galadriel", Queen of War,  lives on for another day.

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, how can I see this Trump take a fall?"

Garbage.

Yes. And no prophezising either. From a site so brazen in its propaganda that it makes RT look fair and balanced.

Sean in Ottawa

ikosmos wrote:

Really? Lurid stories of assassination of the President, including stories of past assassinations on the "public" TV network, voyeuristic political necrophilia, and on the day before the inaguration of a President already threatened by the head of the CIA, leading members of his own party (McCain), etc.,  are "garbage" ?

Maybe you just agree with the imagined outcome.  I understand if you're reluctant to admit it.

Assasination stores of presidents have been around a long while -- along with all other thriller and disaster stories. Many find them exciting to watch. I read books about assasinations of presidents 40 years ago. Of course you might tell me that they were created 35 years ago as a deep conspiracy against Trump  waiting for when he made his move.

You are funny.

bekayne

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ikosmos wrote:

Really? Lurid stories of assassination of the President, including stories of past assassinations on the "public" TV network, voyeuristic political necrophilia, and on the day before the inaguration of a President already threatened by the head of the CIA, leading members of his own party (McCain), etc.,  are "garbage" ?

Maybe you just agree with the imagined outcome.  I understand if you're reluctant to admit it.

Assasination stores of presidents have been around a long while -- along with all other thriller and disaster stories. Many find them exciting to watch. I read books about assasinations of presidents 40 years ago. Of course you might tell me that they were created 35 years ago as a deep conspiracy against Trump  waiting for when he made his move.

You are funny.

Also, Kennedy had a secretary named Mrs. Lincoln and Lincoln had a secretary named Mrs. Kennedy!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Of course you might tell me that they were created 35 years ago as a deep conspiracy against Trump  waiting for when he made his move.

Evil villains love that sort of thing.  The very long, very drawn out vengeance.

If "they" assassinate Trump tomorrow, I predict it will be by tying him to a large, swinging pendulum that's getting closer and closer to a spinning buzz-saw.  After a few minutes of bragging, gloating, and disclosing future plans, the evil villain will leave him to his fate, confident that Boy Wonder Mike Pence could never stop that saw in time to save him.

bekayne

So it turns out there is a coup- coming from the White House

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/lobbying-ban-trump-execu...

President Donald Trump granted controversial adviser Steve Bannon a regular seat at meetings of the National Security Council on Saturday, in a presidential memorandum that brought the former Breitbart publisher into some of the most sensitive meetings at the highest levels of government.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm putting $50 on Trump being impeached before his 4 years. Between his cabinet picks and his executive orders,a revolt is inevitable. Not just the American people but the Republican Party itself. Trump's act is getting old and he's only been President for 9 days. I can't see him lasting 4 years.

josh

The question is whether he'll last 4 months. The Republican establishment will be more than happy to replace him with Pence. If they see his approval numbers continue to drop, and feel themselves threatened politically, I think enough of them would join the Democrats and vote to impeach.

pookie

This thread was hilarious to read.

What happened in the US and in airports around the world on Saturday, sadly, was not.

I think Repugs will chug along with him for a good long while yet.  He is doing lots and lots and lots of things that they like.  His utter breaks from reality are inconvenient, but well, nobody's perfect eh?  

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

pookie wrote:

I think Repugs will chug along with him for a good long while yet.  He is doing lots and lots and lots of things that they like.  His utter breaks from reality are inconvenient, but well, nobody's perfect eh?  

This is probably true, but Pence would have all the good aspects of Trump, with none of the overt craziness. So, if some really egregious case of "high crimes and misdemeanors" should arise soon, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Rs throw Trump under the bus.

pookie

Michael Moriarity wrote:

pookie wrote:

I think Repugs will chug along with him for a good long while yet.  He is doing lots and lots and lots of things that they like.  His utter breaks from reality are inconvenient, but well, nobody's perfect eh?  

This is probably true, but Pence would have all the good aspects of Trump, with none of the overt craziness. So, if some really egregious case of "high crimes and misdemeanors" should arise soon, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Rs throw Trump under the bus.

They then would have to contend with the power of "Trump nation" and the entire alt-right.  R's know which side of their bread is buttered.

I would consider impeachment the nuclear option and think it would take, as you say, a truly egregious case, but "egregious" as seen from their perspective which probably does not mirror ours. ;)

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

If the Republicans impeached Trump that would be the end of the party as a political force. The tea party whackos would grind them into the ground. Trump is speaking to his people and the reason it sounds insane is because that is his target audience.

josh

It would only take about 25 of the 240 or so Republicans in the House joining the Democrats to impeach, and 19 of the 52 Republicans in the senate to convict.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

josh wrote:

It would only take about 25 of the 240 or so Republicans in the House joining the Democrats to impeach, and 19 of the 52 Republicans in the senate to convict.

I think that would be called cutting off your nose to spite your face. 

Sean in Ottawa

The only way that the Republicans would impeach would be to do so with enough of a majority they would not need Democrats. It would be a very extreme thing for them to do so.

Much of what we have an issue with would not change either. This same group of republicans woudl just put up someone as extreme if only somewhat more predictable and sane.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Elise Stefanik is one R (NY) who might go along with it. She has already condemned the travel ban.

Sean in Ottawa

Let me place another idea here:

Those who call him Putin's useful idiot are forgetting the full implications of this. He is the Republicans useful idiot and I think they love him to bits.

Trump got to say the things no sane Republican could. He is doing things that the party establishment will be delighted with but not have to take responsibility for. Trump is going to bring in some of the most unpopular things imagineable and the leadership of his party will not have to take full credit like they would have had to under a less useful idiot connected closer to their establishment.

The idea that Trump is branded against them, and that they oppose him, allows the party no accountability for this entire administration.

I think they are happy to have him for 4-8 years, do the stuff they would not have the guts to do and really stink up the joint and then leave so they can claim this was not them. The Republican plan is to let him run till the population will not have him and then put up an olde-tyme republican who will effectively run against him and keep the same policies minus only the things they cannot get away with (of course).

Edzell Edzell's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Let me place another idea here:

Those who call him Putin's useful idiot are forgetting the full implications of this. He is the Republicans useful idiot and I think they love him to bits.

Trump got to say the things no sane Republican could. He is doing things that the party establishment will be delighted with but not have to take responsibility for. Trump is going to bring in some of the most unpopular things imagineable and the leadership of his party will not have to take full credit like they would have had to under a less useful idiot connected closer to their establishment.

The idea that Trump is branded against them, and that they oppose him, allows the party no accountability for this entire administration.

I think they are happy to have him for 4-8 years, do the stuff they would not have the guts to do and really stink up the joint and then leave so they can claim this was not them. The Republican plan is to let him run till the population will not have him and then put up an olde-tyme republican who will effectively run against him and keep the same policies minus only the things they cannot get away with (of course).

I find this quite credible but hope to hell the plan Sean envisages does not come to fruition.

pookie

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

He is the Republicans useful idiot and I think they love him to bits.

Trump got to say the things no sane Republican could. He is doing things that the party establishment will be delighted with but not have to take responsibility for. Trump is going to bring in some of the most unpopular things imagineable and the leadership of his party will not have to take full credit like they would have had to under a less useful idiot connected closer to their establishment.

The idea that Trump is branded against them, and that they oppose him, allows the party no accountability for this entire administration.

I think they are happy to have him for 4-8 years, do the stuff they would not have the guts to do and really stink up the joint and then leave so they can claim this was not them. The Republican plan is to let him run till the population will not have him and then put up an olde-tyme republican who will effectively run against him and keep the same policies minus only the things they cannot get away with (of course).

R legislators are not of one mind.  I do  think almost all of them delighted in him putting the screws to the Democrats - Obama and Clinton in particular - and in railing against political correctness.  The anti-abortion stuff is very welcome.  As is lowering taxes, and using "radical Islamic terror" every chance he gets.

On trade, he is going v much against the grain of many of them and that is going to cause difficulty.  Same thing on entitlement reform, Obamacare (which he clearly supports in theory he just wants it to be called Trumpaid) and prescription drug prices.

So no, I don't think they are sanguine at all.  I think alot of them are thinking that, with Clinton as the nominee, they could have had Cruz or Rubio or Bush and gotten most of this stuff anyway without the craziness.

It's no fun to constantly feel like there is a knife at your throat, and my observations are that plenty of them feel that way.

Sean in Ottawa

pookie wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

He is the Republicans useful idiot and I think they love him to bits.

Trump got to say the things no sane Republican could. He is doing things that the party establishment will be delighted with but not have to take responsibility for. Trump is going to bring in some of the most unpopular things imagineable and the leadership of his party will not have to take full credit like they would have had to under a less useful idiot connected closer to their establishment.

The idea that Trump is branded against them, and that they oppose him, allows the party no accountability for this entire administration.

I think they are happy to have him for 4-8 years, do the stuff they would not have the guts to do and really stink up the joint and then leave so they can claim this was not them. The Republican plan is to let him run till the population will not have him and then put up an olde-tyme republican who will effectively run against him and keep the same policies minus only the things they cannot get away with (of course).

R legislators are not of one mind.  I do  think almost all of them delighted in him putting the screws to the Democrats - Obama and Clinton in particular - and in railing against political correctness.  The anti-abortion stuff is very welcome.  As is lowering taxes, and using "radical Islamic terror" every chance he gets.

On trade, he is going v much against the grain of many of them and that is going to cause difficulty.  Same thing on entitlement reform, Obamacare (which he clearly supports in theory he just wants it to be called Trumpaid) and prescription drug prices.

So no, I don't think they are sanguine at all.  I think alot of them are thinking that, with Clinton as the nominee, they could have had Cruz or Rubio or Bush and gotten most of this stuff anyway without the craziness.

It's no fun to constantly feel like there is a knife at your throat, and my observations are that plenty of them feel that way.

Could be -- but you make the best of what you have and they have a leader that will do much of what they want; they may be able to stop from doing some of the things they don't want and take no responsibility. I think things are pretty good for them. For sure they will fight some of the trade issues but even there they may still accept that he may get from bullying what they could not get with "free trade."

Of course if things go wrong and the US loses jobs then they will have to take action but I suspect this will take the form not of stopping or impeaching him but forcing their agenda and they have the power to do that without impeaching him.

so yes they ahve some fights but he is more useful than not.

They may not have picked him but they will use him.

Pages