Trump Thread

[spmetla]

It's such a strange world when the Head of State turns out to be a Benedict Arnold.

Several Congressmen and Senators have voiced their surprise and displeasure and will continue to do nothing to stop this nincompoop. I can only hope that the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate in November so that there can finally be some checks to his nonsense though they'll probably focus just on impeachment and social issues instead of reassuring our allies and trade partners.

[Montmorency]

https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/

Senate

49-51 Republicans currently.

35 seats up. 26 held by Democrats (2 of whom Independent, Sanders and King). It is not mathematically possible for Democrats to win a supermajority, let alone a 2/3 majority, even if they win every race.

Let's take the site's presentation for granted and acknowledge 16 competitive races. Of these, Democrats are defending all but 5 seats. The 5 are: Heller in Nevada, Cruz in Texas, Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, Flake in Arizona, and Corker in Tennessee. The latter two are not running for reelection, so seats are fully contested. (Eventually McCain may retire or die, but it probably doesn't make much difference for this cycle.)

Seems like the Democrats would need a historic black/Latino turnout for midterms just to swap numbers with the Republicans.

House

193-236 Republicans currently.

As for the House, someone can probably grub up articles on gerrymandering. According to the same site above, about 100 seats are competitive. However, of those, the vast majority are Republican.


Maybe this site's assumptions skew optimistic for Democrats, but the Cook Political Report is more or less similar in its margins. Ultimately, the highest utility of polling is knowing what you have to change, which demands at least the present amount of momentum behind Democrats to have any chance. 5 months...


At any rate Trump cannot be impeached this term. I'm sure his base will also guarantee his nomination in 2020. The only formal option left: Vote out, indict, very publicly clean house.

At least narrow majorities in both chambers, if Democrats obtain them, could be used to control committees, the cycle of bills and investigations, plus nominations and confirmation hearings.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Anything can happen in politics. But the hidden truth that liberals are afraid to admit is that Dem turnout is what will make or break this country. There have always been obstacles, the last 30 years of conservatism has made sure of that.

Whether our country survives Trump or not is up to the ability of the Left to inspire and motivate Americans.

[Montmorency]

Anything can happen in politics. But the hidden truth that liberals are afraid to admit is that Dem turnout is what will make or break this country. There have always been obstacles, the last 30 years of conservatism has made sure of that.

Whether our country survives Trump or not is up to the ability of the Left to inspire and motivate Americans.

A protean platform superior to the Republican one on utilitarian metrics is enough to motivate anyone!

Any voter who reads this in full is sure to find something they agree with.


EDIT: BTW, Ruskies infiltrated the NRA with money and spies. Legit. No kidding. Look it up.

The affidavit claims that on or around March 24, 2015, Butina emailed a proposal for a project called “Diplomacy.” In it, she stated that a major US political party (clearly the Republicans) would likely win the 2016 election. The problem, she wrote, was that the GOP is “traditionally associated with negative and aggressive foreign policy, particularly with regards to Russia.” Butina wanted to change that, and had an idea for doing so. She wrote that within the GOP, a gun rights organization (obviously the NRA) has a “central place and influence,” saying it funds campaigns and sponsors major conferences like the Conservative Political Action Conference. Butina wrote that she and Torshin had already been building ties to the NRA, and proposed that she wanted to go to “all upcoming major conferences” related to the Republican Party before the 2016 elections.

BUTINA: By your recommendation, I am setting up the groundwork here but I am really in need of mentoring. Or the energy might to towards the wrong direction. Yesterday's dinner showed that American society is broken in relation to Russia. This is now the dividing line of opinions, the crucial one in the election race. [POLITICAL PARTY 1] are for us, [another major U.S. political party] - against - 50/50. Our move here is very important.

BUTINA (to RUSSIAN OFFICIAL): I'm going to sleep. It's 3 am here. I am ready for further orders.

How deep does the rabbit hole go with the American Right?

Hilariously, just before this news dropped Trump tweeted this in reference to his vehement denial of Russian involvement in cyberattacks:

As I said today and many times before, “I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past – as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along! #HELSINKI2018

They were told they would cruise the swamp for American gold, fire no guns, shed no tears! God, RICO them all.

[Montmorency]

Guys, petition to moving forward replace all references to "GOP" or "Republican Party" with "[POLITICAL PARTY 1]".

[HopAlongBunny]

They were told they would cruise the swamp for American gold, fire no guns, shed no tears! God, RICO them all.

[AE Bravo]

Rand Paul the most sensible voice in the McCarthyist circus that is the current US political climate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

McCarthyist?

No arguments as to the USA political climate being in "circensus" mode, but how does that adjective apply?

[Montmorency]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-russia-722205
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-russia-725044

It's pretty tiresome, really. Critics can't settle between downplaying the attacks "because America did bad things", and rejecting the reality of any serious attacks. You can't have both.

Rand Paul is wrong to say that cyber-intrusions into elections are common on the world stage. They will be now though, seeing as the return on investment can be so magnificent.

There's no comparison between favoring one side in a contest and actively working to directly alter the electoral process and results.

And he blames Obama for "not doing more". Places no accountability on Republicans for restraining Obama, nor on Republicans in the two years since to DO SOMETHING with their control of government to maintain election integrity. Not a single Republican can be taken seriously in their occasional mild criticism of the President if they will never back up their words with action.

Nor does Paul do anything to meet the case against the very legitimacy of the party, which is in serious question even compartmentalizing its domestic policies.

The strawman of "engaging even our adversaries" is also a crock. Obama engaged with Putin. Simply standing next to a foreign leader is not engagement. (Obama did that too anyway.) Lavishing a foreign leader with praise is not engagement. From the perspective of government, what has Trump done to "engage with" Putin? What does he plan to do? Unilaterally drop sanctions? Now look at Trump's actions on a more personal level, in the context of his campaign's relationship to Russia. People need to do a better job distinguishing fantasy from reality. Talk is good > we should talk to Russia > Trump literally talked, to Russia > Trump good... is a stupid line of reasoning.

I mean, it's one thing if you are a disingenuous political operative, but regular people don't need to make up silly stories divorced from the actual characters and events involved.


By the way, the problem with McCarthy was that he lied for personal gain and ruined people's lives in the process. There were absolutely Soviet spies throughout US government and society at the time. If you plan to use the label "McCarthyist", you are making an empirical claim about someone. Are the Mueller indictments without basis? Is there no good case for Trump and associates being venal scofflaws?

[AE Bravo]

The hyperbole is reaching levels of insanity I didn't think were possible. There have been news anchors in the country likening Russia's alleged interference to terrorism. By the way, I use the term alleged with deliberate purpose. It is alleged as they have still not been brought to trial and proven to have committed the supposed crimes they are accused of. The majority of politicians are neocons and neoliberals committed to the idea of American hegemony abroad. Some are easy to pinpoint, such as McCain, while most are subtle. There are people who buck the Establishment line that you need to be at war with everybody at once. There are people who do not agree that you should reaffirm your hostile Cold War mentality toward Russia. These people are immediately dubbed Putin puppets, traitors, treasonous and all other manner of empty insults. The hypocrisy by the anti-Russian camp is also astounding. America has interfered in tons of elections. While it's true that two wrongs don't make a right, it's also true that most of the people harping about Russia the most are also the people who support election meddling or regime change. These people are not against interference in principle. They are only against the idea of any challenge to American supremacy.

No issue in recent history has ruthlessly enforced conformity and stopped other perspectives than Trump/Russia. If you depart from the consensus view you're ostracized and this mass hysteria is only getting worse.

[Husar]

I actually agree.
Even though I love to watch shows like the Late Show with Colbert, I cringe a little every time they bring up impeachment about the Russia collaboration. Nothing about that has been proven yet and it is simply wishful thinking at this point.
Similarly agree about the meddling abroad while loathing it at home. It's especially sad when people do it from whom you'd expect better because they always preach love and understanding for minorities etc.

[Montmorency]

The hyperbole is reaching levels of insanity I didn't think were possible. There have been news anchors in the country likening Russia's alleged interference to terrorism. By the way, I use the term alleged with deliberate purpose. It is alleged as they have still not been brought to trial and proven to have committed the supposed crimes they are accused of. The majority of politicians are neocons and neoliberals committed to the idea of American hegemony abroad. Some are easy to pinpoint, such as McCain, while most are subtle. There are people who buck the Establishment line that you need to be at war with everybody at once. There are people who do not agree that you should reaffirm your hostile Cold War mentality toward Russia. These people are immediately dubbed Putin puppets, traitors, treasonous and all other manner of empty insults. The hypocrisy by the anti-Russian camp is also astounding. America has interfered in tons of elections. While it's true that two wrongs don't make a right, it's also true that most of the people harping about Russia the most are also the people who support election meddling or regime change. These people are not against interference in principle. They are only against the idea of any challenge to American supremacy.

No issue in recent history has ruthlessly enforced conformity and stopped other perspectives than Trump/Russia. If you depart from the consensus view you're ostracized and this mass hysteria is only getting worse.

Let me be blunt: if you believe that Russian actions don't matter because America this or America that, we'll have that discussion. If you willfully blind yourself to the reality of what occurred or is occurring because you don't like the people who are talking about it, then rational discussion is precluded. Call it "alleged" to be technically accurate, but acknowledge the scope of the circumstantial evidence. Acknowledge that America has never been put on trial for anything it has done, yet we know many of what its distasteful actions have been because reality is not so rigidly formalistic as that.

Apparently all the CIA would need to do to redeem itself in the eyes of people like Intercept commenters for instance, who I was half addressing with my exasperated post above, is to buy up a couple of national press institutions, push propaganda through them while seizing privileged press information on sources, and wrap it all in the name of "free speech".

[Husar]

Let me be blunt: if you believe that Russian actions don't matter because America this or America that, we'll have that discussion. If you willfully blind yourself to the reality of what occurred or is occurring because you don't like the people who are talking about it, then rational discussion is precluded. Call it "alleged" to be technically accurate, but acknowledge the scope of the circumstantial evidence.

I thought we were talking about the alleged cooperation between Trump and Russia, not the Russian fake news publications, but maybe I'm too tired to read correctly.
I'm not aware that any cooperation was proven so far. There are some hints, but I don't think very strong ones.

[Montmorency]

I thought we were talking about the alleged cooperation between Trump and Russia, not the Russian fake news publications, but maybe I'm too tired to read correctly.
I'm not aware that any cooperation was proven so far. There are some hints, but I don't think very strong ones.

We're talking about any of multiple related aspects of Russian efforts in the United States, including, if you read the latest case I linked to above, an apparent effort to buy or compromise national-level Republian politicians. And it is known that Russia funneled millions through the NRA, and it is a serious question of what the NRA leadership did with that money and knowledge as far as donating to Trump's and others' campaigns.

What "hints" are you aware of on Trump-Russia cooperation? Then we can compare to what I'm aware of.

[AE Bravo]

Sounds like a huge part of this is the failure by the US intelligence community to protect 'democracy.' I don't understand why it's shocking that this happened, or the outrage about what Trump didn't do in a banal press conference.

[Montmorency]

Sounds like a huge part of this is the failure by the US intelligence community to protect 'democracy.' I don't understand why it's shocking that it has been penetrated by a competitor who seeks to reciprocate US actions, given the geopolitical reality.

So you would have wanted the CIA/NSA/whoever to use dirty and violent means to "protect democracy"? Wasn't that one of the most distasteful elements of the American Century? Regardless, our government as a whole should have attended to election security domestically much more assiduously. Ideally it would have been resolved in 2001, but we kicked the can down the bucket, and as with the other things we keep finding out the Russians achieved more than previously thought. (Deadass, if they did modify any voter rolls that would be mildly illegitimate, but the ultimate possible scenario is so dire it can't be discussed in open online spaces.)

It's pioneering unforeseen techniques, up to and including the modification of the election infrastructure through cyber means, and a dystopian level of control over discourse.

The US will probably not have the opportunity to develop these means, which should gratify you. But Russia will continue, as it is doing, to develop them, and this is right up China's alley as well. I hope you like boots stamping on the human face forever!


But let me ask you just this narrow concession, from the narrow perspective of a citizen of the affected country: given what we have learned in the past two years, is it reasonable to desire investigations into our leadership?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... But let me ask you just this narrow concession, from the narrow perspective of a citizen of the affected country: given what we have learned in the past two years, is it reasonable to desire investigations into our leadership?

For myself, I am less concerned with investigating our current leadership (save to determine whether willful collusion occurred) but profoundly interested in securing the mechanics of the election process to prevent tampering by external actors (and minimize tampering by party hacks as well). I do not believe we can entirely prevent, in a free society, some person, nation, or group from attempting to influence and persuade the electorate. I WOULD like to see efforts made to increase the transparency of such suasory efforts and prevent the most egregious efforts by outside actors to damage the electoral process.

[Strike For The South]

Remember kids. Assets don't know they are assets until they are in too deep.

Trumps comments on Montenegro should be the final nail in the coffin. The man knows nothing beyond his vanity and yet can somehow cobble together a coherent, if wrong, statement on the balkans.

yea ok . gif

[rory_20_uk]

For myself, I am less concerned with investigating our current leadership (save to determine whether willful collusion occurred) but profoundly interested in securing the mechanics of the election process to prevent tampering by external actors (and minimize tampering by party hacks as well). I do not believe we can entirely prevent, in a free society, some person, nation, or group from attempting to influence and persuade the electorate. I WOULD like to see efforts made to increase the transparency of such suasory efforts and prevent the most egregious efforts by outside actors to damage the electoral process.

The system in the USA is not fit for purpose.

For the President have a proper plebiscite - and why on earth not? The odd system the USA makes no sense.
Have a proper body undertake voting district boundaries. Ideally at a Federal level but I doubt that would work. And some independent oversight.

And wherever possible remove the whole first past the post approach.

But who would want to fix things when it works so well for the current winners? Make a big noise about external influences to the whole broken edifice and ignore the central issue.

[Montmorency]

At least 70 infants have been ordered to appear in immigration court after being separated from their parents.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At least we all share sentiments on some things, right? Right?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The system in the USA is not fit for purpose.

For the President have a proper plebiscite - and why on earth not? The odd system the USA makes no sense.
Have a proper body undertake voting district boundaries. Ideally at a Federal level but I doubt that would work. And some independent oversight.

And wherever possible remove the whole first past the post approach.

But who would want to fix things when it works so well for the current winners? Make a big noise about external influences to the whole broken edifice and ignore the central issue.

The Founders, for good or ill, did NOT want a plebiscite. They viewed that as unrestrained democracy and a virtual assurance of demagoguery. The point of the Electoral College was to restrain this.

As a practical matter, determining the President through a single at large vote might result in a decrease in effective participation, given that so much of the population is congregated in smaller metro areas. The top 50 cities by population represent 50 million persons of our 300 million. Take into account their 'metropolitan areas' and you have almost half the population covered in just these 50 locations. On a practical political level, operatives would tell most candidates to ignore the rest of the country and cater promises, policies etc. to these more populated areas. The potential for a "city mouse trumps country mouse" sea change would be immense.

For whatever flaws it has, the EC system does, at least to some extent, spread the effort candidates must make in reaching the populace with their message (though this too is imperfect). The classic counter argument is, of course, that FPTP systems for ascribing electors to the college is as bad or worse in that candidates can take a small plurality and potentially win an elector rich state with a narrow vote margin that isn't even a majority in the first place. But the system now extent, particularly with two Senators per state being reflected in both Congress and the EC, was designed and still does serve to retain a greater degree of political significance for the smaller polities which make up the union.


Which is not to say that some things could not and should not be improved.

1) FPTP could be improved without discarding the concept by adopting the approach taken by Louisiana. If the winner wins with a majority of the votes cast, it is concluded. If it is only a plurality of the votes cast, they go to a runoff between the two highest vote getters.

2) The EC could be moved to the system currently in use by Maine and Nebraska, with both Electors that reflect the Senate representation going to the overall FPTP winner in the state, while each Congressional district decides its elector based on the votes in that district.

3) The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is, I agree, abominable. There really should be a federal commission that decides these along the longs of the BRAC commission, operating under the aegis of the FEC. This one just plain sucks, and as Rory suggests it needs to be altered.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The EC as originally designed does just as bad a job at representing the rural areas. The number of electors is influenced by the # of representatives, so the EC is in theory skewed against the rural states who don't really matter compared to the likes of CA and NY.

The reason the rural states even matter at this point is because of the Reapportionment Act of 1929. That was the bill that capped the House at 435 members effectively limiting the ratio that populous states have over the least populous states.
This bill was put into place due to Party politics and is actually against the written word of some of the founders themselves, but it worked at the time to screw over one party and no one has touched it since.

All the EC needs as far as reform is to remove this bill and establish a floating cap that prevents the house from going 1,000+ members but giving the bigger states the proper representation they deserve.
I would suggest the Wyoming Rule since it is straightforward and easy to implement. Under the 2010 census the Wyoming Rule would put the House at 545 members.

I cannot stress enough how much this would relieve current tensions in the electoral system:
* EC becomes more aligned with what the founders envisioned.
* Gerrymandering effects are limited since the increase in the number of representatives means a smaller constituency per representative.
* Ability of the political parties to maintain cohesion is reduced. The house would look more like a multi party chamber, close to the current dynamic between the progressives, centrists, moderates, and freedom caucus but amplified.

I don't think the "metropolitian america" argument holds much water. The inner city is very different than the surrounding suburbs. To call America "urban" just because over 50% of people live close to a city is not at all accurate of the rural influences that suburban America has.

[Husar]

All the EC needs as far as reform is to remove this bill and establish a floating cap that prevents the house from going 1,000+ members but giving the bigger states the proper representation they deserve.

The Bundestag has grown to 709 members since the SCOG demanded that representatives of the parties need to be distributed according to the popular vote. Before that, the CDU would go for a lot of direct candidacies to get more representation there than their actual share of the votes would have given them. Now they get the direct candidates and then have to maintain the share on top of that so the total number of representatives grows in an effort to keep the shares intact. I believe the change was a good thing though, because the old system sounds like it can easily be exploited to get a disproportionate representation.

[drone]

Trump's presidency has highlighted the need to repeal the 17th amendment. His control over the base has left him free of oversight from Congress, as he threatens his own party members with primary actions if they disagree with him. Switching back to senatorial selection by the state governments would remove the populist effect from the equation, leaving at least one house of Congress free to oppose the president without fear of reprisal.

At the start of his term, I was 50-50 on whether he was truly under Putin's influence. Now I'm 100% sure he is fully compromised. And if Trump wasn't so stupid and lazy it could have been worse, imagine someone more subtle, and capable of paying attention during security council meetings.

[Gilrandir]

And if Trump wasn't so stupid

http://time.com/5342602/donald-trump-idiot-google/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

ACIN:

Nice point on the Reapp of 1929.

The founders were interested in a House Rep having the potential to really connect with/rep a constituency. The ever-increasing numbers involved with a fixed Congress does change that. A good point.

Not sure it would be enough with the gerrymandering issue, though it would help.

The potential for independents and a viable if smaller third party would be enhanced.



At the outset of the Republic, each congress critter had about 35k worth of constituents to keep track of. With an average household size of 5.5, that meant keeping track of the needs of roughly 6400 households. Retail politics.
Today, a rep has about 709k persons in 272.7k households or thereabouts.

By comparison, the typical UK member of parliament represents a little under 73k persons. Not quite retail, but certainly not cattle-call politics.

[Strike For The South]

At least 70 infants have been ordered to appear in immigration court after being separated from their parents.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

At least we all share sentiments on some things, right? Right?

Just a constant reminder that what we are witnessing is an attempt to create a permanent underclass of semi legal labor. These numbers may seem small but they have an effect of silencing voices. Doubly so when the administration is so public about it. We are witnessing naked intimidation.

[Tuuvi]

It really frustrates me that no one in the mainstream who is opposed to Trump's immigration policies, that I've seen at least, will dare suggest opening up more avenues for people to immigrate legally so they don't feel compelled to cross the border without papers. I don't understand why we have to kowtow to white nationalists who falsely claim "we're not racist, we just want people to respect the law and immigrate legally" and then talk about ending family based immigration and the diversity lottery as soon as they come into power.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It really frustrates me that no one in the mainstream who is opposed to Trump's immigration policies, that I've seen at least, will dare suggest opening up more avenues for people to immigrate legally so they don't feel compelled to cross the border without papers. I don't understand why we have to kowtow to white nationalists who falsely claim "we're not racist, we just want people to respect the law and immigrate legally" and then talk about ending family based immigration and the diversity lottery as soon as they come into power.

While I am avid in my opposition to illegal immigration, and do want a greater degree of border security, and emphatically agree that penalties need to be ramped way up for those industries/companies who employ illegals and encourage illegal workers,

it IS also true that our current immigration numbers/procedures and especially our guest worker programs are in DRAMATIC need of reworking.

[Strike For The South]

NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE

Having Bolton, Israel, and KSA whispering into your ear leads to crazy late night tweets.

I can't even begin to fathom what a war with Iran looks like, other than a whole bunch of innocents dead.