Donald Trump, in his own words, the best words (AKA his AP interview).

So last week Donald Trump had an interview with the AP about being president.

Now I dont want to say it went bad or anything, but 100% of the survivors of the Titanic, Hindenburg, Chernobyl, Great Fire of London, Mount St. Helens and Pomei who were asked about it say they've never seen anything like it.

Which of course means, I totally had to read it......so buckle up folks as we go for a ride through the mind the President of the United States:

The first highlight:

"TRUMP: Yeah, it's funny: One of the best chemistries I had was with (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel.

(Crosstalk) AP: Really?

TRUMP: Chancellor Merkel.

TRUMP: And I guess somebody shouted out, "Shake her hand, shake her hand," you know. But I never heard it. But I had already shaken her hand four times. You know, because we were together for a long time.

AP: Did you expect you would have good chemistry with her?

TRUMP: No. Because, um, I'm at odds on, you know, the NATO payments and I'm at odds on immigration. We had unbelievable chemistry. And people have given me credit for having great chemistry with all of the leaders, including el-Sissi. ...

TRUMP: So it was a great thing to see that happen."

Ok, so on its face this doesnt seem that bad.....maybe Trump and Merkel really do get along well, and hes right about all the reasons they shouldnt.  But then there is the bit about shaking her hand.

Now you may remember Trump took some heat for not shaking Merkel's hand during their meeting. While I'm the first to admit this is a stupid ass story, look at his explanation.

To be fair, the first part sounds perfectly reasonable....someone said "shake her hand" and Merkel heard it and he didnt....no big deal. But this is Trump so he had to get just a bit crazy with it:

"But I had already shaken her hand four times. You know, because we were together for a long time."

Now if I was the AP, I would have had the following questions:

1) So what is the limit on number of times you will shake someones hand? Is it a per visit or life time limit?

I mean you stopped shaking Hillary's hand during the debates, so I'm assuming its a lifetime limit?

Actually lets hope not. After all, I found at least 4 different pictures of you shaking hands with Jared Kushner, your son in law. And assuming you followed tradition, you shook his hand at the wedding too, when you gave away your daughter. Which would mean, he appears to be over the handshake limit.......is it possible one of those times you just didnt recognize him?

2) How long is the interval between hand shakes? See I understand you probably shook Chancellor Merkel's hand in private when you first met, but when were the other 3 times?

Did you randomly stop the conversation to grab her hand and shake it again? you know maybe ever hour, on the hour? Given you were together for a long time and all...was it every time you entered a room together? and if so, did she know she was approaching your hand shake limit?

Like I said, he'd have been fine just going with the "I didnt hear it" excuse...its actually believable and probably true,

Moving on to highlight #2



"AP: Do you feel like you've been able to apply that kind of a relationship to your dealings with Congress as well?

TRUMP: I have great relationships with Congress. I think we're doing very well and I think we have a great foundation for future things. We're going to be applying, I shouldn't tell you this, but we're going to be announcing, probably on Wednesday, tax reform. And it's — we've worked on it long and hard. And you've got to understand, I've only been here now 93 days, 92 days. President Obama took 17 months to do Obamacare. I've been here 92 days but I've only been working on the health care, you know I had to get like a little bit of grounding right? Health care started after 30 day(s), so I've been working on health care for 60 days. ...You know, we're very close. And it's a great plan, you know, we have to get it approved."

So Donald Trump's claim is "Look how great the healthcare plan we were forced to pull because it cant pass the GOP controlled house is"?  Or does he just want credit for it failure.....two failures actually because despite being "very very close" the House just pulled a second vote on it cause no one likes it.

"AP: Is it this deal that's between the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus, is that the deal you're looking at?

TRUMP: So the Republican Party has various groups, all great people. They're great people. But some are moderate, some are very conservative. The Democrats don't seem to have that nearly as much. You know the Democrats have, they don't have that. The Republicans do have that. And I think it's fine. But you know there's a pretty vast area in there. And I have a great relationship with all of them. Now, we have government not closing. I think we'll be in great shape on that. It's going very well. Obviously, that takes precedent.

AP: That takes precedent over health care? For next week?

TRUMP: Yeah, sure. Next week. Because the hundred days is just an artificial barrier. The press keeps talking about the hundred days. But we've done a lot. You have a list of things. I don't have to read it."

So, what exactly is "that?"  I get the Dem's dont have "that" and the Republicans do have "that" but I still dont know what "that" is. I assume "that" is something we want from context...but really what is "that"? Just saying it reminds me a bit of this (guy on the left is the AP, the one on the right is Trump)

Next up:

"AP: You did put out though, as a candidate, you put out a 100-day plan. Do you feel like you should be held accountable to that plan?


TRUMP: Somebody, yeah, somebody put out the concept of a hundred-day plan. But yeah. Well, I'm mostly there on most items. Go over the items, and I'll talk to you ...

(Crosstalk.)

TRUMP: But things change. There has to be flexibility. Let me give you an example. President Xi, we have a, like, a really great relationship. For me to call him a currency manipulator and then say, "By the way, I'd like you to solve the North Korean problem," doesn't work. So you have to have a certain flexibility, Number One. Number Two, from the time I took office till now, you know, it's a very exact thing. It's not like generalities. Do you want a Coke or anything?"

Translation: Yea, someone put out a plan.....maybe it was me....maybe it wasnt. Have you asked anyone else if the 100 day plan belongs to them? like is my name on the thing? (NOTE: this is not the only or even most detailed plan Trump laid out....I just didnt think anyone wanted to see a 24 minute speech)

Oh...well...shit. Ok look things change you say. I said a bunch of things about stuff I didnt understand....and now I kinda get it. You cant expect me to hold to stupid shit I said previously...I mean.....ok shit....you want a coke? or just anything to change the subject.


Except, being Trump, he couldnt take his own escape hatch....and wound up face down in a word salad

"TRUMP: And the media, some of them get it, in all fairness. But you know some of them either don't get it, in which case they're very stupid people, or they just don't want to say it. You know because of a couple of them said, "He didn't call them a currency manipulator." Well, for two reasons. Number One, he's not, since my time. You know, very specific formula. You would think it's like generalities, it's not. They have — they've actually — their currency's gone up. So it's a very, very specific formula. And I said, "How badly have they been," ... they said, "Since you got to office they have not manipulated their currency." That's Number One, but much more important, they are working with us on North Korea. Now maybe that'll work out or maybe it won't. Can you imagine? "

So media gets it....except when they dont. Also China stopped manipulating their currency the day I came into office....they told me so, and they wouldnt lie. And even if they did it doesnt matter cause they are helping us with North Korea...except they might not be...but can you imagine if they were?

Also what the fuck happened to Number 2? just saying, we know what reason Number 1 was...but where did Number 2 go?

We will never find out, because they moved on to the next subject (or back on to the point more accurately)

AP: So in terms of the 100-day plan that you did put out during the campaign, do you feel, though, that people should hold you accountable to this in terms of judging success?

TRUMP: No, because much of the foundation's been laid. Things came up. I'll give you an example. I didn't put Supreme Court judge on the 100 (day) plan, and I got a Supreme Court judge.

Wait....Trump didnt put getting a Supreme Court Judge on the 100 day plan? I'm pretty sure this is breaking news to literally everyone, Trump supporters and detractors....cause you know we all thought that was one of the major goals of his campaign.

I guess its shame Trump never posted his 100 day plan to a website or anything, so we cant check that or anything....oh wait.
 

"AP: I think it's on there.

TRUMP: I don't know. ...

AP: "Begin the process of selecting." You actually exceeded on this one. This says, "Begin the process of selecting a replacement."

It seem's unlike President Trump, the AP actually read his 100 day plan......thats gotta be awkward.

But hey thats what happens when you elect a trained teleprompter monkey as President....he says whatever is on the screen, but it doesnt mean he understands it. 

"TRUMP: That's the biggest thing I've done.

AP: Do you consider that your biggest success?

TRUMP: Well, I — first of all I think he's a great man. I think he will be a great, great justice of the Supreme Court. I have always heard that the selection and the affirmation of a Supreme Court judge is the biggest thing a president can do. Don't forget, he could be there for 40 years. ... He's a young man. I've always heard that that's the biggest thing. Now, I would say that defense is the biggest thing. You know, to be honest, there are a number of things. But I've always heard that the highest calling is the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. I've done one in my first 70 days."

So....appointing a supreme court judge is the biggest thing you can do? except it not....its defense? Which oddly enough is a thing you didn't do (your defense budget was tossed out during the negotiations to keep the government open). Though credit to Trump for catching this 3 seconds after it left his mouth so he can claim that the thing he actually did really is the most important thing...never mind that thing he just said was more important that he failed at......

Moving on

"AP: Can I ask you, over your first 100 days — you're not quite there yet — how do you feel like the office has changed you?

TRUMP: Well the one thing I would say — and I say this to people — I never realized how big it was. Everything's so (unintelligible) like, you know the orders are so massive. I was talking to — "

There you have it folks, confirmation from the horse's ass that he didnt read the job requirements before applying.

"AP: You mean the responsibility of it, or do you mean —

TRUMP: Number One, there's great responsibility. When it came time to, as an example, send out the 59 missiles, the Tomahawks in Syria. I'm saying to myself, "You know, this is more than just like, 79 (sic) missiles."

So was it 59 or 79 Missiles? Maybe this is why those orders are so big, cause you have to keep changing them..."Send 59 missiles....er I mean 79 missiles" "Send the Carl Vinson South and East to North Korea.....err wait I meant North and West"

Or do you think missiles operate like Airlines? where they have to overbook them, just in case some of those missles dont make the launch tubes?

"This is death that's involved," because people could have been killed."
Yes.....this is generally how missiles work (ask any 3rd grader if you dont believe me)....and its kinda terrifying you didnt know this until AFTER you took the job to be in charge of them. 

"This is risk that's involved, because if the missile goes off and goes in a city or goes in a civilian area — you know, the boats were hundreds of miles away — and if this missile goes off and lands in the middle of a town or a hamlet .... every decision is much harder than you'd normally make.(unintelligible) ... This is involving death and life and so many things. ... So it's far more responsibility. (unintelligible) ..."

Now you choked on a piece of word salad here, so maybe I'm not quite understanding you, but it sounds like you also just learned that missiles can occasionally miss....and also (and more troubling) that they arnt just pushed off the sides of the ship......like seriously man, maybe we need to appoint Barron your "special military adviser"...I mean he's 11...he plays video games. He understands these concepts and I'm sure hed love to explain how all this works to you. 

"..The financial cost of everything is so massive, every agency. This is thousands of times bigger, the United States, than the biggest company in the world. The second-largest company in the world is the Defense Department. The third-largest company in the world is Social Security. The fourth-largest — you know, you go down the list.

AP: Right."

I love the AP reply here. "Yes Mr. Trump you have correctly stated how big the government is, as taught to every 5th graders in US civics"

 

TRUMP. It's massive. And every agency is, like, bigger than any company. So you know, I really just see the bigness of it all, but also the responsibility. And the human responsibility. You know, the human life that's involved in some of the decisions.
"So Donnie what did you learn in kindergarten today?"
"I learned the government is big mommy.....and important." 

Moving on to the next highlight

"AP: You've talked a little bit about the way that you've brought some business skills into the office. Is there anything from your business background that just doesn't translate into the presidency, that just simply is not applicable to this job?

TRUMP: Well in business, you don't necessarily need heart, whereas here, almost everything affects people. So if you're talking about health care — you have health care in business but you're trying to just negotiate a good price on health care, et cetera, et cetera. You're providing health. This is (unintelligible). Here, everything, pretty much everything you do in government, involves heart, whereas in business, most things don't involve heart.

AP: What's that switch been like for you?

TRUMP: In fact, in business you're actually better off without it."

Actually....credit where its due here. Donald Trump is 1000% right. The entire point of a business is to make money, they are supposed to be completely and utterly amoral. They are not supposed to give a damn about anything except what they need to do to make money, and should only make concessions to decency/moral all thing things Trump called "heart" if it helps profits.

Now of course this is is also the reason why Donald Trump is a horrible president, and why he backs down on literally every single thing he says and position he takes......hes running the place like a business...where you say what you need to say in the moment to make a buck, even if its counter to what you told the last guy to make a buck.

Which incidentally explains the next highlight

AP: Obviously, that's going to come in a week where you're going to be running up against the deadline for keeping the government open. If you get a bill on your desk that does not include funding for the wall, will you sign it?

TRUMP: I don't know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you've been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it's funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I've always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college — but it's a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security. Now, it just came out that they're 73 percent down. ... That's a tremendous achievement. ... Look at this, in 100 days, that down to the lowest in 17 years and it's going lower. Now, people aren't coming because they know they're not going to get through, and there isn't crime. You know the migration up to the border is horrible for women, you know that? (Unintelligible.) Now, much of that's stopped because they can't get through.
[...]

AP: But, just trying to nail you down on it one more time, will you sign a spending bill if it doesn't have —

TRUMP: I don't want to comment. I just don't know yet. I mean, I have to see what's going on. I really do. But the wall's a very important thing to — not only my base, but to the people. And even if it wasn't, I mean I'll do things that aren't necessarily popular. ... The wall is very important to stopping drugs.

So basically Trump thinks the wall is fantastic, and its what his base wants, look how great its going to be. But of course hes not going to commit to funding it, what are you crazy? that might hurt his bottom line (IE approval ratings/reelection chances) somewhere else. Thats how business works....I lied to them, now I might lie to you...or them again. Whatever helps the bottom line.

And next hightlight

"TRUMP: They had a quote from me that NATO's obsolete. But they didn't say why it was obsolete. I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn't in government. People don't go around asking about NATO if I'm building a building in Manhattan, right? So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO's obsolete — not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO — NATO is obsolete, and I said, "And the reason it's obsolete is because of the fact they don't focus on terrorism." You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism."

So this is what Trump's 3 or 4th time hiding behind the "Hey you cant hold me accountable for the things I said in the campaign because I'm a fucking idiot who didnt know what I was talking about and am incapable of hiring people who can teach me" excuse?

And really...I dont see much improvement here, as Donald Trump doesnt think Terrorism is older than 70 years or so (when NATO was first founded).

Next up this highlight:

"AP: Should Americans who are serving in the military expect that you are going to increase troop numbers in the Middle East to fight ISIS?

TRUMP: No, not much.

AP: In terms of the strategy, though, that you have accepted, it sounds like, from the generals —

TRUMP: Well, they've also accepted my strategy.

AP: Does that involve more troops on the ground, it sounds like?

TRUMP: Not many.

AP: So a small increase?

TRUMP: It could be an increase, then an increase. But not many more. I want to do the job, but not many more. ... This is an important story. I've done a lot. I've done more than any other president in the first 100 days and I think the first 100 days is an artificial barrier. And I'm scheduled ... the foundations have been set to do some great things. With foreign countries. Look at, look at President Xi. I mean ..."

So what do "President Xi" and the "first 100 days" have to do with troop numbers in the middle east?

Not a god damn thing.....problem is, like a good trained parrot, Trump memorized his script...and hes incapable of devating from it. So when pressed on an issue he has no choice but to reset to the scripted lines he's been trained to repeat.  Well its either that or a word salad....

Speaking of, next and final highlight

TRUMP: I think (I) can to an extent. But there's a, there's a basic hard-line core that you can't break though, OK, that you can't break through. There's a hard-line group you can't break through, you can't. It's sad. You can't. Look, I met with Congressman Cummings and I really liked him, a lot. Elijah Cummings (of Maryland). I really liked him a lot. And during the conversation because we have a very strong mutual feeling on drug prices. He came to see me, at my invitation, because I saw him talking about, he came to see me about drug prices because drug prices are ridiculous. And I am going to get them way, way, way down and he liked that. He said you will be the greatest president. He said you will be, in front of five, six people, he said you will be the greatest president in the history of this country.

AP: He disputed that slightly.

TRUMP: That's what he said. I mean, what can I tell you?

AP: Yeah.

TRUMP: There's six people sitting here. What did he, what, what do you mean by slightly?

AP: He said, he said that he felt like you could be a great president if and then —

TRUMP: Well he said, you'll be the greatest president in the history of, but you know what, I'll take that also, but that you could be. But he said, will be the greatest president but I would also accept the other. In other words, if you do your job, but I accept that. Then I watched him interviewed and it was like he never even was here. It's incredible. I watched him interviewed a week later and it's like he was never in my office. And you can even say that.

So, even knowing what Trump was talking about....and what Cummings actually said (which is if Trump abandoned all his policies he had the potential to be a great president)...and I still cant make sense of anything Trump said in that last paragraph. "You could be" what exactly? what is "the other" youd "accept" and "if you do your job"what happens exactly? though I guess Im glad you accept the thing not stated. Also what can you "even say that"?

I dont think there is a complete sentence or thought ANYWHERE in that bit. 

And well thats symbolic of this entire interview isnt it.....at the end of the day we now have a lunatic with "all the best words" incoherently babbling them out running the country....and if you dont believe that, you wernt paying attention when he told you in this interview more than once, thats exactly what hes doing.  

"McConnelled": the Supreme Court Gerrymander

So if you follow the news, you might be forgiven for thinking Mitch McConnell is an evil genius.

So back when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, Democrat Barack Obama was President of the United States with about a year left in his term.

Yet, when Scalia's replacement was finally confirmed, it was done by the new Republican President Donald Trump.

As many have pointed out, this seems well odd. Or to use the democrats term for it....this seems like stealing a supreme court seat from the Democrats to be filled by a Republican.

And it is.....even the man responsible for doing it, Mitch McConnell would agree to that.

Granted McConnell would feed you a bullshit line about needing to uphold the balance of the court (Scalia being a conservative and all, and Obama likely to have appointed a liberal), but he'd agree on the principle.

But what makes Mitch McConnell seem like an evil genius is that, in getting Neil Gorsuch (Donald Trump's nominee) confirmed to the Supreme Court, he destroyed the Filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, preventing the Democrats from being able to block the nomination indefinitly, as McConnell himself had done to Merrick Garland (Obama's nominee who wasnt confirmed).

In fact this is the interpretation many of the mainstream, right wing and left wing media are all taking (granted the Right wing points out its genius, and the left calls it evil but still again they agree on the core idea). Per the media, Mitch McConnell is the man who prevented the president of the opposition party from filling a supreme court seat he was constitutionally allowed to fill and turned that seat over to his parties president to fill it instead.....while also destroying the mechanism the opposition party could use to do the same thing to his party.

There is however a small problem with this interpretation: It's not accurate.

Some parts of it are indisputable: McConnell DID prevent Obama from making an appointment...and held the seat open until his party held the White House.
McConnell also nuked the filibuster.

The problem is....these two things are not the same, nor really connected.

See the filibuster was a method for the minority party to prevent anything from happening.
However at the time Garland was nominated by Obama, the Republicans were the majority party.

So to stop Garland, they didnt filibuster his nomination.

Instead they just flat out refused to hold vote (or even a hearing) on the man.

Now they did this, because the truth is, they couldnt come up with a politically viable reason to vote against him if he came up to a vote. And as McConnell repeated pointed out, this all happened in an election year.

Which was part of the problem....if Republicans voted for an Obama nominee they were afraid they would be used against them in election ads. At the same time, if they failed to vote for a obviously qualified nominee it would be used against them in election ads.

So no matter how they voted, they believed they would get screwed. So they found a way out. Dont vote. Its a bit harder to hold people accountable for things they didnt do, a belief, that given the GOP gained the white house while holding the senate was seemingly verified.

Now this may all seem irrelevant...after all according to most media reporting, this cant happen again...McConnell completed his genius plan by nuking the filibuster and getting Gorsuch on the court.

Except again....the Filibuster is a tactic where the minority stops a vote from happening.
Whereas McConnell invented a new tactic where the majority stops a vote from happening.

And well, quite frankly there is nothing preventing it from happening again.

Assuming anyone who reads this blog is a conservative and thrilled with how Trump got to put a right winger on the court, let me ask you a question: If the democrats take the senate in 2018 and their's another vacancy or two on the Supreme Court, what exactly do you think the chances are Donald Trump is going to get to fill those?

Thanks to Mitch McConnell new invention, its basically zero. Democrats would be guilty of political negligence and malpractice if they allowed Trump to make any supreme court appointments when they held the senate.

Afterall. Mitch McConnell did prove the court works just fine when its not full thanks to what he did to Merrick Garland. So there is no pressing rush to ever put a new justice on the court.

Furthermore, now that the senate has no reason to ever allow a hearing on an opposition presidents nominee, even Senate election in affect determines the future of the supreme court, will vacancies be allowed to be filled.  And the justification for not holding hearings on Garland is it was an election year. And every other year is an election year for the senate.

So if the president and the senate arnt held by the same party, I guess we cant nominate Supreme Court Justices in the presidents 2nd or 4th (and 6th/8th if hes a two termer) year.

Actually its probibly worse than that....you know how everyone is making a big deal about Donald Trump's first 100 days? the same way they made a fuss about Barack Obama and George W's first 100 days?

Well the idea of the "First 100 days" is that thats really all the time there is until the next election cycle kicks off. So its not much of a stretch for an opposition senate to say they cant consider a presidents nominations after that 100 day period...cause you know, its an election and all.

And actually (the argument will go) the Supreme Court is so important we cant afford to compromise on a nominee at any time....so I guess we can never hold a hearing for an opposition president.

What I'm getting at is, thanks to Mitch McConnell we are going to see a whole lot more Merrick Garlands in the future, and we are going to need a term for them....and I think I have an idea.

The closest thing I can think of to this situation, when one party tries to take political power in a blatantly unfair and unintended fashion is the Gerrymander. This is of course when the congressional districts are drawn in such a way as to make it impossible for the opposition party to win no matter the actual voter support.  

Now what you may not know is that the term Gerrymander takes it name from the former Vice President of the United States (under James Madison)  Elbridge Gerry. As Governor of Massachusetts Gerry had signed a law allowing the redrawing of congressional districts in unorthodox shapes (one of which looked like a salamander) to benefit the Democratic-Republican party.

In that vein I suggest the term for a Supreme Court Nominee who never receives a hearing by the Senate (because its held by the opposition party to the president) is to say that nominee got "McConnelled"

So Merick Garland is the first nominee in history to be "McConnelled" but he wont be the last.

Now eventually its true, we will likely stop seeing nominees being "McConnelled" but thats likely going to be because Presidents are going to stop bothering to make the nominations in the first place. Meaning we are going to wind up with long chunks, possible as long as 8 or more years, in which it wont be possible to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and no ones even nominating people to fill those spots.

I suggest the name for this period should be the "McConnell period".

So if the Democrats win the senate in 2018, we will enter a "McConnell period" that will last at least 2 years.....though its possible it even lasts 6 if Trump wins reelection and the Dems continue to hold the senate. And heck the "McConnell period" could last even longer than that. Between 1933 and 1981 the democrats held the senate for that entire 27 year period....which also included 14 years of Republicans Presidents.

Or, to use more modern example, of the currently serving members of the Supreme Court, only John Roberts, Sam Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were nominated outside a "McConnell" period.  (note in an ironic twist, Antonin Scalia himself would never have been on the court, he was also an McConnell Period nominee).

And heres the thing, with the "McConnell rules" in effect, there currently wouldnt have been a vacancy on the court, as Barack Obama would have nominated 5 other justices as well during the 6 years his party held both the senate and white house.

Which would mean the current balance of the court would be 7-2 in favor of liberals.

Which sounds great for liberals....but who knows when the next non "McConnell" period is going to happen...next time if could be 7-2 or 8-1 in favor of the conservatives once the president of the senates party gets to fill all the open vacancies


And heres the real kicker....there is no way to fix this problem short of both sides agreeing to do something politically stupid and allow an opposition president to make an appointment:  a constitutional amendment requiring a senate hearing on all presidential nominees.

So you better get used to nominees being "McConnelled" and long extended vacancies on the Supreme Court during possibly near decade long "McConnell periods".