SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Honey_Bee who wrote (268203)3/6/2021 7:35:50 PM
From: FJB6 Recommendations

Recommended By
bjzimmy
Honey_Bee
locogringo
Sr K
Thehammer

and 1 more member

  Respond to of 455153
 

The Theory That the Trump Era Is Over Is Over




Conrad Black


amgreatness.com





The effect of President Trump’s address to the Conservative Political Action Committee on Sunday has become clearer this week. The key sentence was, “A Republican president will be returning to the White House.” Since the only other living Republican president, George W. Bush, is term-limited, Trump was speaking of himself.

The speech was not only the best and most interesting political speech delivered in the United States since President Reagan’s successful reelection campaign in 1984, it also broke new ground in three important respects.

First, by expressing once again in reasonable and credible terms the basis of his complaint about voting and vote counting irregularities in the presidential election in several critical swing states, and in avoiding exaggerated claims of the theft of millions of votes, Trump debunked the totalitarian attempt of the national media to suppress discussion of the integrity of the 2020 election. In doing this, Trump shattered the elaborate Democratic fraud that the rally of several hundred thousand of his supporters in Washington on January 6 had no legitimate grievance and was part of a premeditated attempt to destabilize or overthrow the government.

It was clear even from FBI Director Christopher Wray’s unimpressive appearance at the Senate Judiciary Committee this week there is no evidence that anyone associated with the Trump campaign had preplanned any illegal activity. The intruders at the Capitol were led by semi-professional hooligans with no coherent political purposes. The outgoing president and his supporters had a legitimate grievance on that day and the entire comprehensive effort of the Democrats to represent him as a “disgraced” outlaw has collapsed. Donald Trump is not clouded in the odium of a lawbreaker or assailant of the Constitution and the prolonged effort to smear him as morally and psychologically unsuitable to high office has failed.

The second important consequence of his CPAC speech is that in showing the self-discipline to stick to the teleprompter and deliver a carefully constructed and fact-filled address, the former president incited the hope among his supporters that he now understands the need to be more careful and to smooth the rougher edges of his often abrasive public personality. It was clear from the uncontested election results that while Trump’s policies were effectively ratified in the congressional and state elections and in the encroachments that the Republicans made upon traditional fiefdoms of the Democrats among the electorate—especially black, Latino, and working-class voters generally—the majority of voters also disapproved of his personality.

Americans demand more dignity of the president and a president who is less exhausting and constantly in the face of the country—not only during all waking hours but, through his Twitter account, during much of every night. Trump’s speech on Sunday suggested he has grasped that message. His tactical success has been to use traditional Republican advocacy of lower taxes and fiscally incentivized economic growth to attract job-creating investment to disadvantaged areas where the Democrats have been accustomed to a free ride on Election Day.

The third takeaway from the day, counting the speech and the interviews the ex-president gave afterward, is that he sounds quite amenable to not being on social media all the time. His Twitter account was invaluable in launching his initial bid for the presidency and end-running the hostile national conventional media, but he is now happy to be more selective about when he makes himself heard and on which subjects.

Leader of the Opposition


His critics attempted to minimize the impact of his address. Former Ohio governor John Kasich, a defected Republican who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last year, said that Trump was like an aging prizefighter whose punches had lost their sting. Coming from someone whose victory address, when he won his home state primary in 2016, urged people to “take a widow to dinner in her red dress and embrace a stranger at the mall,” (advice that, if followed, would’ve led to a spectacular increase in assault cases in Ohio), this was a critique that not only lacked all conviction but betrayed the unease of the Trump-haters.

Trump has discovered a political position that has not existed in the United States since the interregnum between the 1824 and 1828 elections, when General Andrew Jackson campaigned for the presidency on the claim that he only had been denied victory previously by a “corrupt bargain” between Secretary of State John Quincy Adams and House Speaker Henry Clay, both of whom trailed him in the popular and electoral vote but tipped the presidency to Adams in the House of Representatives. This position is the parliamentary status of a leader of the opposition.

Between presidential elections in the United States, the leader of the party not occupying the White House is usually either a former living president of that party, its losing candidate in the last presidential election, or its congressional leaders. Thus, in the first term of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1956), former President Harry S. Truman, the 1952 Democratic nominee Governor Adlai E. Stevenson, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson, and House Speaker Sam Rayburn divided between themselves the right to speak for the Democratic Party. Similarly, in the Kennedy-Johnson term of 1961-1964, former President Eisenhower, former vice president and 1960 nominee Richard Nixon, and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, all at different times affected to speak for the Republicans.

He’s Not Going Anywhere


On Sunday Donald Trump made it clear that he will speak for the Republicans. The dreamy idyll of the NeverTrumpers, that this meteoric phenomenon had come and gone and would not be back, has been shattered. And with that vanishment has also gone the pipe dream of trying to scoop up Trump supporters while pushing Trump himself out of the party.

The only other Republican who has even a third of Trump’s support is Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis, and most of his support is as a second choice to Trump himself. Trump proved at Orlando on Sunday that he can give ten or 12 hard-hitting but soberly uplifting speeches a year and maintain his position as the undisputed Republican leader and principal critic of the administration. By this method he can keep himself quite adequately in front of the public, maintain his status in his party, stay out of the limelight, and refuse to allow the Democrats to continue for four years to run against him and not on their own record in office.

The theory that the Trump era is over is itself over. He will keep it going until the next election and either be the Republican nominee or choose the Republican nominee. All of his career he thought that all publicity was good publicity and he translated that theory into enough votes to sweep the Republican primaries and win the 2016 election by a hair’s breadth. He has now seen, as president, that he has had quite enough publicity and should now seek it only in favorable circumstances and in appropriate quantities. The Biden Administration, divided between reasonable Democrats and irrational socialists, and irresolutely led, should be under no illusions that it will have an easy ride in the next four years against as vulnerable an opponent as they have had for the last four years.




To: Honey_Bee who wrote (268203)3/6/2021 7:37:38 PM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
locogringo
Sr K

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 455153
 
WE HAD A SUPREME COURT WIN THIS WEEK. WHY DOESN'T NEWS COVER THIS STUFF. JUSTICE BARRETT TOO BUSY WITH THE KIDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RULING.

IT'S ALL FAKE CRAP...

npr.org

Supreme Court Makes It Harder For Undocumented Immigrants To Fight Deportation


March 4, 20213:02 PM ET


Nina Totenberg

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday made it more difficult for undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for a long time to fight deportation. The court's 5-to-3 ruling came in the case of a man who had lived in the U.S. for 25 years but who had used a fake Social Security card to get a job as a janitor.

Clemente Pereida was fined $100 under Nebraska state law after he pleaded no contest to the crime of "attempted criminal impersonation." The lower courts ruled the conviction was enough to trigger his deportation because it was a crime of "moral turpitude" under state law.

That finding, in turn, meant that Pereida was ruled ineligible when he appealed to the attorney general to cancel his deportation because of the impact it would have on his son, a U.S. citizen, and the rest of his family. The attorney general does have such discretion but not if the applicant has been found guilty of a crime of "moral turpitude."

In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court said the burden was on Pereida to show that in his case the facts did not amount to moral turpitude, and that he had failed to do that.

The decision rejected Pereida's argument that his crime did not fit into that category, and that if it did, the burden was on the government to prove that.

By putting the burden on Pereida, the court not only made it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to get special dispensations from the attorney general, the court also made it more difficult to fight the grounds for deportation in the first place.

Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said that "given the vast number of different state misdemeanors, plea agreements made long ago, cursory state records," and the "imperfect memories" of state officials long departed from their jobs, there is a "real risk of adding time and complexity to immigration proceedings," making them "less fair and less predictable."

Stanford law professor Lucas Guttentag, who served as a senior counselor to the secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, said Thursday's ruling would amount to a "one-way street" making it more likely that undocumented immigrants will be deported for relatively minor state crimes.



Cornell law professor Stephen Yale-Loer agreed. Co-author of a 21-volume treatise on immigration law, Yale-Loer said the court's decision "increases the burden of proof on immigrants in deportation proceedings."

Joining Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion were four of the court's conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Joining Breyer's dissent were liberal justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the the decision.