Trump and Trumper trouble on the Rio Grande

There's no post-Christmas gift quite like an above-the-fold gift that further exposes the cruelty, stupidity, and pseudoconservative heterodoxy of the authoritarian Trump regime — especially when the regime's miasmic perversity settles at the unwelcome feet of its supporters.

"The list of challenges still facing Mr. Trump’s 'big, beautiful' wall include an investigation into construction contracts" — shocking, no? — "funding delays and a recent legal decision blocking emergency access to Defense Department funds to build it," reports the NY Times. "But access to private land … may be the tallest barrier standing between the president and his wall."

Along the Texas-Rio Grande border, nearly all of that private land belongs to diehard Trumpers, who nevertheless find the president's pointless theft of their property a trifle unsettling. As expressed in White House meetings, Trump's sophisticated understanding of eminent domain is simply to "take the land" from its owners, for purely political reasons.

To his hapless supporters nationwide he has promised 450 miles of new wall, and by God, useless as the wall may be, he's going to have it.

Or is he? To date, only 93 miles of it have been built, and most of that has been on federal land that Trump needn't have bothered to steal. Of the total miles — again, 450 — required, 162 of them are to pass through Southern Texas Trump Country, of which 144 miles are owned by said diehard, yet unsettled, Trumpers.

And of the already utterly obsolete shebang of a new wall spanning all that privately owned land? "The Trump administration," writes the Times, "has acquired just three miles since 2017."

That means not, however, that the regime has in any way slowed the rapacious pace of its courtroom exercise of eminent domain — that once perfectly execrable abuse of government power, according to old-school luminaries of the conservative faith.

A mere three miles it may be for now; yet throughout the election year, many more will be confiscated from Trumpers by Trump himself. In court, landowners possess the right to squeal and whine, but virtually nothing more than that.

Here's the real kicker, though: Even after successfully stealing X amount of privately owned land, Trump will still be stymied in his political obsession by bleedingly obviously corrupt construction-contract investigations as well as legal and congressional delays in wall funding.

In brief, Trump's farthest down-South supporters are being slapped in the face for much ado about nothing.

Comments

[David Duff]

It looks as though Trump's wall is progressing about as well as the Dem's impeachment 'snafu'!

[Anne J]

Thanks for a much needed laugh of the morning. What do you want to bet they will still vote for him? Did they realize going in in 2016 that "Build the Wall!" meant government taking over their land?

[Peter G]

Try and keep up. He has been impeached. And he may, being Trump, set a record by being the first president to be impeached twice.

[ren]

Or it could go down the same road as throwing a wrench into the soybean farmers livelihood: buy 'em off. Show me a farmer that says he would rather have the Chinese market to sell his crop to vs. a check to not work or take the risks inherent in farming and I'll show you a liar. Show me a landowner that would turn down a check for twice what his land is worth and I'll show you another one.

[shsavage]

I've been wondering this morning what would happen if Nancy delivered one of the two articles to the Senate. I think a trial would have to happen, and she could use the result as a trial balloon for sending the second article, and possibly others that Judiciary is still contemplating. I don't know of any Constitutional requirement to send all of the articles at once.

[Jason]

Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/X-ZFoco_1gQ

[Peter G]

From the initial whistleblower report to impeachment took only months. If he is ambitious Trump still has time to set the record. Nancy has a lot to work with.

[David Duff]

In my old-fashioned country, accusing someone of a crime means nothing unless a jury confirms it!

Of course, you do things differently 'over there' where political parties do the accusing - bit like 'Mother Russia', really!

[Jason]

In your country, does the jury say “we’re gonna side with the defendant” before the trial even begins? Because that’s exactly what’s happening here.

[Jon Ponder]

A major difference is that while 54% of Americans oppose the wall,55% support impeachment in the most recent poll.

[Freesia]

Is it my imagination or does there seem to be, evidenced by the comment you're responding to, that the impeachment, the fact of it, is somehow up for debate? The "man" was impeached. Whether he'll get a pass from his flying monkeys in the Senate is another story, but he was impeached. And compared to Watergate it's actually been a fairly efficient process.

Somehow I'm getting the uneasy feeling that we're looking at the unfolding of a campaign of "alternative facts" that morphs into "conventional wisdom" if the Democrats don't cut it off at the pass.

[Tony]

"In your country, does the jury say “we’re gonna side with the defendant” before the trial even begins?"

You should know that Duff doesn't try to answer questions that he can't. I admire you for putting this question to him, but I expected he wouldn't answer, and so far there has been nothing but deafening SILENCE!

[shsavage]

The White House and the right wing media are pushing the narrative that Trump hasn't been impeached because the articles of impeachment haven't been delivered to the Senate yet.

[shsavage]

So there's no point in responding at all, is there? Quid-pro-quo, Duff style.

[Jason]

Kinda ironic too what he employs as his basis of comparison to Russia. In fact, there is no viable opposition party in Russia, for Putin and friends would never allow it. And if what there is of an opposition party were to accuse of Putin of wrongdoing, they’d soon find themselves quietly whisked away from this mortal coil. Duff is right, though, in that we are becoming a bit more like Russia, just not in the way he imagines.

[David Duff]

Well, Jason, if "that’s exactly what’s happening here", is it not time to change your, er, 'system'?

Apologies to Tony for failing to down to his stereotype!

[Jason]

Yes, it is very much time to change our system. Get rid of the electoral college, introduce ranked voting, find a way to make the Supreme Court less partisan, undo gerrymandering, and so on. The more enlightened members of our electorate are working to implement these democratic goals but a certain Soviet-backed orange blob of a pissant and his obsequious toadies are standing in the way, because, after all, democracy is the last thing they want.

[David Duff]

Jason (above) suggests "Get rid of the electoral college, introduce ranked voting, find a way to make the Supreme Court less partisan, undo gerrymandering, and so on."

Or to put it another way, 'After tearing up the Constitution, let's find a new way to ensure that the Democratic party rules forever!'

Yeeeeeeeees, quite!

[Jason]

Where those issues actually are fully addressed by the Constitution (which most of them aren’t or there’s some ambiguity), Congress would need to pass an amendment, which is a perfectly Constitutional process. You say that these would ensure a permanent Democratic majority. I doubt that. What this would do is make sure everyone’s vote is more equitable. Should that result in longterm Democratic majorities, then so be it, as that would reflect the will of the people. However, this is a centrist country, and what these reforms would do would empower more centrist candidates, left and right. And trust me, there would still be plenty of rightwing crackpots sullying Congress. Mississippi ain’t going after all.

[David Duff]

A fascinating topic, Jason, and I wish my knowledge of American constitutional law was better than it is so that I might contribute something more tangible than mere suspicion. Even so, after 80 years I do have some knowledge of human nature which I trust about as far as I could hurl the American constitution into a head-on gale of 90 mph!

By the by, you mentioned "rightwing crackpots sullying Congress" and you are correct to view them with suspicion but, alas, you failed to mention also 'Left-wing crackpots' of whom there are plenty! I would like to offer you a quote from the late, great Auberon Waugh who advised that whenever you see a politician on a soapbox you should shout out, "SHOW US YOUR WILLY!"

[Jason]

Ha! Okay, the Auberon Waugh quote is a good one, I’ll give you that. Yes, there are plenty of left-wing crackpots out there as well (e.g., PM’s post above), and I seriously hope they never take over the Democratic Party in the same way right-wing crackpots have taken over the GOP. It’s certainly a threat these days. I can only pray that the adults in the party prevail.