DiscussMormonism.com

But seriously..

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... n/ds1cvwm/

If you click on the link you get a nice rundown on Things Donald Trump Doesn't Understand, with each mystery nicely referenced. So, 2018 will be a win if we don't go to war with North Korea.

- Doc

Every year Radley Balko does a dystopian civil liberties predictions for the following year that is actually a recap of what occurred in the previous year. Here's this years:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 0560dcc9c6

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:But seriously..

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/commen ... n/ds1cvwm/

If you click on the link you get a nice rundown on Things Donald Trump Doesn't Understand, with each mystery nicely referenced. So, 2018 will be a win if we don't go to war with North Korea.

- Doc

It's terrifying that this lowest of bars actually seems about right. But even worse, as reports of the dismantling of the apparatus of government increase amid claims that it's just draining the swamp of Washington, I wonder if years from now we might discover consequences of actions so innocuous as to have been largely ignored that crippled our Nation's future worse than war with a nuclear-capable military state? I mean, every day there are many variable forms of international competition going on that are just or more impactful to the fate of nations. How does one predict what will be the most consequential when viewed through the future lens of history?

Trump obviously doesn't know a lot about a lot, but it's totally new that the President of the US is never expected to demonstrate cursory knowledge of anything. Trump almost exclusively accepts softball interviews from within the right-wing propaganda apparatus, but even when he's been in interviews in other venues there's a unstated agreement that he's never asked to really demonstrate his understanding of anything. He's given open ended questions that allow him to revert to some shallow talking points and hyperbolic assertions, and that's it. No one ever asks him basic questions that require him to understand a subject. It would be the easiest thing in the world to ask him a specific question about how a particular aspect of the tax bill would function, yet that does not happen. This was not true of Obama, Bush II, Clinton...

Political interviews have been trending in this direction for a long time. It's an exchange of access for narrative control. This is the most extreme I've ever seen it though. Remember when George W. Bush badly flubbed a question on Native American sovereignty? That happened because George W. Bush occasionally had to answer questions where you can't skate by on superficial BS.