Domestic consequences of the 2024 US presidential election: the quickening
- Thread starter Scotttheking
- Start date
You could have said the same about Rubio two days ago.
One or more of those people will get a post that does not need congressonal confirming in less than a week
The Sheep Look Up
Ars Praetorian
Jesse Watters as communications director. Ben Shapiro as Secretary of Education. Joe Ladapo as Surgeon General. Bezos as Secretary of Commerce. Sebastian Gorka as CIA Director.
We need to have Ars add an upchucking emoji
You can always just put one in a reply post!
Even in Windows you can call up emojis with Windows key + period. And I'm sure your phone's keyboard has all kinds of emojis, like
and of course 
.I'm starting to wonder whether the people behind Project 2025 are betting against the dollar and other conventional currencies, hoping to cause a worldwide crash that destroys the trust in such currencies in favour of crypto.
I suspect they missed the memo that they still need to pay for electricity using real-world money.
I suspect they missed the memo that they still need to pay for electricity using real-world money.
The only rationales I can think of for the Gaetz AG choice are:
1) as a loyalty test to see which Congressfolk will go along with a wildly unpopular choice,
2) as a sacrificial lamb to enable Congresspeople to appear independent in voting him down, while providing cover for them to vote for other horrible and unqualified nominees,
3) as a power flex, like Caligula nominating his horse for consul (I know, this didn’t really happen, but the metaphor works), or
4) to retroactively make Matt (Big Dick Toilet Salesman (not a cutesy name, that was his actual profession for a while)) Whittaker seem more qualified.
Really only options 1 and 3 make any sense. Trump’s not interested in playing games to give Congressfolks cover that they don’t really need anyway, and option 4 is really only there as an excuse to bring up Whittaker, whose existence and brief AG tenure I find endlessly funny. I didn’t bother including an option that Trump thinks Gaetz is the most qualified person for the job because come on now.
1) as a loyalty test to see which Congressfolk will go along with a wildly unpopular choice,
2) as a sacrificial lamb to enable Congresspeople to appear independent in voting him down, while providing cover for them to vote for other horrible and unqualified nominees,
3) as a power flex, like Caligula nominating his horse for consul (I know, this didn’t really happen, but the metaphor works), or
4) to retroactively make Matt (Big Dick Toilet Salesman (not a cutesy name, that was his actual profession for a while)) Whittaker seem more qualified.
Really only options 1 and 3 make any sense. Trump’s not interested in playing games to give Congressfolks cover that they don’t really need anyway, and option 4 is really only there as an excuse to bring up Whittaker, whose existence and brief AG tenure I find endlessly funny. I didn’t bother including an option that Trump thinks Gaetz is the most qualified person for the job because come on now.
5) Because he knows Gaetz will go after his enemies.
But there are any number of people more qualified than Gaetz who would be happy to go after Trump’s enemies, and probably more effectively than Gaetz.
I guess it depends on how easily it would be for them to control Gaetz. They probably really don't want someone smart who ends up outmaneuvering them forcing turnover and making them look bad.
Well, your first and major failure is trying to justify appointing someone who, to me, looks particularly odd in the picture the media sometimes uses in the UK.
The problem with certain picks is eventually they are corrosive to your own party.
Kind of like what the British Empire went through in the post war period. In less than 20 years, they lost most of their major colonial holdings, the country was essentially bankrupt. — high inflation, stagflation; up until Thatcher shock doctrine, and then Tony Blair in the 90’s gave hope. The same could happen in the US.
Extremist Populist politicians seem to go one of either two ways; either extreme inward, or outward. Enact harsh domsestic economic policies (Germany in the 1920’s), or promote mlititary expansionism (ie. Germany in the 1930’s). Haha! Two Nazi references….and to cap it off, Trump’s German grandfather was expelled by the Keiser.
If Trump is allowed to go through with his most extreme tariff policies, it could get spicy.
Last edited:
Your last sentence comes close to what I believe the truth is.
5.) Gaetz wanted the seat, and was willing to bribe Trump for it.
Trump doesn't ask who the best candidates for the job are, and then whittle it down to the best choice. He starts with asking who wants the job, and what he's able to get from them for giving them the job. Trump is always transactional, except when he's getting his ego stroked. Sometimes even then.
In more ways than one.
I would add my 5) That Trump wanted a messy nomination process to center attention on his picks. Like the Apprentice... In the end, if Gaetz doesn't go through... we're back to 1) or 3) or 2). I don't see how he loses except if people decide this is a choice too far...
Which maybe brings up 6)... Gaetz is bad, but is he Hulk Hogan for Secretary of Energy bad ? If he gets Gaetz through, then he can get someone really bad through. In some ways though, Hegseth is worse than Gaetz.
Interesting times.
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Yeah it is this. Trump doesn't want a functional DOJ. He wants a DOJ which is his own personal legal attack/vengance squad. Even many Republicans would balk at that but not a sucmbag like Gaetz.
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
and he is looking for loyalty. Blind obedient loyalty. People who will never correct him, hold him accountable, restrain his worst impulses, or tell him what he is proposing is illegal/unconstitutional. Trump believes he is a good judge of charecter but as history shows he actually isn't. Still he believes he is, so a lot of this is gut feelings.
If Gaetz is all onboard with what Trump wants (a DOJ which exists solely to destroy his enemies perceived or real), and Trump feels Gaetz will be loyal well those are the only two requirements.
This sort of makes me wonder—Trump has advisors, they can make strategy, even if he’s more of a vibes guy. If Gaetz is beloved by MAGA, but is in the House (so, he clearly does have a high profile career and is a well-known politician), could nominating him for a doomed AG position be a way for the folks in the MAGA-sphere to get rid of a high profile competitor in the movement?
The next most famous are Noem and Gabbard. Noem… I mean she’s famous because of the backlash of the dog story, which is not so great. Gabbard is sort of in an interesting position because she’s an Indian woman, former democrat. I imagine MAGA could be induced to rally behind her or turn on her pretty easily.
Last edited:
What about the issue that Gaetz is highly compromised. There's damaging information that could be used to make it very difficult for him, so Trump has him between a rock and a hard place. Do my bidding, or else...
With this cloud hanging over him, there's little chance of him pushing back, unlike former AGs. He has very little to stand on, and hasn't shown much of a desire to do so, even without his legal entanglements.
That was mostly caused by external factors in the empire, not the UK population voting for candidates that would make the break-up go faster.
And at least they got the NHS out of it, while the ACA/Obamacare might not make it through the next 4 years
There's also
5) Gaetz notoriously spewed unhinged vitriol at the AG's office of the Biden administration, which Trump agreed with because it was all about how the JD was horrible and corrupt and going after Trump for as political revenge, which was exactly what Trump wanted to hear. So that convinced Trump that Gaetz was just the kind of guy he needed to exact revenge on the Justice Department.
I think this is it. Gaetz can tell Trump a compelling story about being persecuted by the Justice Department and how he's eager to use the AG power to exonerate himself and turn the tables on people who investigated him. There are better lawyers (obviously), but they don't have the same personal stakes in using the Justice Department as a weapon. Trump and Gaetz are uniquely aligned in how they want to use the office.
Gaetz is barely a lawyer. I think he practised for two years as a junior. I suspect he sees himself as the 48th or 49th President.
Gaetz has been one of Trump biggest supporters. Trump, temporarily, rewards loyalty.
Gaetz will have absolutely no issues directing the DOJ and his and Trump's enemies.
Last edited:
The tendancy to overthink things beyond "Trump likes they way person X defends him on TV" is partly why he got to this point. Everyone else is busy theorizing, strategizing, second guessing, looking for conspiracies or 4d chess moves, while Trump is just weaving and making decisions based on perception and "ratings" (not real ratings, all time, but what he views as entertaining or supporting...)
Which has led to cabinet and staff picks with a primary qualification of being sycophants and, as a bonus, cruel and potentially effective. Even the ineffective will be effective in the long run at undermining institutions and weakening US influence.
Which has led to cabinet and staff picks with a primary qualification of being sycophants and, as a bonus, cruel and potentially effective. Even the ineffective will be effective in the long run at undermining institutions and weakening US influence.
That doesn't matter. The AG does not personally try cases. They will staff up the DoJ with Federalist Society-approved attack dogs with some competence, and these people will force the line attorneys to attack Trump's enemies or resign. They may proactively fire many anyway, so they can staff up the DoJ as a means of Trump attacking and harassing his perceived enemies very quickly.
Essentially, it's looking to be shaping up like the Nixon DOJ, but on steroids. To add, the Nixon Administration was keen on harassing people they didn't like with tax audits (Mary McGrory was a notable example). That may be one thing the incoming administration will find the IRS useful for.
And at least they got the NHS out of it, while the ACA/Obamacare might not make it through the next 4 years
They have the House now (narrowly), so even if they can't muster the votes* to repeal it, which Johnson desperately wants to do, they can certainly sabotage it by limiting its funding. But if they can get it repealed there, I "guarawntee" the Senate will kill the filibuster to pass the repealing legislation. They don't want some cranky old guard guy to eff it up this time.
*
Last edited:
The media has been endlessly criticized for sanewashing trump and here we are, watching people try to sanewash him in real time.
He's a petty bully and a coward who is also stupid. He picked someone who can bully people for him and was a superfan. I really, really doubt it's more complicated than that.
My nutshell:
Democrats should not be focusing on why they lost
Instead
Should be focusing how the republicans won.
Democrats should not be focusing on why they lost
Instead
Should be focusing how the republicans won.
I quote a funny line I saw somewhere else.
"This is all a bunch of Sonic fans saying Harris would have won if only she's talked about Tails more."
I'm not sure that appealing to a wide swath of misogynists, racists, transphobes, and every other manner of human scumbag is really the path the Democrats want to take.
And yeah, I know that not all Republicans. But a very sizable slice of their voter base is, as Biden put it, garbage.
Sadly I suspect you need the economy to tank hard to show the possible convertible voters why they made a mistake. Naturally like Trump no matter what happens you'll get people who will claim it did great.
SuinusLatinus
Ars Tribunus Militum
One lesson the I have taken from this is that to have a successful campaign in the US, you must:
- Constantly lie and make up stuff;
- Be rude and vulgar;
- Threaten one or more disadvantaged groups;
- Did I mention the lies?;
- Do not speak many words, many words not good, many words bad;
- Have an old, white candidate. No, wait! Have an old, white candidate that's also a felon (bonus points for sex related crimes!):
- Absolutely no care whatsoever for how your campaign may be critiqued by the press. Indeed, the more hostile to the press, the better. See also #3.
Not necessarily. Even on the GOP side, there have been a few candidates that have attempted to replicate the Trump model and failed. Trump is in a singular category. Some facets may work for others, but certainly not a a direct copy.