Billionaires usually protect each other no matter what but this time the Oligarchy decided they rather have Pence who is a good little soldier as Clinton would have been. Game of Thrones. They are all quite unsavory. I have no taste for any of them as they continue to steal $trillions while destroying the lives of millions upon millions.

That Trump is hiding a good deal seems far more compelling than a theory that he is merely stupid or petulant.

If he has high crimes and misdemeanors to hide (acts which he had to have committed very early in the game) it was because he was too arrogant to listen to institutional advisors about what a president can and can not do. As an independent business operator, he could make contacts with whoever he wanted -- like Vlad the Schemer, for instance. As an elected official, (and the top one at that) he no longer had so much freedom of action.

Because he had opted to use family members (like his son-in-law Kushner) it would appear he might have thought he could still operating the family racket, just make the racket bigger.

Trump's ignorance and utter lack of judgement is the reason of all this. I think the Steele dossier puts it as it is, that basically Trump is a willing "agent" here, not somebody that is somehow that was blackmailed.

And this is because the businessman who had his enterprises go bankrupt and was saved by Russian money simply likely thought that it would be a win-win scenario if he would get some assistance from the Russians during the election and would have the sanctions lifted in response. That the FBI has as it's mission objective to deny foreign intelligence services such operations simply didn't come to Trump's ignorant mind at the time. His open remarks to Russia to hack Hillary and the overall cavalier way Trump handled this issue in 2016 is in my view a proof of this.

Now it's been coming out how active the Trump administration was to do away with the sanctions, but in it's ineptness couldn't get anything done. And once when Flynn was fired, that all changed. That they denied having any meetings with Russians and now we are with some 20 meetings or so being shown tells were this is going. I believe that this is the most corrupt and incompetent administration this far in the history of the US, when it comes to the President and the his closest circle.

So what will Mueller find? Well, as he's already investigating Paul Manafort, I assume that the investigation will be thorough. And likely in the end Trump will resign.

Or then as a distraction, Trump goes to war with North Korea.

Trump's style is just to brazenly lie, ignore, and say f*** you to the law, convention and ethics. That's how he 'trumps'. If the GOP won't stop him then he'll just keep doing it. He's destroying the republic in full view of everyone.

I think the larger problem is the bipolarization and outright alienation of the different camps in the US. Trump will just increase this. Above all, the harted that the right feels towards the left trumps the dismal performance of Trump. Partisanship trumps everything: things are right or wrong depending only on which side makes them.

Trump will cling on to what is most important to him: his base. Breaking from the Paris accord was a thing to please the base. And when the time comes for an impeachment, he will likely resign and accuse that he has been a victim of an evil conspiracy perpetrated by the intelligence community and the evil elite ruling Washington. And his supporters will believe this. Trump for them will be a martyr as they can cocoon themselves in their own echo chambers in the social media and just create an alternative reality for themselves where the Russia-thing was fake.

I don't see America getting any better, unfortunately.

Trump's style is just to brazenly lie, ignore, and say f*** you to the law, convention and ethics. That's how he 'trumps'. If the GOP won't stop him then he'll just keep doing it. He's destroying the republic in full view of everyone. — Wayfarer

I'd say that the GOP are just as guilty. With all the gerrymandering and voter suppression they're actively trying to destroy any semblance of a legitimate democracy. And they seem to be doing whatever they can to avoid holding Trump (and other Republicans) accountable for their misdeeds.

I'd say that the GOP are just as guilty. With all the gerrymandering and voter suppression they're actively trying to destroy any semblance of a legitimate democracy — Michael

No argument from me. I think it's disgraceful that more principled Republicans aren't standing up. I'm not American, but I admire McCain as a principled Republican. The rest are just 'whatever wins, and bugger the principles'.

I'm not American, but I admire McCain as a principled Republican. — Wayfarer

McCain is all talk. He speaks out against things like the nuclear option but then always toes the party line when it comes to action.

I agree, I would normally never like McCain, but 'now' is not normal. McCain turned up on Aussie TV last week and got stuck right into Trump - for that he deserves at least some kudos. At least more than all the craven partymen that applaud Dear Leader in the Rose Garden.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if the GOP had any real conservative principles, Trump would never have become leader, but because he's won on TV, because the mob likes him, well, fuck principles.

It's time, again, to quote the Wikipedia definition of 'demagogue' in case anyone has forgotten it.

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.

Trump is an obvious demagogue, but of course, that word has too many syllables for 'the base' to comprehend.

Apparently Trump thinks he committed some offense, but what? — Mongrel

I think there must be an offense at the heart of it. Maybe it's as (relatively innocuous as) accepting Russian money to bail him out at a vital moment.

I started off a bit sceptical about the anti-Trumpism a lot of people were proclaiming. What was so great about Hilary Clinton? I thought. I thought, an old socialist like me has seen Reagan and George W Bush come and go and still the USA has been largely a source of stability in a relatively peaceful and prosperous Western world. I dissented, from Vietnam to Iraq, but I still had that underlying pro-American feeling.

Now however it begins to look as if the USA has seriously abdicated. China and the EU under Merkel may be deciding they can steer the ship. Can there really be 3 1/2 years of US political paralysis ahead of us? Or isolationism which even the old poodle Great Britain can't say Woof to?

The thing that gets me about American conservativism is how it has gotten rotten to the established plutocracy and elite (same thing basically).

We all know that conservativism is about free markets and deregulation. But, here comes along green energy, which is the fastest growing sector in the economy and soon to be the largest sector for the matter, and conservatives lose their shit and scream 'hoax', 'left-wing agenda', and such other nonsense.

These people have their heads up their asses and no amount of screaming will get to them, and what's worst, even hard economics isn't having any sway on the matter. I say fuck'em. Hope they die out soon enough.

Now however it begins to look as if the USA has seriously abdicated. China and the EU under Merkel may be deciding they can steer the ship. Can there really be 3 1/2 years of US political paralysis ahead of us? Or isolationism which even the old poodle Great Britain can't say Woof to? — mcdoodle

Britain and France abdicated world leadership after WW2. Maybe it's just time for the US to retire into obscurity?

Britain and France were economically shattered, though. But maybe we are just at a turning point.

Britain and France abdicated world leadership after WW2. Maybe it's just time for the US to retire into obscurity? — Mongrel

Oh yeah, and Britain and France gave up power peacefully... because that's just what you do when you hold the reigns of power, you freely give them away without a fight... :s

There's no percentage in running the show. Crack a history book in your spare time. :)

The US is $19 trillion in debt. No Marshall Plan for us. :(

There's no percentage in running the show — Mongrel

Yes there is. The percentage is that you set the terms, and just like the casino, when you set the terms, you generally win.

It'll be a Chinese version of the Marshall Plan. Hey, maybe it's already under way :)

The US is $19 trillion in debt. No Marshall Plan for us. :( — Mongrel

No, you aren't 19 trillion in debt. You stole 19 trillion - everyone knows you'll never pay it back.

The Marshall Plan was specifically intended to get the B. Empire back up and running. There was a bit of a secret crisis in the US government when people started realizing B wasn't coming back. A study was conducted to determine how much money it would take for the US to take B's place. The study said it was uncountable.

One of the best books about that whole scene from an American perspective is The Fifty Year Wound by Derek Leibert.

No. It will never be repaid.

you'll never pay it back. — Agustino

No. It will never be repaid. — Mongrel

Did I say something different? :s

I was agreeing with you.

I was agreeing with you. — Mongrel

By saying "No"? >:O You're quite a peculiar character :P

With all the gerrymandering and voter suppression they're actively trying to destroy any semblance of a legitimate democracy. — Michael

This is a tad hyperbolic and ignores the fact that Democrats attempt to do the same thing. And I don't want to see a "legitimate democracy" if by that you mean a pure, direct democracy. The US was never intended to be that.

Gerrymandering, institutional barriers laid in the way of voters are not new, and not good. If both parties are doing it, then it's worse.

140 million voters for national office, millions for senators and reps, hundreds of thousands for state officials, etc. means that direct democracy is out of the question. I agree it is probably undesirable.

California has passed some good law by Initiative and Referendum (thousands of propositions have been put before the electorate) but they have also passed some counter-productive legislation. Property taxes were lowered and the rate of increase given a very low ceiling by the 1978 Proposition 8. The resulting drop in revenue, and the inability to increase taxes at the local level (which is where education funds mostly come from) has caused serious harm to California's cultural infrastructure.

This is a tad hyperbolic and ignores the fact that Democrats attempt to do the same thing — Thorongil

Everybody does it, but it's well known that the GOP has turned gerrymandering into a way of life. It's easy to find sources: here's one.

As for voter suppression, if memory serves turnout was higher this election in every state in the South except one: North Carolina. Want to guess what the Republican legislature has been up to in North Carolina? There was even a memo from NC GOP bragging about how low black turnout was. Real commitment to democracy there.

Gerrymandering, institutional barriers laid in the way of voters are not new, and not good. If both parties are doing it, then it's worse. — Bitter Crank

This is as old as the hills. It's not going away pretty much ever. To the extent that both parties do it, there is some modicum of balance, but that's the best one can hope for. The sooner one stops expecting politicians to be saints, the better.

As for voter suppression, if memory serves turnout was higher this election in every state in the South except one: North Carolina. Want to guess what the Republican legislature has been up to in North Carolina? There was even a memo from NC GOP bragging about how low black turnout was. Real commitment to democracy there. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't know the details, but I know a lot of the criticism of voter ID laws amounts to the soft bigotry of low expectations, e.g. "the black folk can't be expected to have driver's licences," etc.

There are legal challenges currently working their way through the court system. But hey, why bother, amirite?