Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
Its an imperfect world. Would be great if someone could wave a magic wand and make the problems go away (without introducing all new problems). But until that happens, anyone who supports a known bigot like Trump (or, alternatively, does not support their opponent) is morally culpable for any bigoted policy decisions that result.
Click to expand...
Trump had more than one opponent. Granted that the Democratic one was the only one likely to win. But those who voted for other candidates DID support his opponent. Just not the opponent you preferred.

Yes, some states were solidly democratic or republican so an individual vote wouldn't matter. Of course, a voter should never assume anything, but even if a single vote was unlikely to swing the electoral college in Illinois, I still think there is value in having a higher popular vote count (even if it doesn't contribute to electoral college victory). It stresses to politicians the electorate is less willing to tolerate racism.
Click to expand...
So does increasing the number of third party votes.
I am not really sure.

Legally I think its a non-starter. (I doubt legislation could be crafted that would be constitution that would limit ballots to 2 parties.)

I suspect that if such a law did exist you'd just get more non-voters and spoiled ballots.
Click to expand...
People who would normally vote Republican staying home (or voting third party) helped the Clinton and hurt Trump. People who would normally vote Democrat staying home (or voting third party) hurt Clinton and helped Trump.

I don't think it was apparent at the time that Trump would win. You mention sending a message that a racist will not be tolerated. I get that, and kind of agree with it. But that assumes that that is the only message to send and that that is how it would be perceived. Perhaps "no racists" wasn't the only message voters might want to send. Maybe they wanted to send both that (which could be inferred from any of the three significant non-Trump candidates) and "less government" (Libertarian) or "more environmentalism/social justice" (Green).
 
Belz... said:
Trump and numbers.

Hilarious.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Trump and numbers... how's that stock market doing, Trump? It's somewhat looking like the predictions about how problematic the GOP tax cuts would be for longer-term stability are already starting to be fulfilled.

C_Felix said:
Do you have any idea what brand of cars Democrats are going to be giving to illegals?
Click to expand...

What kind of car was Melania given?

WilliamSeger said:
Rachel Maddow had a segment last night about Republicans who have suddenly realized that healthcare is a big issue, particularly pre-existing condition coverage. It was a series of ads by Republicans promising to protect that coverage, including 2 governors who are still today suing to invalidate the ACA and 5 or 6 congressmen who voted 70 times to kill it. Republicans 2018: the proud party of deceit and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Yeah... That's pretty egregious, there.

TofuFighter said:
Personally, it's really difficult for me to believe that this is your president speaking.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, it's not hard to believe that it's Trump talking. After all, this kind of crap is exactly in line with the expectations of those who were dead set against him. Like me.

TofuFighter said:
It's mind boggling that elected Republicans will stand by and let this happen, and that supporters will blindly accept these utterances.
Click to expand...

Only if one was looking at the Republican Party of the last decade and a half with rose-tinted glasses or a lot of ignorance. Further back, it might have been justifiably a bit mind boggling, but they've been showing their true colors for a fair while, now. The main change when it comes to Trump is that he's not even trying to restrain himself and only employs the flimsiest of excuses.

To switch things up a bit... Will the MSM report on various examples of voting related problems? Here's yet another one. NAACP Files Complaint: Georgia Voting Machines Changing Votes From Abrams to Kemp. Pretty self explanatory, really, and extra suspicious, given Kemp's words and actions so far. Oh, and here's a random anecdotal story as a bonus.

A short diary here from muggy Bangkok, Thailand, where I registered to receive an absentee ballot from my reddish hometown of Frederick, Maryland. The paperwork was emailed and acknowledged as both received and acceptable by the board of elections back in August.

Fast forward to last week, when I got curious about when I would receive that ballot. Luckily, Maryland has an easy way to check the status of your vote online. I pulled up my name, and...nothing. I was labeled an “inactive voter” and had no record of requesting an absentee ballot.

So, I contacted my county registration office, and they confirmed that no request was ever processed in my name. They had no explanation why their previous correspondence acknowledged the receipt of my request. At least, not right away. I sent another date stamped copy of the form I had previously submitted.

A short while later I received a response saying that “the likely reason your original request wasn’t processed was because the form was outdated.” The very form I downloaded from their website and returned back to them within 12 hours. Almost exactly the same form as is currently in use—only two data fields were shifted from the top to the bottom of the form.
Click to expand...



On the general topic of the bombing attempts, of course, the Republican response is actually rather predictable. Some lip service to civility here and there, while in practice they do things like... After CNN evacuation.. Trump Campaign did not even wait two hours before attacking CNN and The Spin Is In: Pro-Trumpers Declare Bombs Were Sent By DNC Operatives As More Threats Discovered.

TomB said:
I don't think it was apparent at the time that Trump would win.
Click to expand...

It wasn't. Everyone should have been treating it as a very real possibility, though, because it was, but many confidently dismissed such.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
Only allowing two parties on a ballot (everything else being equal) is anti-democratic.

Whether it's wise to vote for a particular party or not, in some given circumstance, is an entirely different question.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. But I don't think more firmly entrenching the two major parties we have solves anything. I'd like to see more viable parties, and no party having a majority in Congress. Imagine if our politicians had to compromise and make coalitions like they do in other countries. I think that would filter out some of the damage and polarization created with one-party rule.
 
TomB said:
Completely agree. But I don't think more firmly entrenching the two major parties we have solves anything. I'd like to see more viable parties, and no party having a majority in Congress. Imagine if our politicians had to compromise and make coalitions like they do in other countries. I think that would filter out some of the damage and polarization created with one-party rule.
Click to expand...
But it might also create a situation of constant instability, like it has in Italy, or a situation like Israel, where a very small,extreme party can hold the balance of power.
I am just pointing out that every system has it's faults.
 
TomB said:
Completely agree. But I don't think more firmly entrenching the two major parties we have solves anything. I'd like to see more viable parties, and no party having a majority in Congress. Imagine if our politicians had to compromise and make coalitions like they do in other countries. I think that would filter out some of the damage and polarization created with one-party rule.
Click to expand...
Do you mean 2 parties?

I'm afraid to contemplate the midterms but am already telling myself a story to mitigate the outcome. That is, functionally, Republicans will not remain one party for much longer. The House failed to pass an immigration bill this year because the law-and-order vote conflicted with the pork-for-farm-states vote. IOW farm states did not want E-Verify (not exactly pork, but definitely an economic issue). The impasses have been somewhat eclipsed by higher-profile solidarity (Supreme Court, tax cuts), but the impasses are real, too. They will continue to affect The Wall, possible further tax cuts etc. The toxic aspects of the current GOP brand will pick up steam while a more moderate branch will - I hope - gravitate toward protecting coverage for pre-existing conditions, possible DREAM Act etc., knowing that the world moves on and trying to get the '50s, or the '40s, or the 1850s back is a waste of effort.

So I tell myself.

ETA: I can see maybe you did mean one-party rule. We're not there yet, though. Somehow I think a minority hanging onto power by the skin of its teeth is not a stable proposition. I know a lot of people here disagree, which probably has come out most forcefully as the result of the Kavanaugh nomination process. Some figure we're going to go full Handmaid's Tale. I don't think so. But I'm certainly not taking it for granted that we're not.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
On the general topic of the bombing attempts, of course, the Republican response is actually rather predictable. Some lip service to civility here and there, while in practice they do things like... The Spin Is In: Pro-Trumpers Declare Bombs Were Sent By DNC Operatives As More Threats Discovered.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if Democrats are together enough to hatch a false-flag almost-attack. Whatever the case, the GOP must be green with envy that it didn't think of it first.
 
Minoosh said:
Do you mean 2 parties?
Click to expand...
Yes, and no. I was actually referring to our current situation where one party controls both houses of Congress as well as the presidency. One would hope that in those circumstances, intra-party differences would become more prominent, but instead it's still complete party unity.
I'm afraid to contemplate the midterms but am already telling myself a story to mitigate the outcome. That is, functionally, Republicans will not remain one party for much longer. The House failed to pass an immigration bill this year because the law-and-order vote conflicted with the pork-for-farm-states vote. IOW farm states did not want E-Verify (not exactly pork, but definitely an economic issue). The impasses have been somewhat eclipsed by higher-profile solidarity (Supreme Court, tax cuts), but the impasses are real, too. They will continue to affect The Wall, possible further tax cuts etc. The toxic aspects of the current GOP brand will pick up steam while a more moderate branch will - I hope - gravitate toward protecting coverage for pre-existing conditions, possible DREAM Act etc., knowing that the world moves on and trying to get the '50s, or the '40s, or the 1850s back is a waste of effort.

So I tell myself.
Click to expand...

I have been hoping for one or both parties to implode. Right now, I think the Republican party is most likely to do that with Trump being the catalyst. A lot of people who vote Republican are pro-immigration, even if not for open borders for economic reasons if nothing else. Also, the tariffs, if they keep up, are not good for farmers or the working class. To this point, I think these groups are patient to see how the strategy works out. But at some point that will give out if the strategy does not achieve the desired results and Trump doesn't back down. (Trump never backs down from an idea, not matter how bad.)

I think these and some other issues (race) could very well result in a split in the party. A new party with more socially moderate stances could attract conservative democrats effectively splitting both parties and realigning US politics. Hopefully the remaining fringe (alt-right) will be left and effectively marginalized.

That may be optimistic.
 
Steven Pinker in "Enlightenment Now" makes the case against too much action against the Dems and toward a third party on the basis that gradual change is still effective (he stated the general principle, I'm applying to the discussion about Dems & a 3rd party here).

While gradual change is frustrating because real people aren't getting their needs met, at least a partial improvement doesn't mean that further improvement is foreclosed. In (American) football, you don't try for a long touchdown pass on every play - you just keep chipping away until the odds of scoring are in your favor.

For instance, it's really insane that we don't provide health care for just everyone in the U.S., especially when every other first-world country seems to manage it. But I was in favor of the ACA because it improved health care for millions of people, and we live to fight another day.

ETA: I guess this is getting off-topic, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
There are benefits and drawbacks of a '2 party' system.
Click to expand...

What benefits?

I see only drawbacks.

  • easier to gerrymander
  • unrepresentative and marginalises the majority of voters
  • allows negative campaigning
  • partisanship
  • encourages voter apathy

(not an exhaustive list)

Gerrymandering:
this is a massive problem in the US. Whoever wins the election gets to redraw electoral districts, and give themselves an edge in the next election. The people that draw electoral districts should be independent, or they should be randomly generated to avoid bias (see also keeping the FPTP system which is the root cause of 2 party politics, though that's a whole different thread)

Unrepresentative:
The world isn't black and white. An often used poor debate tactic on this very forum is the false dichotomy. Having to vote red or blue is basically forcing voters to make a choice from a false dichotomy. You might prefer purple or green or yellow, but tough, you get to choose red or blue. Something like 40% of US voters are registered independent, higher than for either of the 2 main parties. Not since 1854 was someone not a republican or democrat elected as president.

Negative campaigning:
If you are only up against one other candidate it's more effective to run negative campaigns that denigrate your opponent. If you are up against multiple candidates it is more effective to campaign positively.

Partisanship:
Partisanship is bad. Politics is *supposed* to be the art of compromise. We have wide ranging views on how a thing should be done, politicians are supposed to find the best possible compromise to please as many people as possible. Today in the US that doesn't happen. Also ties in to negative campaigning. In this very forum posters paint the opposite side as evil terrible people. There are extremists on both sides of the house. There are raving right wing loons and raving left wing loons, and partisanship taken to extremes paints the whole of the other side as the loony fringe. Which is distorted and unhealthy.

Voter Apathy:
If you feel that the parties you can vote for do not represent how you feel, then you are less inclined to go and vote. the less people that vote the less representative the government is (and they can then use dirty tricks, like voter suppression and gerrymandering to try and stay in power, knowing they'll likely get away with it as most voters don't care.

Voter apathy is a terrible thing.

Democracy in the US (and in the UK) is dysfunctional and needs to be fixed.
 
Yet more evidence about how seriously Trump takes National Security.

Trump was warned his phone is being spied on—but refused to take any action

The New York Times now reports that U.S. intelligence officers now know that Chinese and Russian officials have in fact been listening to Trump’s calls—and that Trump refused to change his behavior to prevent it. He is still being spied on even now.

Mr. Trump’s aides have repeatedly warned him that his cellphone calls are not secure, and they have told him that Russian spies are routinely eavesdropping on the calls, as well. But aides say the voluble president, who has been pressured into using his secure White House landline more often these days, has still refused to give up his iPhones. White House officials say they can only hope he refrains from discussing classified information when he is on them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There's a good point made, then.

Can you even begin to imagine the furor that would erupt if any other past government official ever, ever ignored secret intelligence community warnings that their calls were being spied on by multiple foreign powers but let it keep happening, on purpose, because switching to a new phone was too inconvenient? Can you even begin to imagine that? Can you imagine Clinton, Bush, Obama, or even some low-level White House coffee-fetcher doing that, and how many Republicans would go absolutely bald within five minutes from their hair-pulling panic?
Click to expand...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It continues

BREAKING: Justice Department asks Supreme Court to rule businesses can discriminate against workers based on their sexual orientation, gender identity without violating federal law.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily...ent-says-transgender-discrimination-is-lawful
Click to expand...
Harris Funeral Homes. Michigan. Owner Thomas Rost.

Just wanted to get the name of the business out there. It says the person's transition will "distract" mourners :rolleyes:

The Sixth Circuit "also said the company wasn’t protected by a federal religious freedom law, even though Rost said allowing [Aimee] Stephens to continue working would conflict with his Christian beliefs."

Who would Jesus fire?

This seems like such a bonehead move by the Justice Department. The Supreme Court hasn't even decided to take the case, but the Trump administration just has to take a stand in favor of discrimination, and has to publicize it. I wonder if they think that's going to help in the midterms.
 
From NYT the Daily Kos link above:

White House officials say they can only hope he refrains from discussing classified information when he is on them.
Click to expand...

Hey, if the president discloses classified information, it's no longer classified.

Of course it would be a brilliant way to get out misinformation. Imagine having to translate that ****.

ETA: The Daily Kos article quotes the NYT, so I guess that is the NYT's wording.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Workplace discrimination cases are argued under the civil rights act. I don't think a case has been decided on the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I was thinking of the "equal protection under the law" section of the 14th Amendment but I see that applies to federal and state governments, not businesses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom