Trump makes Nixon's infamous The enemies list look quaint and almost charming in comparison. Trump's actions also remind me of the McCarthy era. While I agree with your assessment, I think what will really bring down Trump is when he overreaches, which he will do because he can't help himself. When will it happen? My guess is within twel…
Trump makes Nixon's infamous The enemies list look quaint and almost charming in comparison. Trump's actions also remind me of the McCarthy era. While I agree with your assessment, I think what will really bring down Trump is when he overreaches, which he will do because he can't help himself. When will it happen? My guess is within twelve months, probably nine. The first 100 days will be a tornado of destructive activity, after that? His minions will look past the immediate carnage and spread their malicious net wider and wider--similar to what Joe McCarthy did--until finally someone will have the Joseph Welch moment and say 'Until this moment . . . I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"
Necessary correction: Trump NEVER had a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand or anywhere else. He did have (sworn to under oath in divorce proceedings by first wife) a copy of My New Order, a collection of 1923-42) speeches by Hitler, annotated by a scholar, first published in 1942-3.
To Trump's inevitable overreaching I add the equally inevitable squabbling and fallings-out among his inner circles. These people have conflicting priorities, some of them have monstrous egos, and many of them have little to no experience in government (or in cooperating with others). In the first 100 days (I just mistyped "the first 100 years" -- oops), we'll have a clearer idea of which elected and appointed officials have spines and which have noodles where their spines should be.
The only leader in the modern era who intentionally and successfully surrounded himself with that type of people was Hitler*. When people draw Trump-Hitler comparisons they skip over the one area the two are comparable. That is to say, enjoying members of the inner circle going at it, full-throttle. And the fact the people in the inner circle didn't like one another no matter how much fealty they demonstrated to Hitler.
And by Trump bringing the ultimate ego-maniac Musk and his new minion into the fold is exactly what Hitler did. There isn't a single long-time Trump supporter/friend in the inner circle. One is hard-pressed to name two who have long-term friendships or alliances. There are more with histories of friction with others and that includes w/Trump. Hitler did it first and best. Yet best didn't result in what he was absolutely certain of.
One thing today's press/media is quite good at is bonding w/players to get inside dirt. That is a backhand compliment for what is political Page6 journalism.
My favorite college history professor (the late Jack Reece, University of Pennsylvania, never forget) pointed out something about the Nuremberg rallies that's stuck with me ever since: Everyone is facing front, facing the Führer; no one is connecting to the people on either side of them. This is one thing that worries me about the U.S.: for so many of us, it seems the only thing that connects (unites?) us is the distant celebrity on the stage. Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, etc. -- and Trump. The small town I live in, and the island it's part of, have serious problems, but at least I have connections with people at the post office, the grocery store, out on the trail, that have nothing to do with who we vote for.
Yes, that's true about Hitler "rallies" . Aint true at Taylor Swift shows. A simple ticket announcement brings many into the streets where they mix and converse and exchange friendship bracelets. Doesn't matter the age or gender, class or anything else. Inside concert goers whether celebs or royals do the same w/audience members. And that audience is as diverse as you will ever find and is repeated country by country, city by city.
So Hilter and TS are polar opposites.
I too speak with nearly all. There are a few wxceptions that are rooted in their hatred of O and Michelle and one over their hatred of Pete B cuz he is 2spirit. I am not political (said it so many times I bore myself) and listen politely w/o comment to politics; hooman to hooman discussion all in silence.
There is NO upside to contributing to the vitriol and histrionics that mark today's political discourse which continues to bleed into everything under the sun. Expressing self on an internet thread is free speech. Never expect a rational discussion from anything I've ever written in OPEN forums. Nor expect anything I write to be read or read slowly enough to stimulate thoughts rather than emotions. OPEN forums thrive on emotions. Chuckle when folk bring up algorithms and blame algorithms rather than accept responsibility for their words. Then excuse others for their actions because of political leaning.
This substack has become a stove pipe inside of an echo chamber. Lots of smoke circulating around and around dulling the minds of more and more making more and more unrecognizable.
I can think of another part of the anatomy where T***p's male minions exhibit noodles, and, just to keep the food image accurate, dem noodles ain't al dente.
He was also a *dangerous* pathetic lying alcoholic who was willing and able to wreck reputations and entire careers. It's also hard to overestimate how freaked out the political world was by the "loss of China." The political and journalistic upper crust in the '40s, '50s, and well into the '60s (remember "the best and the brightest"?) was overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. That's no longer the case, although speaking as a white woman, I believe that white people continue to be a big problem.
"... (remember "the best and the brightest"?) was overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. That's no longer the case, although speaking as a white woman, I believe that white people continue to be a big problem."
Trump makes Nixon's infamous The enemies list look quaint and almost charming in comparison. Trump's actions also remind me of the McCarthy era. While I agree with your assessment, I think what will really bring down Trump is when he overreaches, which he will do because he can't help himself. When will it happen? My guess is within twelve months, probably nine. The first 100 days will be a tornado of destructive activity, after that? His minions will look past the immediate carnage and spread their malicious net wider and wider--similar to what Joe McCarthy did--until finally someone will have the Joseph Welch moment and say 'Until this moment . . . I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"
If McCarthy had written a book, it would be on Trump's nightstand along with Mein Kampf.
Wasn't Roy Cohn also •his• mentor? Or am I confusing things?
You are right.
Correct
Necessary correction: Trump NEVER had a copy of Mein Kampf on his nightstand or anywhere else. He did have (sworn to under oath in divorce proceedings by first wife) a copy of My New Order, a collection of 1923-42) speeches by Hitler, annotated by a scholar, first published in 1942-3.
To Trump's inevitable overreaching I add the equally inevitable squabbling and fallings-out among his inner circles. These people have conflicting priorities, some of them have monstrous egos, and many of them have little to no experience in government (or in cooperating with others). In the first 100 days (I just mistyped "the first 100 years" -- oops), we'll have a clearer idea of which elected and appointed officials have spines and which have noodles where their spines should be.
Agree cuz ur so right.
The only leader in the modern era who intentionally and successfully surrounded himself with that type of people was Hitler*. When people draw Trump-Hitler comparisons they skip over the one area the two are comparable. That is to say, enjoying members of the inner circle going at it, full-throttle. And the fact the people in the inner circle didn't like one another no matter how much fealty they demonstrated to Hitler.
And by Trump bringing the ultimate ego-maniac Musk and his new minion into the fold is exactly what Hitler did. There isn't a single long-time Trump supporter/friend in the inner circle. One is hard-pressed to name two who have long-term friendships or alliances. There are more with histories of friction with others and that includes w/Trump. Hitler did it first and best. Yet best didn't result in what he was absolutely certain of.
One thing today's press/media is quite good at is bonding w/players to get inside dirt. That is a backhand compliment for what is political Page6 journalism.
My favorite college history professor (the late Jack Reece, University of Pennsylvania, never forget) pointed out something about the Nuremberg rallies that's stuck with me ever since: Everyone is facing front, facing the Führer; no one is connecting to the people on either side of them. This is one thing that worries me about the U.S.: for so many of us, it seems the only thing that connects (unites?) us is the distant celebrity on the stage. Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, etc. -- and Trump. The small town I live in, and the island it's part of, have serious problems, but at least I have connections with people at the post office, the grocery store, out on the trail, that have nothing to do with who we vote for.
Yes, that's true about Hitler "rallies" . Aint true at Taylor Swift shows. A simple ticket announcement brings many into the streets where they mix and converse and exchange friendship bracelets. Doesn't matter the age or gender, class or anything else. Inside concert goers whether celebs or royals do the same w/audience members. And that audience is as diverse as you will ever find and is repeated country by country, city by city.
So Hilter and TS are polar opposites.
I too speak with nearly all. There are a few wxceptions that are rooted in their hatred of O and Michelle and one over their hatred of Pete B cuz he is 2spirit. I am not political (said it so many times I bore myself) and listen politely w/o comment to politics; hooman to hooman discussion all in silence.
There is NO upside to contributing to the vitriol and histrionics that mark today's political discourse which continues to bleed into everything under the sun. Expressing self on an internet thread is free speech. Never expect a rational discussion from anything I've ever written in OPEN forums. Nor expect anything I write to be read or read slowly enough to stimulate thoughts rather than emotions. OPEN forums thrive on emotions. Chuckle when folk bring up algorithms and blame algorithms rather than accept responsibility for their words. Then excuse others for their actions because of political leaning.
This substack has become a stove pipe inside of an echo chamber. Lots of smoke circulating around and around dulling the minds of more and more making more and more unrecognizable.
I can think of another part of the anatomy where T***p's male minions exhibit noodles, and, just to keep the food image accurate, dem noodles ain't al dente.
But it took years before anyone stood up to McCarthy, and his colleagues knew he was a pathetic lying alcoholic.
He was also a *dangerous* pathetic lying alcoholic who was willing and able to wreck reputations and entire careers. It's also hard to overestimate how freaked out the political world was by the "loss of China." The political and journalistic upper crust in the '40s, '50s, and well into the '60s (remember "the best and the brightest"?) was overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. That's no longer the case, although speaking as a white woman, I believe that white people continue to be a big problem.
Worth repeating and more so worth remembering
"... (remember "the best and the brightest"?) was overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. That's no longer the case, although speaking as a white woman, I believe that white people continue to be a big problem."
These days the answer to the question “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” Would be a resounding ‘NO!
Either that or "Decency? What does that mean?"