A Curious Little Blog

This is brilliant.  Everyone on the Right has been listening to aggressive rhetoric from the Left for years and can see the absurdity of charging Trump with inciting violence.  This is the best answer.

I understand the Democrats made a lot of use of video from the Capitol riot while making their case for removal.  It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't:  no amount of video evidence of the damage done by rioters counts at all against Trump.  The gist of the case is to show that Trump incited the riot, and even if the rioters burned down the Capitol and everyone in it, it would not have the slightest bearing on whether he did or not. They have also used evidence from some of the rioters who said that they were following Trump's instructions.  From what I have read here , those instructions consisted of marching to the Capitol.  Well, there is no doubt that Trump encouraged his supporters to do that.  It should be needless to say, but, again, here it is:  marching to the Capitol is not the same as attacking the Capitol.  If it were, practically every Democrat who ever led a protest would be guilty.  It doesn't even matter if ri...

There are roughly two approaches that the Democrats could take to Trump's presidency.  One would be to start attacking him before the inauguration, question the legitimacy of his presidency, and seek to thwart him at every turn.  This has the advantage of keeping him on the defensive and might restrict the amount of things he can get done in the form of legislation and nominations.  If he ever really screws up, the Democrats will be in a position to say "We told you so" and take advantage of the situation to win the mid-term elections, the following presidency, and maybe even get him impeached. One disadvantage to this approach is that it gives the Democrats little extra leverage if Trump does something outrageous but not explicitly illegal.  With their complaints already turned up to maximum volume, they won't be able to distinguish an outrageous act from any other kind (much as they were unable to paint Trump as drastically different from other Republican preside...

Election-night pundits talked a lot about how this presidential election was unique, and it certainly was surprising in many ways.  But Trump, the candidate, was as different from previous presidential candidates as the election itself was from previous elections; not just in his demeanour, but in a host of measurable ways.  (All of the following assume he actually takes office in 2 1/2 months, which seems likely but I feel like I need to cover myself in case some unlikely event prevents him from doing so.) Trump will not be the oldest president to take the inaugural oath, but he will be the oldest to take it for the first time (he is 70, Reagan was 69).  Reagan also beat Trump to become the first divorcé to be president, but Trump has two divorces to Reagan's one.  He is the first billionaire to be elected.  Ironically, however, Hillary Clinton raised twice as much money as Trump did.  This makes him the first person to win an election in spite of raisin...

Everyone wants to know what a president Trump would actually do.  I think the only surprise would be if Trump governed mundanely for four years, not surprising the whole country -- supporters and opponents -- several times.  However, there are some issues that have more urgency than others, so they will be the ones we are most likely to see action on relatively soon. (a) Supreme Court vacancy:  Highly placed Republicans have decided that Trump will safely nominate a conservative to replace Scalia.  If he doesn't, I expect Republicans to begin looking for ways to impeach him soon thereafter.  This is absolutely the main thing that got the support of many Republicans, and it would be a surprise if he changed directions immediately.  (It also makes me sad that the most important thing about the president is that he gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, but that's another matter.) (b) Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton:  I...

I will not be voting for Trump in November. As I've seen more and more Republican politicians fall in line behind Trump, I've come to the realization that this guy might actually get elected. Although that is a scary thought, part of me hopes he does win. Why? Because the alternative is Hillary Clinton. Now, just for what Clinton could do in four years, I wouldn't mind having her as president. The president is not a legislator, and she's not so popular that she would be able to ram legislation through Congress the way Obama did with the ironically-named "Affordable Care Act." The problem is that the president selects members of the highest legislative body in the U.S.: the Supreme Court. You may think I made a mistake by saying the Supreme Court is a legislative body, but I did not. The court has shown a willingness to rule anything it doesn't like "unconstitutional." And while it is theoretically acceptable for the court to mak...