Trump Thread

[Kralizec]

The GOP base, most of whom are NOT rich but advocate/adhere to "country mouse" values were staunchly against the ACA. The Tax Reform bill is likely to be popular as well, at least among the GOP base.

The GOP establishment Pols have trouble with Trump because of his asshat behaviors. They are deeply worried that, while picking up points with Trump base for supporting some of the policies on immigration and the like, Trump will undercut all their support with an asinine tweet just before the vote is taken -- Trump loves inflammatory messages and none of the GOP establishment want to pay the price for Trump's outrage de jour.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'country mouse'. No argument on the popularity of tax cuts, although personally the one currently proposed seems like a terrible idea and not fiscally conservative by any stretch of definition. Repealing the individual mandate while keeping the protection against prior conditions is just a recipe for disaster and might just cause the implosion of Obamacare that some conservatives have been rooting for.

The GOP told their voters that Obamacare sucked for years, and then Trump came along with the promise of replacing it with something entirely better. 'Better' is subjective, but he clarified repeatedly that he would deliver tremendous quality and excellent coverage. Every proposal he has backed so far would have led to lesser coverage.

Point being, Trump has promised things that no conventional Republican would have. You noted that there are a good amount of people who would have backed Bernie instead of Trump if given the chance. But in my impression he's governing in a pretty mainstream Republican way, his populist rants and doubtful competence notwithstanding. Hence, the rants and the tweets serve as a useful distraction for people who'd gladly have supported someone like Bernie on issues of policy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'country mouse'. No argument on the popularity of tax cuts, although personally the one currently proposed seems like a terrible idea and not fiscally conservative by any stretch of definition. Repealing the individual mandate while keeping the protection against prior conditions is just a recipe for disaster and might just cause the implosion of Obamacare that some conservatives have been rooting for.

The GOP told their voters that Obamacare sucked for years, and then Trump came along with the promise of replacing it with something entirely better. 'Better' is subjective, but he clarified repeatedly that he would deliver tremendous quality and excellent coverage. Every proposal he has backed so far would have led to lesser coverage.

Point being, Trump has promised things that no conventional Republican would have. You noted that there are a good amount of people who would have backed Bernie instead of Trump if given the chance. But in my impression he's governing in a pretty mainstream Republican way, his populist rants and doubtful competence notwithstanding. Hence, the rants and the tweets serve as a useful distraction for people who'd gladly have supported someone like Bernie on issues of policy.

Well, the rants certainly get the political left in the USA up in arms about him. All the nattering about impeachment and using the 25th amendment is a waste of breath unless Muller develops clear evidence of Trump being naughty, so the more the lefties rant about such the less they are doing substantively. Perhaps that is the goal, assuming Trump is actually planning anything in the first place.

"County mouse" is a reference to the old city mouse/country mouse story. As is true with many polities, the USA is readily characterized by whether they live in an urban area (solidly big govt. liberal/social dem) or semirural/rural areas (which trend strongly toward social and economic conservatism and traditional values). The urbanites sneer at the backwards, undereducated bucolic hicks who are clearly out of touch with social justice and anything that really matters, while the ruralists deride the urbanites as over-educated drones who do not understand real work and want everyone suckling the big teat of government rather than standing on their own merit (yes, I am stereotyping a bit here).

England follows this pattern as well, esp. if you look at the Brexit vote in England itself.

[Montmorency]

All the nattering about impeachment and using the 25th amendment is a waste of breath unless Muller develops clear evidence of Trump being naughty, so the more the lefties rant about such the less they are doing substantively.

The fear is that evidence is irrelevant.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The fear is that evidence is irrelevant.

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

[Montmorency]

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

Does it though?

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...t-record-high/

Attempts by Trump world, Fox News, and other affiliated interests to try to turn the Russia news back onto Hillary Clinton have had some effect. A month ago we found that among Trump voters 41% thought Russia wanted Clinton to win the election last year, to 29% who thought it wanted Trump to win. Now that’s up to 56% who think Russia wanted Clinton to win and just 18% who grant that it wanted Trump to win.

That’s part of a general pattern when it comes to Trump voters and the Russia story. Only 7% believe that members of Trump’s campaign team worked in association with Russia to help him win the election, to 83% who don’t think that happened. And even if collusion is proven they don’t care- just 11% think Trump should resign if that’s the case to 79% who believe he should remain in office. 75% dismiss the entire Russia story as ‘fake news,’ to 13% who disagree with that assessment. This poll was conducted mostly after the news that indictments were coming was out, but before the actual indictments were released.

Even if Republican Congress-people went along with impeachment, the Republican base would reject it.

Now - and there are just so many differences between the Trump case and the Nixon case, between Trump's America and Nixon's America - I'll just mention that Nixon by the end had the approval of only about ~50% of Republicans. Trump has held strong in the 80s since inauguration.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does it though?

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...t-record-high/



Even if Republican Congress-people went along with impeachment, the Republican base would reject it.

Now - and there are just so many differences between the Trump case and the Nixon case, between Trump's America and Nixon's America - I'll just mention that Nixon by the end had the approval of only about ~50% of Republicans. Trump has held strong in the 80s since inauguration.

That is because the Trump base is not gonna buy into pretty much any of the media coverage about Trump being worthy of impeachment. We have no Butterfield revealing that it was all taped...and it takes that level of hard evidence to successfully remove a President.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think Nixon demonstrates that clear evidence of first person involvement in a cover-up or the like, however difficult to get, would get the job done.

Even with the evidence, Nixon's party was absurdly loyal to him.
The Republican committee votes on articles of impeachment were as follows:

64% (11/17) voted he did not obstruct justice.
59% (10/17) voted he did not abuse his power.
88% (15/17) voted he did not hold Congress in contempt.
100% (17/17) voted he did not falsify records regarding bombing of Cambodia. (Didn't the Pentagon Papers show this???)
100% (17/17) voted he did not fail to pay taxes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even with the evidence, Nixon's party was absurdly loyal to him.
The Republican committee votes on articles of impeachment were as follows:

64% (11/17) voted he did not obstruct justice.
59% (10/17) voted he did not abuse his power.
88% (15/17) voted he did not hold Congress in contempt.
100% (17/17) voted he did not falsify records regarding bombing of Cambodia. (Didn't the Pentagon Papers show this???)
100% (17/17) voted he did not fail to pay taxes.

Certainly he had his supporters right up to the end, and political parties always engender/reward loyalty to party, sometimes even when unwarranted (one of the reasons GW loathed them). There were even people genuinely sobbing during his "farewell" speech. But your numbers also indicate that, where evidence was clear, even a third of his own party would not vote in his favor in the committee, knowing full well that their vote would make it a bipartisan vote for impeachment.

The Pentagon Papers were all material Ellsberg had access to prior to 1968 prior to the Nixon administration entirely. There was no indication that Nixon's folks falsified anything about bombings outside of Vietnam. In fact, Nixon had made public declarations that such would occur. On Kissinger's advice, Nixon DID seek to discredit Ellsberg so as to preserve the "secrecy" tools of the Presidency as a whole. Nixon's tactics in this, however, were covered under obstruction of justice and abuse of power (which they were).

Nixon's resignation was the only valid choice for him. The full HoR would have voted to impeach on the first three articles had it gone to a vote and it was already clear that the Senate would've convicted on at least the first two.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fun side note. Having more-or-less endorsed Roy Moore despite the allegations from Moore's past, Trump can now revel in the fact that he isn't the only one supporting Moore.

Link We now have Steve Bannon appearing with Judge Moore in his Alabama campaign.

I swear, if I submitted the last two years of Trump's life and the people and events swirling around him as a plot for a novel it would have been rejected as too implausible to be sold to anyone not already wearing tinfoil hats and stocking unhybridized seeds.

[Montmorency]

I'm tempted to say something, but instead let's have a humor-break:

An unnamed Indian diplomat told Bobby Ghosh, the editor-in-chief of the Hindustan Times: "We regard Ivanka Trump the way we do half-wit Saudi princes. It's in our national interest to flatter them.”

He later added: “Yes, it is a shame that the US should be compared to a kingdom. But that is America's shame, not Modi's, or India's.”

Good enough for an Indian reboot of Yes, Minister.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Certainly he had his supporters right up to the end, and political parties always engender/reward loyalty to party, sometimes even when unwarranted (one of the reasons GW loathed them). There were even people genuinely sobbing during his "farewell" speech. But your numbers also indicate that, where evidence was clear, even a third of his own party would not vote in his favor in the committee, knowing full well that their vote would make it a bipartisan vote for impeachment.

The Pentagon Papers were all material Ellsberg had access to prior to 1968 prior to the Nixon administration entirely. There was no indication that Nixon's folks falsified anything about bombings outside of Vietnam. In fact, Nixon had made public declarations that such would occur. On Kissinger's advice, Nixon DID seek to discredit Ellsberg so as to preserve the "secrecy" tools of the Presidency as a whole. Nixon's tactics in this, however, were covered under obstruction of justice and abuse of power (which they were).

Nixon's resignation was the only valid choice for him. The full HoR would have voted to impeach on the first three articles had it gone to a vote and it was already clear that the Senate would've convicted on at least the first two.

My concern is that the Republican Party of today is more entrenched in party loyalty than those of Nixon's era. Today we can only rely on a handful of Senators being at best 'maybe no' for these rushed, pork laden bills that are being pushed through.

I must have been mixing up my dates for the Pentagon Papers, that's my mistake.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My concern is that the Republican Party of today is more entrenched in party loyalty than those of Nixon's era. Today we can only rely on a handful of Senators being at best 'maybe no' for these rushed, pork laden bills that are being pushed through.

I must have been mixing up my dates for the Pentagon Papers, that's my mistake.

It is easily done. The Pentagon papers DID come to light during Nixon's first term and he did authorize/encourage illegal activities to discredit Ellsberg. For all his many faults though, it was not Nixon who distorted evidence to encourage our huge ramp up of effort in Vietnam or lie about most of the cross border activities.

[HopAlongBunny]

Flynn flipped? NVM, that just proves the FBI is not only corrupt but just like the KGB.
Fox is going full bat-poop on this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...Mueller/218781

Mueller shouldn't be fired, he should be locked up!
Because that just makes sense

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Flynn flipped? NVM, that just proves the FBI is not only corrupt but just like the KGB.
Fox is going full bat-poop on this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...Mueller/218781

Mueller shouldn't be fired, he should be locked up!
Because that just makes sense

Just remember that mediamatters has their own axes to grind.

[HopAlongBunny]

Just remember that mediamatters has their own axes to grind.

Yup.
I used it because it gave a nice compact overview of the rage machine in motion.
Fox really is losing it's mind on this; corruption? comparable to the KGB?; is trying to actively subvert confidence in law and order!?

[Montmorency]

Yup.
I used it because it gave a nice compact overview of the rage machine in motion.
Fox really is losing it's mind on this; corruption? comparable to the KGB?; is trying to actively subvert confidence in law and order!?

Radical Republicans always project.

In their mindset, if someone is punished, then they are bad and guilty of wrongdoing. If someone suffers no consequences for the same acts, then they must be good and innocent of all charges. They accuse others of their own crimes in order to absolve themselves.

Pretty sick.

[Kralizec]

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

“You could say that about America, couldn’t you? We promote a lot of bad things.” he said, about Reagan's comments on the USSR being an evil empire.

Sounds like a fairly unpatriotic thing to say in my opinion, but I never understood US republicans that well anyway.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

“You could say that about America, couldn’t you? We promote a lot of bad things.” he said, about Reagan's comments on the USSR being an evil empire.

Sounds like a fairly unpatriotic thing to say in my opinion, but I never understood US republicans that well anyway.

Roll Tide!

[Strike For The South]

Roy Moore is quite a character. Even if you discard the sexual allegations, I can't fathom why anybody raised in a western society would vote for the guy.

Because the democratic party could fall into a barrel of tits and come out sucking their thumb.

It is unfathomable to me that the DNC somehow still does not understand that outside money, outside support, and leading from the national level hurts them in these races. The republicans figured out long ago that the national HQ funnels money into a "canidate X for state Y" fund.

The Georgia 6 was a great example of this. John Osoff was exactly the kind of Bougie, antiseptic transplant that local people have been "Warned" about for years. He ended up not being able to win a district filled with antiseptic transplants.

The democrats can't be afraid to attack either. I have never seen a bigger group of pearl clutching Marys in my entire life. Roy Moore is an unfit candidate with a perchant for young girls, bang that drum until it breaks.

The Jones campaign has also done a pretty freaking terrible job of reaching out to black people by running some hilariously tone deaf ads.

Also being Jewish has come back in a big way but that is a whole nother thread.

[Kralizec]

Because the democratic party could fall into a barrel of tits and come out sucking their thumb.

It is unfathomable to me that the DNC somehow still does not understand that outside money, outside support, and leading from the national level hurts them in these races. The republicans figured out long ago that the national HQ funnels money into a "canidate X for state Y" fund.

The Georgia 6 was a great example of this. John Osoff was exactly the kind of Bougie, antiseptic transplant that local people have been "Warned" about for years. He ended up not being able to win a district filled with antiseptic transplants.

The democrats can't be afraid to attack either. I have never seen a bigger group of pearl clutching Marys in my entire life. Roy Moore is an unfit candidate with a perchant for young girls, bang that drum until it breaks.

The Jones campaign has also done a pretty freaking terrible job of reaching out to black people by running some hilariously tone deaf ads.

Also being Jewish has come back in a big way but that is a whole nother thread.

Fair enough I suppose. There were quite a few republican candidates in the Alabama primary though, yet they settled for an extremist who was kicked off the Alabama supreme court twice for deliberately ignoring the law. You can't explain that by saying the democrats are useless

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Strike is certainly on point when it comes to Alabama. The state has been staunchly GOP for quite some time now. Moore handed them their best hope of a win in who knows how long, and they really need to plunge that one in to the hilt.

I am not as sure that the Dems are quite as out of touch as he suggests, VA this time around had a lot more "grass roots" level stuff by the Dems and less national level focus and they held onto everything they already had and made some gains.

On the whole though, keeping it local is what works in most US elections.

[Hooahguy]

Reports of potential voter suppression in Alabama:

Dechauna Jiles was excited to cast a ballot on Tuesday for Democratic Senate candidate Doug Jones. She said her parents grew up two blocks from the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, which was bombed by the KKK during the civil rights movement, and it would be a dishonor to her family to not vote in this election.

But when she arrived at her polling place, the First Assembly of God Church, on Tuesday morning, Jiles was told that she was “inactive” on the rolls and would have to cast a provisional ballot — a ballot that will not be counted unless she is able to verify her voter information.


“That makes no sense,” she told ThinkProgress, explaining that the poll workers told her she’d have to drive to another precinct to update her information, even though she voted here last November.


“It’s not that we’re not showing up to vote — we’re being suppressed,” Jiles said. “[Roy Moore, the Republican nominee] is going to win, not because our people didn’t speak, but because our vote was suppressed.”


Jiles said she witnessed at least six other voters also being forced to vote provisional, and reports on Twitter indicate the issue is more widespread than just this one polling location.


“I wasn’t the only person that got turned away,” she said.

History may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Reports of potential voter suppression in Alabama:

History may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

A recurrent problem. Mostly it is a person who has "always" gone to the polls there whose polling place has been changed and since they only vote infrequently they didn't pay attention. Sometimes, people are taken off the list for various reasons, and sometimes those taken off are done so by party officials who are trying to suppress some perceived voter group.

Our system is not perfect. But at least most states are preserving your right not to have a voter card or need to present ID to vote.

[CrossLOPER]

Reports of potential voter suppression in Alabama:



History may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.

Kiddy-fiddler lost.

[Hooahguy]

Oh thank the gods. Alabama for once in my life did not let everyone down.

[Montmorency]

Oh thank the gods. Alabama for once in my life did not let everyone down.

Thank you Black America.



Roy Moore may seek recount. Inconveniently, the conservative Alabama Supreme Court at the last minute stayed an injunction to retain electronic ballots for recount. ha ha?

[drone]

Roll Tide.

[HopAlongBunny]

Good news for the Dems: they took an election in a deep red state that hasn't elected a Democrat in 25 years!
Bad news: Not every Dem will be facing trainwreck like Roy Moore in the mid-terms.

Well, a win is a win is a win; sure, but the narrow margin shows that a lot of work remains to be done.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/roy-moo...sult-1.4445530

[Kralizec]

The reason I originally endorsed Luther Strange (and his numbers went up mightily), is that I said Roy Moore will not be able to win the General Election. I was right! Roy worked hard but the deck was stacked against him!

Trump initially endorsed Luther Strange,
Luther Strange lost and so Trump deleted his tweets in his support.

Trump endorsed Roy Moore,
Roy Moore lost and so Trump wants credit for supporting Strange in the first place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump initially endorsed Luther Strange,
Luther Strange lost and so Trump deleted his tweets in his support.

Trump endorsed Roy Moore,
Roy Moore lost and so Trump wants credit for supporting Strange in the first place.

And you find this behavior in a politician strange why? Seems to be more of the usual "have/eat cake" efforts I am familiar with from most pols.