What might Donald Trump do next year?

TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2019

Joe Walsh meets Wallace and friends:
What might Donald Trump do next year, assuming there is a next year, if he's behind in the polls?

Might he start a serious war? Might be try to declare martial law and cancel the upcoming election?

We're not asking if he could succeed at such an approach. Regarding the attempt to cancel the vote, we're asking if he might try such an approach, with all the concomitant damage such an effort would cause.

Also, how about this:

Might he actually get involved in trying to hack voter tallies? Might he engineer a situation in which it's obvious that vote totals did get hacked somewhere, then use that circumstance to declare the election he lost null and void?

Might he even do something like this with Vladimir Putin's help? Might he start a war post-election, then declare that a nation at war can't change horses in midstream?

We're not asking if he could succeed at such approaches. We're asking if he is disordered enough to engage in such conduct.

For the record, we can't swear to you that he isn't. Did we mention the possibility of that war, whether pre- or post-election?

We thought such thoughts as we watched Joe Walsh speak with Nicolle Wallace and some of her favorite reporters and friends on yesterday's Deadline: White House.

We'll recommend that you watch the videotapes. Our takeaways:

For starters, we never knew that John Heilemann was so amazingly morally pure. Beyond that, we think Wallace is holding back in her war against Trump in a fairly obvious way, a type of accusation she directed at Walsh a few times.

Don't get us wrong! Wallace was mainly quite sensible during her eighteen minutes with Walsh. It was Heilemann who amazed us with his remarkable moral purity, with the morally pure David Jolly not too far behind.

These favorite reporters and friends amazed us with their moral grandeur. That said, Wallace engaged in this exchange early in the interview:
WALLACE (8/26/19): This idea of [Trump's] fitness—

WALSH: He's nuts. Nuts!

WALLACE: And I think the truth is that, whether people say it disparagingly or affectionately, anyone that comes in contact with him comes away saying he's crazy. But this is a hard story to cover and it's a hard attack to make. What are sort of your proof points?

WALSH: He's a psychopath. He lies every time he opens his mouth. He's the biggest narcissist we've ever had in that office, and that's saying a lot, John.
"It's a hard story to cover," Wallace said, referring to Trump's apparent lack of mental or psychological "fitness." As you can see, Walsh was a bit more direct.

But is Trump's possible lack of "fitness" actually "hard to cover?" At the end of the interview, Wallace returned to this general topic, copping out once again:
WALLACE: I hope we can keep having this conversation. There's a lot to talk about, and I'm telling you, I think that, if you sort of marshal all the evidence—

David Brooks wrote in 2017 about a group of Republican senators leaving a meeting with Trump thinking he displayed the early signs of Alzheimer's.

If you look at the reporting just from this trip [to the G-7 conference].

If you look at the reporting on the speech last week, the rally, where he forgot what he said.

I'm not a doctor, but if you really want to make that case and you do the work of putting together all that evidence, it's a really compelling case to Republicans who, I'm old enough to remember, used to care a whole lot about the person who served as our country's commander in chief.

WALSH: And the rule of law.
"The person who serves as our country's commander in chief?" The person who could imaginably start a self-serving, crazy war?

"I'm not a doctor," Wallace said, after suggesting that Trump may be suffering from cognitive impairment.

"I'm not a doctor," she said. But then again, neither is Walsh.

Luckily, Bandy X. Lee actually is a doctor. It's time that Wallace bit the bullet and interviewed Lee, and other professionals, on her TV program.

We're sorry, but this actually isn't "a hard story to cover." As with other topics, you just have to interview sensible specialists who know what they're talking about.

For the record, Wallace should stage a solo interview with Lee, not a revival of Crossfire. In our view, we'd be well served if she left the remarkably pious Heilemann and Jolly home that particular day.

Wallace complained that, in certain ways, Walsh isn't going all in on his crusade against Trump. That said, neither is Wallace, if she suspects what she obviously does, but won't interview respectable, competent specialists.

Some final words of praise:

A. B. Stoddard threw Heilemann and Jolly overboard and under the bus in a highly sensible followup segment. Heilemann and Jolly are the kind of Dimmesdales who don't want anyone rejecting Trump unless they're directly responding to direct orders from People Exactly Like Us.

Stoddard left these Dimmesdales for dead. We'd like to link you to what she said, but it's the one segment the Deadline staff chose not to post at their site.

Stoddard said Walsh might be exactly the type of guy who can erode Trump's support over there on the right. We think she got it right.

We leave you with a question we ourselves can't answer:

What might this disordered president imaginably do next year? Start a war? Hack the vote? Do you feel sure where he'd stop?

36 comments:

  1. "We're asking if he is disordered enough to engage in such conduct. "

    And we aren't asking anything about your zombie-clowns patterns of behavior.

    We already know what you do. Goesbbelsian propaganda, secret services' interventions and provocations as "insurance policy". 'Antifa' brown-shirts. Race-baiting. Trying to start a nuclear war with Russia. Did I miss anything?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Turns out Mao is a big fan of facism. What's a word for the opposite of "shocking"?

      Delete
    2. See Mao's post to previous TDH post, praising Stalin and Mao for their great accomplishments, - he is part of an unusual sect - Communists for Trump. His disdain for liberal zombies has a precedent in the Bolsheviks loathing of the Mensheviks.

      Delete
    3. Praising Mao the Chinese leader, not himself, the Mao who always posts here letting us know that libs are dembot zombies.

      Delete
  2. What might Trump do? Would he work with some Russians to create a fake dossier that could used to justify wiretapping his opponent's campaign? Would he use a fake dossier to create a special prosecutory team, filled with partisans, who would harass his opponent for two years? Would he expand a pointless, unwinnable war in some insignificant faraway country? Would he overthrow a leader who the US had promised to support in exchange for that leader giving up his nuclear programming?

    These are things Democrats did. So, which party is crazier?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Republicans are the craziest organization in human history.

      Delete
    2. Would he suppress the votes of people of color?
      Only if he wants to hold on to the GOP traditions.

      Delete
    3. The FBI confirmed most of the info in the Steele Dossier. It did not find that Clinton or any Democrat had manufactured the Dossier. Some of Trump's own campaign associates were sources of info for the investigators who did put the dossier together. The interference by Russia in our election was documented by the FBI and is detailed in the Mueller Report. David and the Republicans might like all this to go away, but telling lies about it doesn't change reality. Now we know that David is not reasonable but is a conservative shill repeating memes, following the conservative line up and down the street.

      No need to ever respond to him again.

      Delete
    4. Trump thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax. That's as crazy as it gets

      Delete
    5. Dave,

      U.S. employment has grown for thirty-one straight quarters, since late 2010. For only the fifth time in the post-World War II period, the unemployment rate is now below 4 percent. However, the link between low unemployment and wage growth has eroded. Americans’ wages have fallen from 64 percent of GDP to 58 percent from 1980 to 2016. Median wages have stagnated for all income levels except the very top, and the American poverty rate is almost the highest in the rich world. The poor income performance for most Americans has reshaped the nation, contributing to middle-class bitterness, a high poverty rate, and a dispirited electorate.

      Delete
    6. @11:03 You make some good points. However, this article is relevant to your comment

      The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most Nations of Europe

      after accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and Food Stamps—the poorest 20% of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the U.S. “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest.


      https://www.justfacts.com/news_poorest_americans_richer_than_europe.asp

      Delete
    7. Sounds like things are going swimmingly, Dave.
      So what kind of monster wouldn't want to assure each and every man, woman, and child have free healthcare, including mental healthcare, from cradle to grave?

      Delete
    8. Can you explain how that is relevant? The poor in America consume more than people in ... Serbia?

      Therefore ... what?

      How is it relevant? What is your point? They don't have a right to complain because they are doing better than the average Serbian?

      Please articulate your point.

      Delete
    9. God that article is written by people that have never been in poverty that's for sure. Dave, clearly you've never been in poverty.

      It's seems to be saying we shouldn't be concerned that our rich are getting far, far richer while the poor stay poor because our poor have the benefit of living in a consumer culture where they can consume more Doritos and McDonalds than Serbians.

      Dave, you are firmly and almost literally in "let them eat cake" territory here.

      But the point isn't the poor and their luxurious, Burger King eating lifestyles, it's the rich! The point is the rich are getting richer and the poor are not getting a piece. we are the richest country in the history of the world and no one but the rich are getting a piece of it, a piece of the tremendous productivity gains.

      What do the editors of the Federalist say about that?

      Delete
    10. It isn't only that the rich are getting richer but that they sit on their money and don't feed it back into the economy where it might be of some benefit to someone.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousAugust 28, 2019 at 10:02 AM - As a grad student, my wife daughter and I lived on a fellowship of $200 per month. As a child, my immigrant family of 5 lived in a 2 bedroom apartment in the Bronx. Fortunately, we were frugal, hard-working people, so these situations were OK.

      Delete
    12. Shorter David: corporations and corrupt politicians stole the American dream from its citizens while enriching themselves to the highest level, however, they have no right to complain because they can consume more corporate product than people in other, poor nations.

      That is simply despicable.

      Delete
    13. 11:44

      Right, as I said, you've never lived in poverty. It's true, you're fucking gross. Sleep tight.

      Delete
    14. I believe the movie The Stupids is based on David in Cal, where a man is convinced there is a conspiracy to steal his garbage every week.

      The Stupids! [Film School with Maggie Mae Fish]

      JustFacts is the project of right wing nutjob James D. Agresti, a mechanical engineer that wrote a book about how the Bible is factual, makes outlandishly false claims like 5.7 million noncitizens voted in 2008, and is cynically trying to push inequality denial.

      JustFacts wrongly conflates consumption expenditures with material well being, and in doing so pulls another conservative con job. To be fair, JustFacts fesses up:

      "The high consumption of America’s “poor” doesn’t mean they live better than average people in the nations they outpace"

      Interestingly, JustFacts also reports data that shows that most Americans outspend their own income - they are badly in debt. Nothing to take pride in, nor suggests some advantage in wealth.

      In reality, it is not just the poor in America that are struggling to meet basic needs:

      Almost half of Americans can't pay for their basic needs


      David, it's actually a service, not a conspiracy.

      Delete
  3. What is it, another dembot holiday today?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Trump will go straight to nukes.

    Or worse. These peeps.

    pic.twitter.com/M5PP6HDMNn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like the Iraq War, he'll pretend he was against the war when things go south.

      Delete
    2. Ah, yes, good point, Cecelia.

      Will he declare Wichita the capital and nuke the coastal cities?

      Hey, we're just asking. It doesn't hurt to ask.

      Delete
  5. Incipient Alzheimer's doesn't cause treason.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree that Trump is a horrible narcissist. I disagree he is getting worse. He is what he is. Is insisting his inauguration crowds were record-breaking any less troublesome than wanting to buy Greenland? Being detached from reality is being detached from reality. It is what it is. And in that sense, he is consistent. He is even consistently inconsistent. He stands 10 feet away from reality and does not step closer, nor step farther away.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Heilemann and Jolly are the kind of Dimmesdales who don't want anyone rejecting Trump unless they're directly responding to direct orders from People Exactly Like Us."

    Somerby seems to have forgotten who Dimmesdale is. He is not one of the repressive townspeople who punishes Hester for her adultery. He is Hester's lover who has committed sin along with her. He doesn't punish her, he supports her, and he punishes himself for his sin against her. Chillingworth is Hester's missing husband (in disguise) and a physician who mistreats the ailing Dimmesdale who suffers because of his sin and eventually dies just as he is going to confess to everyone that he is Pearl's father. Chillingworth is the bad guy and Dimmesdale is a victim and romantic figure, not a persecutor of Hester, not a hypocrite or small minded person.

    Somerby supposedly reread My Antonia so he could get the details right. He didn't bother with Scarlet Letter because he assumes he knows that puritans are all prudish hypocrites who point the finger of shame at innocent girls like Hester (who actually did commit adultery and have a baby out of wedlock).

    So calling Heilleman and Jolly "Dimmesdales" makes no sense at all. Dimmesdale would have acknowledged Pearl much sooner if Hester had let him. There is no analogy here that I can see.

    Somerby assumes none of his readers has read the book either, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, you a idiot!

      Delete
    2. An idiot who has read The Scarlet Letter.

      Delete
  8. Bandy X. Lee may be a doctor but she has never examined Trump. No reputable doctor diagnoses an illness without examining the patient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She never claimed to diagnose him.

      Delete
    2. She is claiming to be warning the public about a potential danger which is in accord with her duties as a reputable doctor.

      Delete
    3. This is the model of brave straight talking who Somerby is touting?

      Delete
  9. Oh, I meant that if he loses in 2020 Trump might nuke California.

    Is anyone who matters sure that he wouldn't? Are his critics sure? Is it likely that they're about as sure that Trump wouldn't nuke California as they are that Trump isn't a Russian asset, liar, all-around-lunatic, criminal, and racist?

    Goodness knows, we don't want to consider such a notion. It's not pleasant for us to imagine such a thing about a president we disdain. However, a thoughtful, sober, and intellectual national discussion on all the ways Trump...might could... blow up the 2020 election if he doesn't win it would be for the good of the country. We need an honest and forthright examination of conjectures, with bold journalism that doesn't hold back by needlessly posing as a professional exercising a modicum of restraint when a guest passionately declares "He's nuts!" on national tv.

    What do you think, America? Is it now finally time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stating the obvious: no reasonable liberal could object to a journo throwing a foam-at-the-mouth "He's nuts! NUTS!" hissy fit - as long as she has a zombie with medical license in the pocket, sitting next to her.

      Delete
    2. I appreciate Cecelia and Mao not being the typical snowflake conservatives, playing the victim, in this one instance.

      Delete
    3. It's OK, tRump cultists and Dittoheads like Mao are locked continually on Fox NOOZ, so they don't have to witness these calumnies perpetrated against the stable genius Acting President.

      Delete