The General American Politics Thread

[Nepenthe]

We voted for a guy who broke his campaign promises before he was inaugurated. Bruh.

[Johnny Boy]

Wow. I mean wow. And to think just earlier this week I thought the apocalypse was near because he got elected. How are his supporters reacting to this.

[Wraith]

I figured he was all talk. My main worry was his supporters lashing out and...,yeah, that's still happening.

[Nepenthe]

Republicans still have major control of the government, and Trump is hosting some pretty terrible-ass people for his cabinet positions. Don't breathe a sigh of relief just yet; our government is more than the President.

[Indigo Rush]

Trump is following his 'Art of the Deal.'

Put forward insane and unreasonable demands, then lower it so it becomes more palatable and reasonable, securing the deal at more beneficial terms to himself than the other party would have normally accepted.

Or in this case, the White House. Not quite a 1:1 translation of it, but he thought this through.

 

 

...or... he... didn't. And Obama and folk had a talk with him and told him why his shenanigans wouldn't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daddy I want to get off this ride 

[Celestia]

It was predictable, but it's still funny seeing it happen, especially so soon. Like...

I'd seriously laugh at how blatant this is, if it wasn't all so horrible. Good lord.

-

Also, about this from a couple pages back...

Jeez. Something tells me Zach wouldn't have shed any tears. Not "happy" ones, anyway.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lisa-murkowski-voting-rights_us_55f1b9b1e4b002d5c0787513

From last year, but this bodes well for the next 2 years. Even if the GOP establishment moves to repeal the Voting Rights Act, as some are very terrified they might try, there are some moderate Republicans who will oppose it, like Senator Murkowski from Alaska.

She's in office until 2022 by the way. So she's safe to obstruct repeal attempts. She's tentatively pro-LGBT (she feels there are bigger issues and acknowledges the public's support for gay rights) and supports legislation to counter hate crimes.

I know there are Democrats from the whiter states but I'm hopeful they'd stand against repeal as well.

We're going to lean really heavily on these moderate Republicans the next 2-4 years.

44 minutes ago, Johnny Boy said:

Wow. I mean wow. And to think just earlier this week I thought the apocalypse was near because he got elected. How are his supporters reacting to this.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/supporters-to-trump-break-campaign-promises-at-your-peril/

Probably not too happy.

I think the promise of jobs is what will really make or break him though. Does for pretty much every President.

His focus on infrastructure in his victory speech was on point. That's probably going to be where jobs come from, not mass deportations or trade wars with China.

43 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Republicans still have major control of the government, and Trump is hosting some pretty terrible-ass people for his cabinet positions. Don't breathe a sigh of relief just yet; our government is more than the President.

I can at least pray he'll turn out to be relatively moderate and use his veto to obstruct the more sociopathic crap they'll send his way.

Infrastructure support is so bipartisan I think he could legitimately use Congress getting in the way of that as a weapon. He's established that he is willing to crush Republicans who try to get in his way, so this... could really go either way.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-nine-times-betrayed-voters-us-election-2016-mexico-clinton-muslims-a7413341.html

*Trump's backpedalling*

Here's hoping he doesn't flip flop again once he's actually in.

Either he saying all this to get more people to like hin or Trump played everyone hard, but he seems to be trying to make sure he does someyto get re-elected, isn't he?

Really hope he doesn't flip flop either.

[Tani Coyote]

5 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Either he saying all this to get more people to like hin or Trump played everyone hard, but he seems to be trying to make sure he does someyto get re-elected, isn't he?

Really hope he doesn't flip flop either.

My guess is he's a populist with very few real opinions and he'll change his view to fit the audience. Now that his audience is the American public and not just the GOP, he's moderating himself.

Better a populist flip-flopper than a far right nutjob, right?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

5 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

My guess is he's a populist with very few real opinions and he'll change his view to fit the audience. Now that his audience is the American public and not just the GOP, he's moderating himself.

Better a populist flip-flopper than a far right nutjob, right?

I'm wondering what would happen if he actually does a good job and benefits the very people his platform was against. Would be the funniest shit ever if the democrats who opposed him were convinced enough and actually cheered him on. I can see it now - "Hey Republicans, you played yourselves. Thanks for that!"

But remain on caution, nonetheless...

[Tani Coyote]

2 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

I'm wondering what would happen if he actually does a good job and benefits the very people his platform was against. Would be the funniest shit ever if the democrats who opposed him actually cheered him on.

But remain on caution, nonetheless...

Sanders is talking about how eagerly he'll work with Trump if he genuinely moves to help the poor and middle class, so it's a start.

Now that he's President, if he wants, Trump can legitimately abandon the far right elements that propelled him to power and build a power base in the center. He'd just have to compensate by currying favor with some of the left, which he could no doubt do if he makes the right choices on a few issues.

The odd thing is this isn't too unprecedented. Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed as a strong conservative to the Supreme Court.

...he headed the most liberal Supreme Court in American history.

[Patticus]

I wonder... If Trump is in actuality a populist political Etch-A-Sketch, as you surmise, @Noelgilvie, could he be open to campaign finance reform, even ending Citizen's United, as well as ending partisan control of congressional redistricting once and for all, alongside other Democratic platform pieces?

I supposed it's probably quite unlikely, given that the lobbyists are already infesting his transition team, but if he thinks he'll benefit from taking a particular stance, maybe anything's possible...

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

I wonder... If Trump is in actuality a populist political Etch-A-Sketch, as you surmise, @Noelgilvie, could he be pressured by a Democratic grassroots campaign to push for campaign finance reform, ending Citizen's United, ending partisan control of congressional redistricting once and for all, and other Democratic platform pieces?

I supposed it's probably unlikely, but if he thinks he'll benefit from it, maybe anything's possible.

I wouldn't put it past him. Especially if a lot of those anti-establishment people who supported him throw a fit over it.

Among all the things in his base, I think his image as an outsider is what swayed a lot of people to back him. Quite fittingly, his election has parallels to Carter's: a narrow victory by an outsider who lacked the perceived corruption of the opponent.

This is, after all, one of the best things about the Trump victory: he won despite the huge amounts of money and influence Clinton had. Obama's sheer volumes of private fundraising made it seem like that was the way to go, but it is clear now more than ever that money does not buy the election. Both parties now have to do some serious soul searching and realize that they can't just throw money at something and expect victory.

If he really wants to, he has the incumbency advantage necessary to radically alter things in Washington. The GOP will have a tough case not giving him the nomination again; even Reagan wasn't able to topple Ford. If he wants, he doesn't have to be a GOP pawn; he can strike out on his own and run one hell of a PR campaign against those Congress members who don't back serious finance reform and ending partisan redistricting.

This is all idealistic, of course, given the people he's bringing on board, but I think he has the political capital necessary to do it. His focus on infrastructure over all his other ideas seems to indicate he's more interested in being a bipartisan President than a Republican President. Plus his willingness to shut out GOP members who were too vocal in opposing his rise to power indicates he's not going to be a party loyalist and will ruin enemies.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Now, redistricting, voter suppression, etc. all seem to favor the GOP so that's a tough pill to swallow. He could publicly shame those not backing reform, but they'll likely need something more. Likely a decent amount of money from infrastructure programs. There's also a sinister deal he could make: a quiet agreement to make the Justice Department turn a blind eye towards the worst regions. This is similar to the tactic FDR used: leaving a lot of liberal programs up to the states, so Southern states could continue enforcing Jim Crow in their states, while non-white Americans elsewhere benefited (albeit not by much).

Realistically, though, I imagine his concessions if he pursued reform would be embracing some conservative values and sending some money their way. Lord knows the Southern states where a lot of the redistricting and voter suppression takes place could use it.

[Patticus]

6 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-nine-times-betrayed-voters-us-election-2016-mexico-clinton-muslims-a7413341.html

The Epic of Trump drifting towards the center continues.

Looks like virtually every campaign promise turned out to be either misleading or an outright lie, sold to an electorate taken for fools.

I wonder if his campaign team was in on it? Did he let Obama in on it, during their Thursday meet-and-greet? Did Obama persuade him to do it? Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!

1 hour ago, Noelgilvie said:

Among all the things in his base, I think his image as an outsider is what swayed a lot of people to back him. Quite fittingly, his election has parallels to Carter's: a narrow victory by an outsider who lacked the perceived corruption of the opponent.

Interesting comparison; Carter was famously ousted by Reagan after just one term as president, following some severe economic difficulties and the Iran hostage crisis. While it's not guaranteed that Trump will face any such crises, it's impossible to tell what issues might beset the Trump administration in the next two to four years.

Whom, I wonder, might be in a position to give Trump his marching orders? Reagan had already run a couple of different times before he got in, so maybe we could be looking at a Ted Cruz type to try to defeat him from within the party in 2020, if the party feels sufficiently betrayed by then? Or perhaps, via the opposition, a Warren/Whomever candidacy, appealing to the very electorate that Trump won with this year might win out, when the economy inevitably fails to reach the wildly unrealistic 5% he once promised.

Again, it all comes down to what the economy does. 

Quote

This is, after all, one of the best things about the Trump victory: he won despite the huge amounts of money and influence Clinton had. Obama's sheer volumes of private fundraising made it seem like that was the way to go, but it is clear now more than ever that money does not buy the election. Both parties now have to do some serious soul searching and realize that they can't just throw money at something and expect victory.

Sanders' side of the Democratic party already understands this fact all too well, so if Ellison wins the coveted DNC chair position (Howard Dean be super salty) in March/April, I think we can expect for the party machine to shift gears in a big way and move towards Sanders' small donor model by the time the midterms hit.

Whether it'll actually prove effective in those races is another matter, though...

Despite the fact that big money quite obviously doesn't win presidential races as once it was feared it may, it does have a proven effect on influencing down-ballot and local races. Unfortunately, I can't find the Adam Ruins Everything clip that handily deals with this issue, but it boils down to this: Most people don't know whom their local representatives, judges etc are, and their races aren't well publicized in formats that shove the facts about these people in the public's face. Big money comes to town for one side or another, and floods the airwaves with anti-other guy ads, yard signs and whatnot. Since almost nobody knows what's real and what's not, these races usually end up with the big money side winning. 

It means that the Sandersian model of donations may not translate well to local races that the Democrats are going to need to win to combat whatever harmful policies Trump, Ryan and McConnell might want to implement, or to take control of partisan redistricting efforts. This indicates that perhaps the DNC should, as it did in the 1990s, adopt the co-chair system; Dean and Ellison working together, uilizing big money to move small races, and vice versa. Maybe it'll work, though it might make them appear two-faced on the campaign finance reform issue if handled poorly.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

Looks like virtually every campaign promise turned out to be either misleading or an outright lie, sold to an electorate taken for fools.

This election is slowly looking to be every joke you hear about politics made real.

We were always told the two-party system makes us choose the lesser evil, and that was pretty true for a lot of people this year.

We're also told politicians always lie and can't be trusted on anything... this is proving true with Trump as well.

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

I wonder if his campaign team was in on it? Did he let Obama in on it, during their Thursday meet-and-greet? Did Obama persuade him to do it? Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he made sure no one was listening, then whispered, "I have no idea what the Hell I'm doing" before asking for advice.

Obama made a convincing argument... the pessimist in me wonders if it was the enormous benefit the ACA gives insurance companies, and so it is for the good of capitalism to leave it in place. Replacing the system eliminates those fattened profit margins that can be used to block single-payer, after all.

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

Whom, I wonder, might be in a position to give Trump his marching orders? Reagan had already run a couple of different times before he got in, so maybe we could be looking at a Ted Cruz type to try to defeat him from within the party in 2020, if the party feels sufficiently betrayed by then? Or perhaps, via the opposition, a Warren/Whomever candidacy, appealing to the very electorate that Trump won with this year might win out, when the economy inevitably fails to reach the wildly unrealistic 5% he once promised.

With how much he conceded to the religious right to win their backing, I imagine it will be one of the more religious types who tries to usurp him if he turns his back on a lot of the more conservative policies.

I think gay marriage is probably negotiable at this point given the public approval, so I guess that leaves classics like abortion as issues he can double down his right-wing rhetoric on. Gun rights as well. The unfortunate nature of being a Republican President is he has to choose some minority or another to screw over.

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

Despite the fact that big money quite obviously doesn't win presidential races as once it was feared it may, it does have a proven effect on influencing down-ballot and local races. Unfortunately, I can't find the Adam Ruins Everything clip that handily deals with this issue, but it boils down to this: Most people don't know whom their local representatives, judges etc are, and their races aren't well publicized in formats that shove the facts about these people in the public's face. Big money comes to town for one side or another, and floods the airwaves with anti-other guy ads, yard signs and whatnot. Since almost nobody knows what's real and what's not, these races usually end up with the big money side winning. 

This election certainly proved that handily. The GOP's redirection of funds to smaller races away from Trump probably saved them in at least a few races.

The DNC is hopefully taking plenty of notes not just about the Presidential races, but overall funding strategy. Oddly enough, the bigger the race, the more grassroots funding they'll want, and the smaller the race, the more centralized funding they'll want.

In terms of campaign finance reform and apparent hypocrisy, I imagine limiting funding for the Presidency will suffice in pleasing the electorate. With the Presidency getting the most press, it is very possible that capping funding there will make the electorate complacent, and little focus will be given on a lack of local limits.

It's rather similar to how a good or bad national situation gets blamed on the President regardless of what he or she actually does. Or why we have term limits for the Presidency but they always fail for Congress. Or why the midterms have such radically lower turnout. And so on.

It seems shady as hell to only focus on financing for the Presidency, but it would be a very practical option. The President is always an excellent scapegoat for reform efforts.

[Agie]

Someone did point out that people thought the Nazi party couldn't get far. Anyone who knows anything about them knows they wound up beimg wrong.

I do hope Dad is right in that Dolan can't do nearly as much as we think he can...but at the same time, the above point is a reminder to not underestimate him, either.

I'm not saying this is the Nazi party; hard to tell what ill happen at any rate. But while we can hope, we should prepare in case he tries anything.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

9 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

I'm wondering what would happen if he actually does a good job and benefits the very people his platform was against. Would be the funniest shit ever if the democrats who opposed him were convinced enough and actually cheered him on. I can see it now - "Hey Republicans, you played yourselves. Thanks for that!"

But remain on caution, nonetheless...

One things for sure, if these backtracks are the real deal, you can bet that Democrats are going to have it in their best interest that he doesn't get impeached, unless he somehow takes Pence and company with him.

[Johnny Boy]

And now Paul Ryan is saying that a deportation force isn't on the table.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/11/13/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-obamacare-deportation-force/index.html?client=safari

Well, so much for draining the swamp. Lmao.

[Patticus]

There are plans afoot to find to $15-25bn+ necessary to fund that godawful border wall, though.

[Tornado]

11 hours ago, Patticus said:

Whom, I wonder, might be in a position to give Trump his marching orders? Reagan had already run a couple of different times before he got in, so maybe we could be looking at a Ted Cruz type to try to defeat him from within the party in 2020, if the party feels sufficiently betrayed by then?

But what does Trump have to do to betray the party? While it's not especially shocking that Trump isn't likely going to be Super Hitler and is instead just a probably a little racist/almost certainly sexist white guy, two things still come to mind:

1. He's not going to be the second coming of Bernie no matter what.
2. The Party already hated him

If he skews way more just right of center instead of full on Mussolini, what can he do that would get him ousted from within unless they try to throw out another heavy bible thumper? All that would accomplish is flipping the flip states back to blue. Like, I'm imagining the biggest thing that would mark a difference between Trump and their beloved Reagan would be Trump might actually stay isolationist; so unless 2020 comes around and he's laughably unpopular who could they put up in his steed? They already essentially lost to him once.

9 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

This election certainly proved that handily. The GOP's redirection of funds to smaller races away from Trump probably saved them in at least a few races.

I recall reading more than a few articles about a week or so before the Comey thing flared up that, so sure of the election results that they were, the DNC had started pouring money into the local races. I'd think the real main difference is that the DNC was just throwing more money around in general so Hillary was getting a bunch of it and with her blessing the smaller elections were getting it as well; whereas the GOP had spent the final few months looking for a pretext to go running and once they did they never turned back. This gave the bonus that the actual electorate could play the double standard of pretending that they were just voting for a good ole boy Republican for Congress or whatever and not that publicly unsavory presidential candidate, and then turn around and vote for Trump anyway in secret; almost as if the GOP was accidentally strategic.

[Patticus]

Tonight, following the NFL on CBS, Trump will be speaking on immigration:

Quote

What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate. But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.

After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that. But before we make that determination...it’s very important, we are going to secure our border.

First it was a wall, and now it's a symbolic stretch of fence, which will probably not be markedly different to the other fences lining the border.

2-3 million deportations is going to be a logistical nightmare, and given the shoddy state of the US' actual immigration court system (which has deported more than a few natural born US citizens for no good reason), I can easily see more natural born citizens falling foul of this new wave of deportations... Unless it's done in more or less the same way Obama handled it, which would make the whole affair business as usual, rather than anything new.

All the climb-downs have been great, but then came this sobering news...

Quote

US President-elect Donald Trump has chosen Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), as his future chief of staff.

Mr Trump also announced Stephen Bannon would serve as chief strategist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37970146

A genuine anti-Semite is in charge of strategy. No matter how much the walk-back to the center has been evidence of Trump being full of shit on so many topics during the campaign, this is exactly the kind of thing people were, and should be, actually terrified of.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-elect-trump-says-how-many-immigrants-hell-deport/

...Meanwhile, opposite Paul Ryan's comments on the deportation force, Trump just came out and said he plans on immediately deporting 2-3 million undocumented immigrants. Notice Trump's catch though: he says he's going after criminals and drug dealers, estimating there are 2 million. He says the remaining immigrants would have their status determined on a case by case basis once the border is secured.

So if 2 million deportations don't materialize, he can fall back on: "I grossly overestimated how many criminals there were."

He's setting the stage for a graceful retreat on the issue without looking like he's gone towards the left on it, I think.

14 hours ago, SurrealBrain said:

Someone did point out that people thought the Nazi party couldn't get far. Anyone who knows anything about them knows they wound up beimg wrong.

I do hope Dad is right in that Dolan can't do nearly as much as we think he can...but at the same time, the above point is a reminder to not underestimate him, either.

I'm not saying this is the Nazi party; hard to tell what ill happen at any rate. But while we can hope, we should prepare in case he tries anything.

It won't.

Weimar Germany had the following circumstances which do not apply to America:

1. A weak federal structure where the national government had more power than ours. This harmed the ability of the states to resist the Nazi takeover.

2. Around 80% of Germany's land and population were in a single state (Prussia), whereas America's most populous state, California, only has around 10%. It was possible to control Prussia - a single state - and effectively control the entire country. And indeed, this is one way they did it: they had control of Prussia's police forces, and used it to crush the left-wing opposition, giving Nazis a huge boost in Germany's national, final elections before the Reichstag was dissolved.

3. A weak democratic tradition. The Republic was established after considerable turmoil in late 1918 and early 1919, and instability (assassinations, street fights) continued for a few years after. The German people, quite bluntly, did not have the same attachment to democracy that we do.

4. 3 ties into this one. Germany had suffered not one but two economic crises during the Weimar Republic, first the hyperinflation (1921-1924) and then the Great Depression (1929 onward). Many Germans had romantic ideals about the old monarchist order or the rising Communist order in Russia; with the apparent incompetence of the Republic, most abandoned hope for democracy and decided they wanted either a far right or far left dictatorship to fix the economy. We saw a similar apathy in American politics towards the party establishment this year (represented by Sanders and Trump), but the American people are not calling for an end to democracy entirely.

5. America is currently in an economic slump, whereas Germany was in both a massive economic pit as well as recovering from a humiliating defeat by the Allies. There was an incredible amount of anxiety and hatred that propelled people like Hitler to power; it wasn't just his economic promises, but the possibility of military greatness. While Trump's rhetoric seems to have some overlap, I don't think Americans have quite the same wounded pride.

6. Different government style. Weimar was Parliamentary, and America is Presidential. Part of Weimar's fall is the fact the Nazis and Communists regularly worked together to throw out whatever Government would form, strangling the national government's ability to solve Germany's problems; new elections had to be called constantly towards the end of the Republic, and this fed into anti-democratic sentiment. While the GOP has been obstructionist, surely, Obama and Trump are both independent individuals at no real risk of being thrown out of power. They can do a lot with or without Congress.

7. Above all, Hillary winning the popular vote and Trump's narrow victory. This is a stark contrast to the electoral manipulation and dominance the Nazis enjoyed.

Yes, we should be vigilant. But it will take a considerable amount of power to topple the American democracy - the only pre-1945 democracy to never be destroyed by internal or external forces.

We've seen an uptick of hate crimes, absolutely, but as awful as they are, they pale in comparison to Kristalnacht or the Night of Long Knives. A few hundred bigots around the country does not compare to the organized, widespread violence the Nazis made use of. They made use of it before their election, as well; street fights between the Nazis and other Parties, particularly the Communists, were frequent long before they came to power, and actually gave the Nazis a lot of the press they used to win votes. The worst people in our society feel empowered right now, but we don't have the instability and pending collapse the Weimar Republic had, certainly.

8 hours ago, Patticus said:

There are plans afoot to find to $15-25bn+ necessary to fund that godawful border wall, though.

They might just be setting up a dignified retreat. They can say they tried but the evil liberals stopped everything.

41 minutes ago, Patticus said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37970146

 

A genuine anti-Semite is in charge of strategy. No matter how much the walk-back to the center has been evidence of Trump being full of shit on so many topics during the campaign, this is exactly the kind of thing people were, and should be, actually terrified of.

This is quite concerning, certainly.

I guess it really boils down to how much advice Trump takes from him. With how successful he is at media, regardless of ideology (which we can all agree is awful in his case), I can see why Trump picked him. We can only pray Trump has his own agenda already, tells Bannon to spin it and distribute it to the masses, and doesn't take any suggestions on sensitive topics.

I guess it really boils down to who he surrounds himself with. With all the dozens of advisers, there is hope provided not all of them are nuts.

Best part of all this is Trump can be lying on everything still, as he's not technically elected until December 19th. We don't really know President Trump's plans until the Electoral College backs him and the countdown to inauguration begins.

[Patticus]

Nothing good can come from removing that many people "immediately": There are certain to be cases of mistaken identity, there will probably be natural citizens somehow swept up in it, families and communities will be torn apart, the economy will surely take a hit, and there's massive scope for human rights violations of the kind we saw when Eisenhower removed more than a million undocumented immigrants in his day.

[KHCast]

Lots of people seem to be comparing trumps deportation proposal to Obama's and are staying it's not that big a deal. Wonder if Obama himself is gonna try separating his decisions and actions regarding deportation from how Trumps proposed it.

[Tani Coyote]

So I'm doing some research on Priebus, the Chief of Staff.

...as head of the RNC, he's wanted to expand the GOP's appeal with minority voters. He's led voter registration drives and called for broadening the support of fiscal conservatism beyond whites, males, etc.

This is a really weird pair of staff, to say the least. You've got the social justice, political correctness, alt-right worshipping Bannon on one side, and the reasonable, diversity-interested Priebus on the other. Go figure, both can serve Trump's populist agenda: Priebus can work to expand appeal among minorities, while Bannon can be used to maintain support from the alt-right.

It's possible Trump's pulling an FDR here: getting the bigots and their victims to work together in support of his policies.

There's also a nugget on how Trump's a smooth talker in Priebus' bio. It turns out that while Trump railed against the "rigged" primaries in public, he always was courteous to Priebus once off-camera and said it was just campaign talk.

The whole warning sign a good chunk of Trump's platform was nonsense he didn't really believe in was right under our noses this whole time.