Trump Thread

[Strike For The South]

The 6-figure debts maintained for many years, the disappearing debts as of this year, the extremely bizarre excuses for the debts

I had forgotten about the baseball tickets.

I've been listening to the hearing since 10 AM. Prosecutor Mitchell seems nice, at least. Striking that no Republicans other than Grassley seem to have addressed Ford.

Perhaps smart enough knowing they can't ask anything relevant?

[drone]

I can't imagine why the Republicans are still pushing him through. Their goal is to pack the court with conservatives, but putting Kavanaugh up will jeopardize this. His testimony through the entire conformation process has been sprinkled with lies, and every step the Republicans take to get this done just pisses off the Democrats more and more. The Senate election map is already not kind to the GOP in 2020 (even without the inevitable pissed off women voters), and with a few years of digging the press, or the Dems with subpoena power, can definitely unearth enough facts to prove the he perjured himself to the Senate during these hearings, either about the sexual assaults or other issues. If he gets on SCOTUS, I foresee a Democratic Congress impeaching him after 2020, when they can confirm either a liberal or moderate (if Trump manages to hold on, go forbid) to replace him. The Democrats will not forget this or Merrick Garland.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Mm, Trump has gone after Ford for sure, the others I'm not aware of (yet).

In this press conference? Dunno what your reporter claimed. The conference is 14K words (!) transcribed, and I don't want to watch Trump speak too often, but skimming Trump accused his own accusers of being paid plants. Somehow more remarkably he stated



Perspicaciously explaining why a woman might not report, contradicting his own tweet



and 1 of the like 3 defense plays Republicans have for Kavanaugh.

Jesus fuck what is with this guy, it's like all reality is a maelstrom of the Billy Madison clip and Hades gifs. All the gifs, really.

Anyway, if this is all Trump getting cold feet about Kavanaugh there is actually a chance the Republicans will replace him with someone less of a dirtbag. They can still fasttrack a nominee before 2019, so no problem for them, right? No need to confirm seemingly the worst available candidate as a naked show of contemptuous power. Maybe the optimists will be right about this one.

Like I said. Quote any three minutes of the Trump press conference and no MSNBC reporter would have to impart the negative spin they so love to use. Just quote him, look at the camera and remark. "Chris, I don't think I need to add a thing."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This is such a train wreck that Avenatti -- an archetypally sleazy ambulance chaser -- is coming off professionally in comparison to our head of state. Gack.

[Beskar]

Trump bragging about Canada sucks and turned them down.
Canada responds: "No meeting was requested".

He is a bare-faced liar who might as well be living in another plane of existence.

[Montmorency]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Exhausting.

I heard a couple of Republican women phone in, and their takes (paraphrasing):

1. I was almost raped by three guys on the side of a road, but they were chased off by passersby. I think Ford is not credible because she was only "almost" raped, so she should have got over it by now just like I did.

2. I and my daughter are victims who have overcome. I think Ford is credible but I think Kavanaugh is credible too, and I don't understand why Ford is doing this. Does she think it's to prevent Kavanaugh from further victimizing women through his judicial work? I just don't get it!

Strange people.


Other observations:

The prosecutor was chosen to soften the Republican presence and questioning. I think successfully. Cleverly chosen. Watched Kavanaugh only intermittently, did she have a heel turn?

If Kavanaugh falls the viscous ensuing relief and joy will immobilize almost any scrutiny against the replacement nominee. They can probably get 20 Democrats voting for him or her at that point.

From everything I've seen of Kavanaugh, he doesn't sound like what I'd think a judge would sound like. He always talks like a seasoned politician. His rhetoric is that of political gamesmanship, the campaign rally, the scandal presser.

Kavanaugh repeatedly lying that Ford's named witnesses (i.e. present at the party) have refuted her recollection his most egregious of the day. Ted Cruz boosting it for his part.

I can't imagine why the Republicans are still pushing him through.

Power is doing something just because you can, to prove that you can and will. We see it so often in action films, where the big bad randomly cuts down one of their henchman in front of the hero and no one even blinks. Same idea. Kavanaugh, please go down like the 80's movie villain you are.

(For a closer correspondence, think of the legend of Caligula appointing a horse consul.)

Like I said. Quote any three minutes of the Trump press conference and no MSNBC reporter would have to impart the negative spin they so love to use. Just quote him, look at the camera and remark. "Chris, I don't think I need to add a thing."

Bad advice, that's why his supporters love him. "He tells it like it is!"

This is such a train wreck that Avenatti -- an archetypally sleazy ambulance chaser -- is coming off professionally in comparison to our head of state. Gack.

He's rather more high-powered than that. I would say he's an archetypical hotshot lawyer in the public imagination. Apparently he's consciously mirroring Trump and Giuliani, if only because the media love to give Trump and Giuliani screen time. He's been pretty successful at it. Also, you should take everything he does seriously in the context of his (teased) 2020 presidential run. Insofar as his lawyering is aggressive and successful, he will use it to plump himself.

[drone]

Power is doing something just because you can, to prove that you can and will. We see it so often in action films, where the big bad randomly cuts down one of their henchman in front of the hero and no one even blinks. Same idea. Kavanaugh, please go down like the 80's movie villain you are.

(For a closer correspondence, think of the legend of Caligula appointing a horse consul.)

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Their compatriots in the lower house would probably prefer they drop this lying sot, it might keep them from losing over 40 seats in a few weeks. In normal times, the GOP would be picking up a few seats in the Senate this cycle, but now they will be lucky to keep their current advantage. I have a feeling Pence will be spending a lot of time at the Capitol next term...

[a completely inoffensive name]

They will put him in. People still don't understand the stakes here.

They dont care about public opinion, they obfuscate to the degree that is needed to disorient the public and proceed to cement themselves institutionally for another 40 years, at any means necessary.

This is the end of our current iteration of institutions as designed post WW2.

From Revolution to Civil War to existential threat to...idk what to even call this sudden lack of dignity.

[Montmorency]

They will put him in. People still don't understand the stakes here.

They dont care about public opinion, they obfuscate to the degree that is needed to disorient the public and proceed to cement themselves institutionally for another 40 years, at any means necessary.

This is the end of our current iteration of institutions as designed post WW2.

From Revolution to Civil War to existential threat to...idk what to even call this sudden lack of dignity.

You're probably right. Arguably Kavanaugh would have been pulled already if that were the play. But it really depends on the behind-the-scenes details of Kavanaugh's nomination. How will Trump be swayed, and does it matter? Is Kavanaugh a bought man from the outset? Does the national GOP expect to pre-empt Democrats the opportunity to pack the courts by future elections?

But basically this -

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Their compatriots in the lower house would probably prefer they drop this lying sot, it might keep them from losing over 40 seats in a few weeks. In normal times, the GOP would be picking up a few seats in the Senate this cycle, but now they will be lucky to keep their current advantage. I have a feeling Pence will be spending a lot of time at the Capitol next term...

- would be irrelevant if the Republicans have privately moved fully beyond the concept of normal electoral politics.

I mean, I sure hope the optimists are right. It delays the timetable for the collapse of civil society by a year or so.

We need more time for the Democratic Party to realize they're responsible for prosecuting a war.

[a completely inoffensive name]

We need more time for the Democratic Party to realize they're responsible for prosecuting a war.

I hate to say this but they won't realize the magnitude of this ongoing political war until it is too late. God forbid RBG falls ill and Trump replaces her with another Federalist shill...

Then we are going to be in for potential large scale riots when, not if, the last four decades of liberal progress vanishes in half a decade under activist conservative judges.

[Montmorency]

So Sen. Flake flaked on his opposition to Kavanaugh. On the basis of a verbal "gentlemen's and women's" agreement with Sen. Grassley for a 1-week FBI investigation before the full vote on the floor.

Obvious cake-having-eating rubbish. Flake was literally the only person holding up the confirmation. There's nothing stopping a vote forthwith.

99% probability: Every Republican votes to confirm.
90% probability: At least 1 Democrat joins to confirm.


@ACIN

Oh, so this is may be why the Senate GOP (and Trump) want Kavanaugh confirmed immediately: If Kavanaugh is confirmed at the beginning of next week, he could be seated in time to vote on this case:

Gamble v. United States is a pending United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are considered to be "separate sovereigns".

But, oh God... now that I think about it, wouldn't it make sense constitutionally to eliminate the separate sovereignty exception? There's no real justification for it to exist. Except, uh, right now, where it may be coming in handy...

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy.


@Csargo

Did you watch any of Kavanaugh in yesterday's hearing? If so, how would you evaluate him were you in a match of Mafia?

[Csargo]

So Sen. Flake flaked on his opposition to Kavanaugh. On the basis of a verbal "gentlemen's and women's" agreement with Sen. Grassley for a 1-week FBI investigation before the full vote on the floor.

Obvious cake-having-eating rubbish. Flake was literally the only person holding up the confirmation. There's nothing stopping a vote forthwith.

99% probability: Every Republican votes to confirm.
90% probability: At least 1 Democrat joins to confirm.


@ACIN

Oh, so this is may be why the Senate GOP (and Trump) want Kavanaugh confirmed immediately: If Kavanaugh is confirmed at the beginning of next week, he could be seated in time to vote on this case:



But, oh God... now that I think about it, wouldn't it make sense constitutionally to eliminate the separate sovereignty exception? There's no real justification for it to exist. Except, uh, right now, where it may be coming in handy...

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy.


@Csargo

Did you watch any of Kavanaugh in yesterday's hearing? If so, how would you evaluate him were you in a match of Mafia?

No, I only got to watch Dr. Ford's testimony unfortunately, because I had to go to class before Kavanaugh was questioned and couldn't continue watching. Hopefully, I'll get to do so today at some point if I can get to it.

I don't understand why it was left to the Senate committee to determine the validity of this woman's statements instead of trained professionals doing so. A proper investigation, interviews, etc. would have been the proper course of action from my perspective. I would have imagined that would be in the power of Senate members to request/order, or am I wrong in that assumption?

[Montmorency]

No, I only got to watch Dr. Ford's testimony unfortunately, because I had to go to class before Kavanaugh was questioned and couldn't continue watching. Hopefully, I'll get to do so today at some point if I can get to it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In fact, let me edit this out of courtesy: conduct of final scum in D5 of Representative Democracy

I don't understand why it was left to the Senate committee to determine the validity of this woman's statements instead of trained professionals doing so. A proper investigation, interviews, etc. would have been the proper course of action from my perspective. I would have imagined that would be in the power of Senate members to request/order, or am I wrong in that assumption?

Because they wanted to limit testimony. Imagine there was a third person in the room with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Wouldn't it have been more comfortable for Democrats not to have the third person subpoenaed?

Trump would have to approve any FBI investigation.

Speak of the devil, he just did.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@ACIN

Oh, so this is may be why the Senate GOP (and Trump) want Kavanaugh confirmed immediately: If Kavanaugh is confirmed at the beginning of next week, he could be seated in time to vote on this case:



But, oh God... now that I think about it, wouldn't it make sense constitutionally to eliminate the separate sovereignty exception? There's no real justification for it to exist. Except, uh, right now, where it may be coming in handy...

And most of the overlap between federal and state offenses is in financial crimes, right? Millionaires everywhere jump for joy.

Not sure why SCOTUS took up this case. Isn't the separate sovereign doctrine really just saying that the federal government and state are two different parties? Double jeopardy is in place to prevent the government from re-trials as punishment or brute force their way into winning. This does not seem to be the case here, he will at most face two trials for this crime.

In fact, the 11th Amendment was ratified specifically to give states sovereign immunity, so how could we not interpret the constitution in its federalized structure as promoting separate sovereign doctrine?

[Montmorency]

Not sure why SCOTUS took up this case. Isn't the separate sovereign doctrine really just saying that the federal government and state are two different parties? Double jeopardy is in place to prevent the government from re-trials as punishment or brute force their way into winning. This does not seem to be the case here, he will at most face two trials for this crime.

In fact, the 11th Amendment was ratified specifically to give states sovereign immunity, so how could we not interpret the constitution in its federalized structure as promoting separate sovereign doctrine?

5th Amendment:

[...] nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

In 1969 the double jeopardy proscription was incorporated to the states.

If there is no double jeopardy for federal crimes, and no double jeopardy for state crimes, and the latter follows from the former (setting aside that most state constitutions already included some version of this), then substantive dual trial for the same offense (e.g. falsifying tax returns) once under state court and once under federal seems to be unconstitutional. The "dual sovereignty" loophole would truly be a loophole if it refers to a specious sovereignty that hardly exists even on paper, if there was no precedent for it in the originating English law, and if the actual text of the amendment to the Constitution says nothing about states or sovereigns.

I use the example of tax crime because the underlying offense is literally identical. Much of the information the taxpayer includes in their local, state, and federal returns is overlapping. Indeed, if your state or municipality wants more information from you they will often ask for your federal returns. I believe in some states it is required by default. Unless if for some reason you lie on only one set of returns, but you would be caught instantly, so in practice tax laws are violated simultaneously.

The 11th Amendment has little relevance as it pertains to the immunity of states from civil suit by individuals outside that state, not criminal prosecution of individuals by a state.

Even the ACLU and Cato are tag-teaming to have the exception struck down.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN is correct as to the implications of the 11th amendment vis-à-vis sovereignty. Though the strict use of the amendment is limited, it rests on the basis that the states are sovereign entities of themselves -- united and subordinate to the federal union for specific delineated purposes but not inherently subordinate in all matters to the federal union -- which was the original understanding common among the majority of the founders.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When we interpret "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" do we naively say that someone found innocent of murder can never ever be charged of the crime of murder again?

Offence refers to the act itself not the name of the crime. I lied to you and I lied to another person, leading to a loss of money on both their parts. Shouldn't both individuals be able to seek recourse? If one loses his case, the other loses his case as well?

Even if this all works out legally, I am not sure I like the practical implications of it.

[Montmorency]

ACIN is correct as to the implications of the 11th amendment vis-à-vis sovereignty. Though the strict use of the amendment is limited, it rests on the basis that the states are sovereign entities of themselves -- united and subordinate to the federal union for specific delineated purposes but not inherently subordinate in all matters to the federal union -- which was the original understanding common among the majority of the founders.

What does it mean for state sovereignty that the 5th Amendment has been incorporated to the states, as have many other amendments been? What does it mean for "dual sovereignty" if this doctrine was established prior to incorporation of federal Constitution to states, including the critical 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection clause? What does it mean for the concept of jurisdiction that it is possible to commit a federal offense in any state or territory of the United States, but not vice versa? What does it mean if the ACLU is correct that the old common law of Britain had no exception for "separate sovereigns" despite Britain being a union of kingdoms? That states have sovereignty to enact and enforce their own laws distinct from the federal government does not obviate the question of the 5th Amendment, which refers to rights of individuals and not states. The question we've suddenly begun debating is merely the following:

Is it consistent with the Double Jeopardy protection of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution for a defendant to be punished separately in state and federal court on a single equivalent charge for a single aspect of a single act or event?

When we interpret "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" do we naively say that someone found innocent of murder can never ever be charged of the crime of murder again?

Offence refers to the act itself not the name of the crime. I lied to you and I lied to another person, leading to a loss of money on both their parts. Shouldn't both individuals be able to seek recourse? If one loses his case, the other loses his case as well?

Even if this all works out legally, I am not sure I like the practical implications of it.

You're talking about something entirely different here: counts of a single crime. I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the Double Jeopardy clause. Double jeopardy is when a defendant is charged, tried, and or convicted and sentenced doubly. Doubly here means "for the same underlying act". For example, if it were the case that "murder" were a federal offense as well as a state one, it would be possible for a defendant to a single murder charge to stand in state court, be found not guilty of murder, then consecutively stand in federal court. Why would this not violate the 5th Amendment? This lawyer baldly asserts that just such a case of state murder vs. federal murder may be consecutively prosecuted because "[d]ouble jeopardy only applies to one jurisdiction at a time", yet in the situation described we see that the jurisdictions are overlapping, not discrete. In fact I struggle to think of a situation where jurisdictions do not overlap, except Washington DC, US territories, and overseas military establishments.

A single-domain example of how the courts have ruled on double jeopardy would be on the distinction between drug possession and "possession with intent to sell". I don't know how widespread this is, but in Florida convictions involving both were struck down as contrary to the Double Jeopardy clause. Because the underlying offense - possession - is the same for both charges.

AFAIK almost all drug offenses can be both state and federal. As noted above, the federal jurisdiction stretches completely over all states. It really does appear contrary to the 5th Amendment if the state can try you for possession, punish you, and then the federal government can turn around and try you for that exact same possession.

Here's the Cato amicus to look through, and a joint one with the ACLU.

ACIN, I fear you may be advancing a 19th-century concept of "states' rights" that is no longer valid (and arguably never was), one that was also used by SCOTUS (e.g. Lochner) to negate the federal government's enforcement of the 14th Amendment (except on behalf of business).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While Trump is touting this as the best agreement since sliced bread , it would appear that the newly reworked deal on North American trade has made improvements for the American economy without unduly harming our neighbors. Of course, it could still backfire with automakers sending all the manufacturing to high-education low wage sties like China etc.

[Montmorency]

Nafta required automakers to produce 62.5 percent of a vehicle’s content in North America to qualify for zero tariffs. The new agreement raises that threshold, over time, to 75 percent.

A real breakthrough!

For the first time, the new agreement also mandates that an escalating percentage of parts for any tariff-free vehicle — topping out at 40 percent in 2023 — must come from a so-called “high wage” factory. The agreement says those factories must pay a minimum of $16 an hour in average salaries for production workers.

Doesn't sound like this would benefit many on the continent, if the factories just leave the continent. Why not rules that actually rein in big business?

Perhaps the biggest sticking point in negotiations over the last month was the issue of Canada’s protection of its dairy market, including limits on imported dairy products from the United States and government support that gives Canadian products an advantage on international markets against American ones.

“Dairy was a deal breaker,” Mr. Trump said on Monday.

The new agreement gives the United States victories on both fronts. It gradually opens the Canadian market to more exported American dairy products, including “fluid milk, cream, butter, skim milk powder, cheese and other dairy products.” Canada agreed to eliminate a program that helps Canadian sellers of certain milk products, at home and abroad.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/cana...-industry.html

Removal of the dairy Class 7 in Canada, which was only created after Trump's inauguration, and covers the following products: milk protein concentrate, skim milk powder and infant formula. Access to 3.6% of the Canadian dairy market. About as much as TPP would have granted.

The TPP deal gives access to 3.25 percent of Canada's dairy industry while the new USMCA deal provides the U.S. with about 3.6 percent of total Canadian milk production under a tariff-free quota.
[...]
"The Canadian government actually has given [the Americans] less than what I expected that they would give," said Leblond. "I expected something a bit above 5 percent, and at some point I heard the Americans were asking for 15 percent. So in the end the deal is at 3.6 percent. I see that as a win for Canada."

This is the great re-negotiation?

It's pretty much just NAFTA with a new name and worse bilateral relations in the long-term. Will this even be approved by Congress, let alone Canada and Mexico?

Among the small-but-significant items in the new agreement are a measure to push Mexico to make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions, steps to allow American financial services companies better access to Canadian and Mexican markets and a provision to extend the intellectual property protections of American pharmaceutical companies selling prescription drugs in Canada.

Without looking deeper, the first sounds good, second sounds neutral, and the third has always been overwhelmingly bad. The US-driven international copyright/patent/trademark regime needs to come down.

[Montmorency]

Lol

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/...s-all-branding

"But [Trump] has now repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to slap his name on deals and arrangements that closely resemble those he had sworn to tear up."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trump’s sales pitch notwithstanding, it’s more of a NAFTA rebrand than a brand new deal. Moreover, as Kimberly Ann Elliot pointed out in her WPR column yesterday, the terms of the updated agreement closely resemble those of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the multilateral trade pact, negotiated by the Obama administration with 11 other countries, that Trump withdrew from as one of his first official acts as president. In other words, Trump just slapped his name on the façade of an edifice someone else built and claimed credit for it.

The same is true of his claim following the NATO summit in May that his tough line on allies’ defense spending got them “to substantially up their commitment . . . at levels that they’ve never thought of before.” It is certainly possible that Trump’s animosity toward the alliance caused some member states to either accelerate their spending increases or else tailor their declarative policy to fit Trump’s preferences. But the target of budgeting 2 percent of GDP toward defense spending emerged during the George W. Bush administration; the agreement to set a deadline for reaching the target was an achievement of the Obama administration; and the increased defense spending that Trump took credit for had already begun in response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.

A similar dynamic was at work when Trump and European Commission President Jean-Clause Juncker agreed in late July to set aside threats of damaging automobile tariffs and instead open negotiations for a wide-ranging trade pact between the U.S. and the European Union. Although the jury is still out on the ultimate outcome of those talks, they have already been compared to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that the Obama administration was negotiating with the EU, which was suspended when Trump took office.

It’s likewise still too early to tell if Trump’s diplomatic engagement with North Korea will pay any meaningful dividends in terms of dismantling the North’s nuclear arsenal. But if the expectations of the expert community are any guide, here, too, Trump has followed the same playbook, threatening nuclear war before essentially endorsing the Obama administration’s failed policy of “strategic patience,” rebranded as a love story featuring himself and a nuclear-armed Kim Jong Un.

What are the implications of Trump’s penchant for creating crises, then claiming exaggerated credit for resolving them on terms that closely resemble the status quo ante? Domestically, to his opponents’ chagrin, it could help him solidify support among his base, as well as among softer supporters who were swayed by his often misleading rhetoric but had begun to question his tactics. The outcome of the midterm congressional elections a little more than a month from now will offer a clear indication of whether voters are ready to swallow another dose of Trump’s snake oil in 2020.

Internationally, the implications are both reassuring and worrisome—reassuring because fears that Trump is set to upend and remake the international order might end up being overblown. Trump has introduced an enormous amount of uncertainty to international affairs and damaged U.S. ties with allies in ways that could prove to be lasting. But he has now repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to slap his name on deals and arrangements that closely resemble those he had sworn to tear up.

That means that the other major crises on Trump’s docket, rather than escalating, might end up being defused in a similar fashion. Certainly China will try to wind down its own trade war with the U.S. by offering enough superficial concessions to allow Trump to declare victory and come home. Iran, too, might begin to see the appeal of pursuing a Trump-rebranded nuclear accord that differs only marginally from the one he withdrew from in May.

[...]

It’s possible that the U.S. might have benefited from the approach that fueled Trump’s rise in the early years of his public life. A brash risk-taker who questioned sacred cows and challenged conventional wisdoms might have reinvigorated U.S. foreign policy in the face of a rising China and resurgent Russia. Instead, the later Trump has prevailed, promising much, delivering little and making sure his name is featured prominently on the marquee.

Yo legit, he's not just a sleazy used car salesman as an epithet, he is almost literally a sleazy used car salesman.

...

Nice site btw, shame about the paywall.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lol...Yo legit, he's not just a sleazy used car salesman as an epithet, he is almost literally a sleazy used car salesman.
Nice site btw, shame about the paywall.

Use real-estate salesmen? Telemarketer from hell? Most whores are more ethical?

Swear to God anyone reasonably close to centrist the Dems prop up would nab my vote. Have not voted for a Dem for President since I started voting in Presidential elections in 1984.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not trying to defend him, but when was the last politician who didn't claim victory at all costs? Nixon's Cambodia farce to George W's "Mission Accomplished"?

Democracies force politicians into these short term grabs for publicity, and unsurprisingly those best at it do the best. Many countries are only insulated from this by the ability of the political parties to restrict choice using various mechanisms. Open primaries gave Trump a chance in a way that just can't happen in (for example) the UK. We can only have as a leader whoever has managed to climb to the top of one of the two greasy poles.

[Montmorency]

I'm not trying to defend him, but when was the last politician who didn't claim victory at all costs? Nixon's Cambodia farce to George W's "Mission Accomplished"?

Democracies force politicians into these short term grabs for publicity, and unsurprisingly those best at it do the best. Many countries are only insulated from this by the ability of the political parties to restrict choice using various mechanisms. Open primaries gave Trump a chance in a way that just can't happen in (for example) the UK. We can only have as a leader whoever has managed to climb to the top of one of the two greasy poles.

It is typical for politicians to take credit for perceived positive indicators and disclaim perceived negative indicators, but the Trump formula is:

1. Manufacture a political crisis internally motivated by expansive and antagonistic rhetoric
2. Undermine his own government and country with seemingly no coherent goal other than self-aggrandizement before his followers
3. Cease further aggravations and declare the degraded status quo a revolutionary victory

That's, you know... stupid-Orwellian. 'We've always been at war with Oceania. In fact, I just single-handedly defeated the foul Oceanians! Also, all praise to our new allies in the fight against Oceania: Sea World.'

I'm sure Trump can't be the only leader in world history to have acted according to the formula I ventured, but I can't think of any examples. Got any?

Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

[Xiahou]

Swear to God anyone reasonably close to centrist the Dems prop up would nab my vote. Have not voted for a Dem for President since I started voting in Presidential elections in 1984.

We both know the Democrats won't put up a centrist. They've been sprinting left ever since Bernie nearly took the nomination out from under Hillary. Socialism is cool now- it's what all the kids are talking about.

Again, I think Trump is personally obnoxious. However, policy-wise he* hasn't been too bad. The biggest thing I'd criticize him* for is not doing more to reign in spending, but sadly I think we're past the point where any politician of either party is willing to seriously reign in spending- there's no incentive. We're just going to keep going full-throttle til we hit the brick wall and worry about the consequences then.

*I refer to Trump's policies, but of course, I mean his administration's policies. I don't really think he personally has much interest in any policy specifics beyond a couple hobby horses.

[Montmorency]

So the "FBI investigation" into Kavanaugh was a canard that didn't interview anyone or collect any information. It was all a cover. Looks like they were astute who estimated that Republicans wouldn't ride Kavanaugh to the brink just to pull back at the final moment.

My fixed and final prediction: Kavanaugh confirmed 51-49 - all Republicans confirm except Murkowski; all Democrats reject except Manchin.

We both know the Democrats won't put up a centrist. They've been sprinting left ever since Bernie nearly took the nomination out from under Hillary. Socialism is cool now- it's what all the kids are talking about.

At this point, Avenatti would be a centrist candidate. The only socialist/New Dealer with a ghost of a chance at winning the Democratic nomination in 2020 is Sanders himself.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1What I BelieveMichael Avenatti, August 27, 2018Climate Change and the Environment. Climate change is an urgent threat. I believe America should be a leader in taking bold steps to tackle climate change, includingrejoining the Paris Agreement, investing heavily in renewable energy, reducing oil consumption, and setting more ambitious targets for cutting carbon pollution. I believe that America should be the world’s leader in clean energy.Child Care.In most states, child care is as expensive as tuition at a typical 4 yearcollege and evenrent. Childcareis so expensivethatmany families simply cannot afford it, leaving millions of women unable to participate in the workforce. Around half of Americans live in child care deserts, places with severe undersupply of licensed childcare options., which hurts working families. I believe in supporting working mothers and their families. I support expandingsubsidies and tax credits for child care for low and middle-income families.College Affordability. The cost of collegeand secondaryis soaring. No young person in America should have to forego education because it is too expensive. I believe we need to make college and secondary education more affordable for all Americans and reduce the crippling debt load (with exorbitant interest rates) that is trapping millions of young peoplefrom starting their lives and careers.Criminal Justice Reform.Our criminal justice systemurgently needs reform. Mass incarcaration has put millions of Americans behind bars for nonviolent offences,with many more waiting months and years in jail just awaiting trial. African American men are disproportionately impacted, facing higher rates of being stopped on the street and being charged with crimes. African Americans and whites uses drugs at similar rates, but African Americans are imprisoned at a level six times that of whites. I believe we should reform mandatory minimum sentencing, end racial profiling, and ease re-entry by investing in job programs. Also, no American should sit in jail for the crime of being poor; we need to end cash bail. Education. I believe that teachers shouldn’t have to work two or three jobs just to pay their bills -we must provide more financial benefits to our teachers. I believe that a kid’s zip code shouldn’t determine their futureand that every child deserves a quality educationstarting from an early age.Foreign Relations. We need to restore America’s place in the world and reassure our allies that America stands with them. I fully back NATO and our long-standing alliances, which we must now repair. We must also negotiate denuclearization agreements with North Korea and Iran. I believe we cannot choose Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence officials who put their lives on the line to keep our country safe. We should forcefully call out Russia as a serious threat to our democracy and
2make it clear that we do not serve at the hand of Vladimir Putin. We must impose severe consequences, not lip-service, for Russia’s meddling in the 2016 elections and ensure that it never happens again. Gun Control. Parents should not be afraid to send their children to school for fear they may be shot and killed. We cannot allow mass school shootings to continue in America. I repeat –We cannot allow mass school shootings to continue in America. I support sensible gun control, including background checks and bans on assault weapons and bump stocks. I believe gun manufacturers should be held to the same civil liability standards as other product manufacturers in the United States.Immigration. I believe in a strong, efficient and human border. We need an immigration policy that secures our borders while ending the separation and destruction of families at the border, and that stays true to our history of welcoming those who seek a better life, like my great grandfather Agostino. We should provide DREAMers, who contribute so much to this country, with a path to citizenship. We should not construct a wall on the southern border -it’s a waste of money better spent on a real infrastructure plan. We should not eliminate ICE but we must change the way ICE carries out enforcement.Infrastructure.America’s crumbling infrastructure makes it harder for us to get to work, to get home to our families, to stay competitive. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives American infrastructure just a D+ grade –just above failing –dueto a dire lack of investment and delayed maintenance. I believe in a real infrastructure package to build highways, airports, bridgesand dams that make our country more competitive, while putting hard working Americans to work in good paying jobs. My detailed plan will be called the “Real Deal.”Jobs. I believe we need an economic plan that delivers good quality jobs for American workers, not billions for billionaires and wealthy corporations. Real wages have gone down under Trump, costs are rising, and many American workers haven’t seen a raise in years. It is not enough just to lower the unemployment rate. Creating qualityjobs is even more important than increasing the quantityof jobs. For too long, hard working Americans have not earned the pay, benefits or stability that they deserve. Marijuana. Current marijuana regulation and enforcement disproportionately impacts Black and Latino communities. It also costs the federal government too much money for the little it accomplishes. I believe the federal government should decriminalize marijuana at the federal leveland the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 should be amended to eliminate the inclusion of cannabis and marijuana from Schedule I. Medicare for All. The price of health insurance plans and essential drugs have been rising uncontrollably, squeezing already tight budgets and putting enormous strain on families. The average
3price of health insurance plans for a family of four rises $100 every month, whilethe cost of the top brand name drugs more than doubled between 2008 and 2014. I believe every American deserves affordable, quality health care. I support the expansion of a Medicare plan for all Americans that covers everyone including those with pre-existing conditions. Individuals should be able to purchase additional coverage if they so choose. We cannot abandon millions of Americans who face serious, devastating consequences from nothaving health coverage.Military Spendingand Veterans. We must ensure that the men and women that place their lives at risk to keep us safe have the latest technology and weapons at their disposal to accomplish their missions. We also need a military that remains flexible and ready to act in an ever-changing world with divergent types of conflict. I believe we need to do far more to take care of our veterans after they serve our country. This starts, but not ends, with providing them with adequate health care and mental health programs. To this end, the VA Mission Act must be implemented in a way that benefits veterans –not private companies looking to get rich at the expense of veterans.Money in Politics. Money is the root of all evil in politics. We need to pass meaningful campaign finance reform that corrects the Citizens Uniteddecision. If I choose to run for office, I will not take any corporate PAC money. I believe all candidates for president in 2020 should refund allcorporate PAC money they have received since January 1, 2016 if they are sincere about campaign finance reform, otherwise it is all talk designed to deceive voters.Paid Family Leave. Our country’s policies are failing to provide basic security to American families.25% of American mothers return to work just 10 days after giving birth. I believe we should enact a paid family leave plan that covers women and men who are caring for a new child, a family member with a serious medical condition, or a personal health issues. We need to ensure that providing critical care to our loved ones doesn’t prevent Americans from paying their bills. Race, Discrimination and LGBT Rights. America deserves a president who is a uniter not a divider, who moves us forward not backwards, and wholeads an inclusive, diverse government that protects allAmericans from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. I believe our laws must protect against discrimination and that Americansshould always be empowered to fight to protect theirrights in court. We must guarantee that the Supreme Court’s prior decisions protecting those in the minority are never overturned.Role of the Cabinet. I believe aPresident’s cabinet should be comprised of experts in their field, not underqualified political stooges. Cabinet members should be listened to, consulted on a regular basis and relied upon to help lead the United States. Supreme Court. Never again can westand by andallow a Supreme Court seat to be stolen from the Americanpeopleas in 2016. Period. The stakes in2020 are clear: if Democrats lose, Trump will usher in a 7-2 Court that will turn back progress from the last fifty years and dramatically change life
4in America as we presently know it. FOR DECADES.I believe theseriousness of this cannot be overstated. It is critical that the Democratic nominee for President have a full understanding of the Supreme Court and be able to win. Taxes.The Trump tax plan is a terrible deal for American workers. While thelargestcompanies savebillions of dollarsin taxes each year, the average American blue-collar worker has seen an additional $5 in their paycheck. The tax cuts will add nearly $2 trillion to the national debt for our kids to deal with, while leaving no lasting benefits. Corporations are spending theirwindfall on their shareholders, not their employees. I believe in a real deal tax plan to put more money back into the pockets of hard working Americans -not a rigged plan that just benefits the rich and powerful. Trade. For too long, America has entered into trade deals that prioritize corporations and disadvantage American workers, shutter factories, and ship jobs overseas. I believe we need to be aggressive in dealing with countries that have gamed the system -but smart about how we fight back to avoid inflicting unnecessary harm on American workers and farmers. Especially when it comes to this issue, we must think ahead and play chess, not Tic-Tac-Toe. Unions. I fully back unions. I believe that all workers should have the right to organize and bargain collectively to improve pay, benefits and safety. Women’s Health and Opportunity. I support a woman’s right to choose. Full stop. We must ensure that Roe v. Wadeis neveroverturned and restore full federal funding to Planned Parenthood. I believe that the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution should be ratified and that women and men doing the same work deserve to take home the same pay. I support the expansion of legal protections for workers against rampant sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
1

Again, I think Trump is personally obnoxious. However, policy-wise he* hasn't been too bad.

Well, yes. Trump is the Republican Party, and the party is Trump.

I think we're past the point where any politician of either party is willing to seriously reign in spending- there's no incentive. We're just going to keep going full-throttle til we hit the brick wall and worry about the consequences then.

Anyone who has been waiting on the Republican Party to cut spending any time in the past few generations has already bought all the bridges they could ever need.

[Montmorency]

Kavanaugh confirmed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_...omination#Vote

On October 5, the Senate voted 51-49 for cloture, advancing the nomination to a final floor vote on October 6. The vote was almost entirely along party lines, with Democrat Joe Manchin voting yes and Republican Lisa Murkowski voting no.[109][110]

My fixed and final prediction: Kavanaugh confirmed 51-49 - all Republicans confirm except Murkowski; all Democrats reject except Manchin.

YOU

YOU

I GOT IT RIGHT

But it came down to Manchin, the D - West Virginia Senator, to cast the deciding vote? When one Republican Senator was absent and could not vote? Manchin ostensibly values a few more years in office above a permanent degradation of the SCOTUS such that the radicals can cement their case for its effective dissolution as an institution?

Can we process the Blue Dogs for glue yet?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The final tally was clearly well known by leadership in advance, or a certain Senator's daughter's wedding would have been delayed a few hours.

You did, Monty, more or less precisely predict the final vote.

[Montmorency]

The final tally was clearly well known by leadership in advance, or a certain Senator's daughter's wedding would have been delayed a few hours.

You did, Monty, more or less precisely predict the final vote.

Murkowski "paired" with that Senator (voted Present), and Manchin and Collins had declared within the past day, so the outcome was known by Friday afternoon.

Well, it was a remedial prediction in truth.

I posted before Manchin declared for Kavanaugh, but it was at the very endgame after the FBI investigation came out and Flake and Collins made their dispositive noises. If you then have every article on the subject noting separately that Manchin is the expected swing Democrat, and that Murkowski is the most precarious Republican, it doesn't take uncommon erudition to sum 1 and 1 together.

It does always feel great to make the right call, though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Murkowski "paired" with that Senator (voted Present), and Manchin and Collins had declared within the past day, so the outcome was known by Friday afternoon.

Well, it was a remedial prediction in truth....

There is a small part of me that wishes that the vote had come down to a 50-50, and then Pence then voted "No."

NOT because of any great qualms I have with Kavanaugh as a jurist (had the allegations clearly substantiated then he would have rightly been rejected, but I have no great grief with his rulings from the bench thus far). But because it would have split the GOP in half and wrecked its current form. I am increasingly of a mind that that must be (in some form) a needful step to moving towards a better conservative party for the USA.