The Trump Presidency 15

[Aridas]

Not dubalb, and not sure the size of my demographic, but I was a lifelong Republican - about to turn 70 - and right now I would vote for any of the 20 Democratic candidates just to ensure that Trump does not get a second term. Unlike 2016, I will not sit this one out - I learned my lesson.

I predict that once the internecine squabbling is over and a Democratic candidate is selected, Democrats and Independents will coalesce behind them. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Likely so, overall. With that said, not all candidates are equally attractive and politics in an era where extremely rich entities are pointedly working to break the government and reform it in their favor via dishonest means, it's likely unwise to take such for granted.

If you don't vote for the lesser evil, you don't have much business complaining about the greater evil.

Seriously, if you're a progressive or a liberal, if you can’t see the difference between a boring centrist and someone like Trump, you really do deserve him.

That, of course, had been in response to threats of centrists and so called swing voters not voting for progressive candidates, thus causing Trump to win. As dudalb continues to repeat -

Because there are a lot more moderate and centrist out there then hard line progressives...something I know lot of people out here refuse to accept.
But keep it up...you will do a great job getting Trump relelected.

dudalb, of course, ignores facts like 2016: It wasn't Obama-to-Trump voters; It was Obama-to- Stein, and Obama-to-Stayed-Home Voters

Mrs. Clinton’s diminished white support was not primarily a result of Democratic defections to Mr. Trump (the now near-mythical “Obama-Trump voter”). The increase in white support for the third- and fourth-party candidates — from 2012 to 2016 — was greater than the increase for Mr. Trump. In fact, in Wisconsin, he got fewer votes than Mitt Romney received four years earlier, disproving the notion that waves of disaffected Democratic voters swelled the Republican ranks. If everything else holds steady in 2020, and Democrats win back just the Obama-Jill Stein voters, they will take Michigan and Wisconsin.

The number of voters who stayed home in 2016 in Detroit, Milwaukee and Philadelphia was far larger than the margin of Democratic defeat in those states. As people of color become a bigger portion of the voting population, the number of white votes required to win steadily shrinks.

To be clear, though, Trump's a stick that's driving voters to the polls. That's not a carrot, though. Actual enthusiasm for whichever candidate is more a carrot. The issue is NOT one of moderate/centrist versus hard-line progressive. It's more one of getting out the vote in the first place. Boring doesn't get out the vote all that well. If there was a moderate/centrist candidate that was exciting, that would be one thing, but... well, from the words of a centrist...

Centrists pundits and leaders will respond that we can’t win by taking unpopular positions. Pundit Jonathan Chait wrote extensively on this point in a recent opinion piece. He particularly focused on the case of single payer health care. To the progressive response that experience shows that single payer becomes more popular when it is explained to people, Chait wrote this:

“There’s just no reason to believe Democratic arguments in favor of single-payer would persuade more voters than Republican arguments against it.”

This is the truth about many centrists. They are centrist because they don’t believe that they or their party can win an argument with Republicans on a controversial issue, regardless of the merits of their case. And because of that belief, they don’t want to even try. This, of course, makes the belief a reality. It’s a classic self-fulfilling prophesy.

I remember people of a similar mindset telling me in 2008 that Obama couldn’t win because America wouldn’t elect a black man. It’s the same argument. Type of candidate ‘X’ can’t win. So, we won’t run type of candidate ‘X’. So, candidate of type ‘X’ never wins. If primary voters had listened to this electability argument in 2008, we would never have found out what was possible.

I think that centrist makes that point well.

Keep in mind that it is not just a party's own voters that are relevant, but the voters in the opposing party.

Of course. Bear in mind also that right-wing propaganda is going to be representing whoever the Democratic nominee is as an extremist, frequently with brazen lies. And that the MSM is frequently going to back them up as they try to increase their profits.

Did they really think it was going to be different? I mean when did miners interests and mine owners ever align, and which did they think would be better represented?

Yes. When one is desperate, one is more easily fooled. When one is not in a position to spend the time to verify, one is more easily fooled.

That is so... bizarre.

Not really, if one considers who they're actually listening to. As one can also learn from history, though, the people that they're listening to have repeatedly overplayed their hands in their greed and impatience, leading to distinct backlash. They've done more to prepare this time, though, which makes it all the more dangerous.

The last round of tax cuts didn't have the impact on the economy that they had expected,

That's... honestly probably false. The last round of tax cuts almost certainly had exactly the effect that they actually expected. Much like with many other issues, very much including climate change, they know. They either just don't care or they value other things ("economic liberty" in particular) more highly.

They also aren't getting much political benefit from them, since many political polls show that most people disapprove of the tax cut (seeing them as a give-away to the wealthy).

Yeah, I know... the republicans are mainly concerned with helping the rich people anyways, but there's not much you can do to benefit the rich if you lose the next election.

You're likely thinking a bit too much in the short term, still. They aren't getting much political benefit? Sure. Is it actually notably hurting them? Less than you would likely think, given the rest of the factors in play. Is it furthering the view that the government is working for the super rich, not them, and making the population in general more depressed about whether there's anything they can do? Yes, and after an initial surge of unhappiness, the people will be more likely to disengage and give up, further tilting things towards them and allowing more waves of legislation aimed at disempowering the average citizen and empowering the rich people.

 

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that it is not just a party's own voters that are relevant, but the voters in the opposing party.

There have been studies done that show that moderates have more success in elections than extremists, and part of that is due to the fact that an extreme candidate causes the OTHER party's base to become more engaged.

I wholeheartedly agree that an entire generational cycle of political instincts and hard data all say play to the middle to be safe.

We don't live in that era anymore.

What makes you think we don't live in that era anymore?

Look at how dropping "kitchen table" blue collar issues to chase votes in suburbia did last time.

The article I referred to talked about the 2016 election, and rather than being evidence that "extremism works", they pointed out something:

In the last election, Trump campaigned largely as a moderate.

Now, I'm not saying he was a good candidate... he is a lying racist con artist that should be in jail rather than the white house. But consider some of his policies... he claimed to be against foreign wars. (Yes, it was a lie, but it was still what he campaigned on). He claimed to be in favor of LGBT rights. (It was a lie of course, but it was substantially different than other republican politicians.) He was against certain free-trade agreements, again different than many republicans.

If you took his policies and gave them to an honest, non-racist republican (if one of those actually existed), you would probably say "this guy is a moderate".

 

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that it is not just a party's own voters that are relevant, but the voters in the opposing party.

Of course. Bear in mind also that right-wing propaganda is going to be representing whoever the Democratic nominee is as an extremist, frequently with brazen lies.

True, the Republicans will work to paint whomever the Democrats nominate as the next Karl Marx, and Fox News will probably be there to help them. But, some candidates will make it easier than others. It will be easier to paint Sanders as an extremist (because, well, he is an extremist) than it will be to tar Biden the same way.

The last round of tax cuts didn't have the impact on the economy that they had expected,

That's... honestly probably false. The last round of tax cuts almost certainly had exactly the effect that they actually expected. Much like with many other issues, very much including climate change, they know. They either just don't care or they value other things ("economic liberty" in particular) more highly.

You're right... I should have probably said the tax cuts didn't have the impact on the economy that they claimed it would have.

They also aren't getting much political benefit from them, since many political polls show that most people disapprove of the tax cut (seeing them as a give-away to the wealthy).

Yeah, I know... the republicans are mainly concerned with helping the rich people anyways, but there's not much you can do to benefit the rich if you lose the next election.

You're likely thinking a bit too much in the short term, still. They aren't getting much political benefit? Sure. Is it actually notably hurting them? Less than you would likely think, given the rest of the factors in play. Is it furthering the view that the government is working for the super rich, not them, and making the population in general more depressed about whether there's anything they can do? Yes, and after an initial surge of unhappiness, the people will be more likely to disengage and give up, further tilting things towards them and allowing more waves of legislation aimed at disempowering the average citizen and empowering the rich people.

A republican plan to get the population so depressed that it solidifies its base only works if it doesn't cause them to lose elections than they win as a result.

 

[Segnosaur]

Of course the middle is far to the right of Nixon now anyway. No one as liberal as Nixon would have a shot at all.

Not sure if that's exactly correct.

Yes, some aspects of American society has shifted to the right... support for free trade is relatively high among Democratic politicians for example. But other aspects of american society have shifted to the left.

For example, homosexual rights are a lot more accepted now than they were just a few decades ago. (Remember Clinton had the Defense of Marriage act, yet a few presidential terms later and the majority of people think gay marriage is acceptable.)

And the idea of Universal health care is something that wouldn't have been considered in the late 20th century, whereas now most Americans are in favor of it (and just differ on how it should be implemented.)

 

[phiwum]

What makes you think we don't live in that era anymore?

The article I referred to talked about the 2016 election, and rather than being evidence that "extremism works", they pointed out something:

In the last election, Trump campaigned largely as a moderate.

Now, I'm not saying he was a good candidate... he is a lying racist con artist that should be in jail rather than the white house. But consider some of his policies... he claimed to be against foreign wars. (Yes, it was a lie, but it was still what he campaigned on). He claimed to be in favor of LGBT rights. (It was a lie of course, but it was substantially different than other republican politicians.) He was against certain free-trade agreements, again different than many republicans.

If you took his policies and gave them to an honest, non-racist republican (if one of those actually existed), you would probably say "this guy is a moderate".

Er, some of his policies were not traditionally conservative.

Building a wall and his other immigration policies could not reasonably be called moderate. That was his signature issue.

 

[dudalb]

Keep in mind that it is not just a party's own voters that are relevant, but the voters in the opposing party.

There have been studies done that show that moderates have more success in elections than extremists, and part of that is due to the fact that an extreme candidate causes the OTHER party's base to become more engaged.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20677656/donald-trump-moderate-extremism-penalty

Lets say you're a middle of the road republican who voted for Trump in 2016. After almost a full term of Trump, you're OK with some things, but you're tired of the tweeting and the Russian allegations. You see that Biden is the most popular democratic challenger, so you think "He's not too radical, I won't vote for him but I'm not eager enough to vote for Trump either, so I'll sit out the 2020 election." So the Democrats didn't get him to switch, but they at least got him to consider sitting out the election. Then, the Democrats turn around and nominate Sanders instead... all of a sudden, you realize that if you don't vote for Trump, you'll have your health care upended, your taxes increased, etc. So instead of sitting out the election, you willingly trudge to the polls to vote for a guy you're not completely happy about, in order to keep someone you REALLY don't like out of power.

Ir's Sanders I am worried about. I think Warren, if she wins the Nomination, will begin backtracking on Medicare for All in Four Year as soon as she knows she has the nomination locked up,..she's not stupid and I think is a lot more pragmatic then Bernie is but Sanders won't. The guy is a pure ideologue and I suspect hates compromise as much as his right wing foes.
I never got the four year deal anyway. Almost everybody says that is just too short a time span for the total remaking of the US Health Care system. You could pass legislation for some kind of temporary coverage for those uncovered while the details are worked out. No reason for so short a deadline.
I also think the nomination of Sanders will cause someone really well known to come forward as a "centrist" independent candidate,and get on the ballot in most states, but that is another issue.

 

[Aridas]

True, the Republicans will work to paint whomever the Democrats nominate as the next Karl Marx, and Fox News will probably be there to help them. But, some candidates will make it easier than others. It will be easier to paint Sanders as an extremist (because, well, he is an extremist) than it will be to tar Biden the same way.

Mmm. Regarding Sanders, he's only an extremist in a limited, very localized sense. Democratic Socialism isn't remotely an extremist agenda, overall, and is generally wildly misrepresented by too much of the corporate controlled US media. As a reminder, it's been pointed out a fair bit that in much of Europe, he would be counted as something of an unremarkable center left politician (also, not one that would have much chance at highest office, likely). Still, it is true that attacks on Sanders would likely be done differently than Biden. Attacks on Biden will likely focus more strongly on shaving away Democratic enthusiasm with the ample ammunition available than on rallying their base in opposition to him, specifically. They've still got their weak on crime, open borders, baby murdering, gun stealing, etc., etc., etc. false narratives, though. And yes, to repeat Buttigieg again, "It's time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. It's true that we embrace a far left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialist. Let's stand up for the right policy, go up there and defend it."

You're right... I should have probably said the tax cuts didn't have the impact on the economy that they claimed it would have.

Agreed, there.

A republican plan to get the population so depressed that it solidifies its base only works if it doesn't cause them to lose elections than they win as a result.

Minor correction here. It's not a republican plan so much as a libertarian plan. The libertarians who have strategically co-opted the "conservative" label as they pursue an agenda that's nigh opposite to conservation. The Republican party is being used. Again, though, as I had mentioned, these people have a history of getting greedy and overplaying their hands, but they've prepared a lot more this time to blunt the political effects. In fair part, that includes increasing partisanship, especially on the Right. Going further, if the tax cuts for the rich were the only thing, opposition could more meaningfully coalesce. They're not even close to the only thing, though, in this time of constant outrages - outrages that divide focus and energy in so very many different directions. Even if the Democrats DO win, it's not going to be an easy task to 1) Rebuild the government and bring back or replace the huge amount of lost talent, 2) undo or correct the harmful changes that were made - especially the far too numerous ones that have been specifically made to make it harder to undo the harmful changes, 3) restore lost fundamental trust, especially when it comes to any efforts to fix superficially nice sounding but harmful changes (like some of the increased requirements for scientific study before action that were specifically put into place to give corporations more tools to stall regulations), and of course, 4) overcome Republican obstructionism.

 

[Aridas]

Ir's Sanders I am worried about. I think Warren, if she wins the Nomination, will begin backtracking on Medicare for All in Four Year as soon as she knows she has the nomination locked up,..she's not stupid and I think is a lot more pragmatic then Bernie is but Sanders won't. The guy is a pure ideologue and I suspect hates compromise as much as his right wing foes.

I'm not certain that I agree with Sanders being a pure ideologue and hating compromise as much as his right-wing foes... but it's also true that he's not in the... top 5 candidates who I would prefer to win. He's above Biden, but not by too much.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What makes you think we don't live in that era anymore?

Trends across the OECD.

The article I referred to talked about the 2016 election, and rather than being evidence that "extremism works", they pointed out something:



In the last election, Trump campaigned largely as a moderate.



Now, I'm not saying he was a good candidate... he is a lying racist con artist that should be in jail rather than the white house. But consider some of his policies... he claimed to be against foreign wars. (Yes, it was a lie, but it was still what he campaigned on). He claimed to be in favor of LGBT rights. (It was a lie of course, but it was substantially different than other republican politicians.) He was against certain free-trade agreements, again different than many republicans.



If you took his policies and gave them to an honest, non-racist republican (if one of those actually existed), you would probably say "this guy is a moderate".

If you ignore all the clearly ethno-nationalist rhetoric and 19th-century concept of economics and just focus one or two of his most obvious lies, he kinda seemed moderate if you close one eye and squint and tilt your head just so...

 

[Aridas]

If you ignore all the clearly ethno-nationalist rhetoric and 19th-century concept of economics and just focus one or two of his most obvious lies, he kinda seemed moderate if you close one eye and squint and tilt your head just so...

Mmm. I wouldn't argue against the "at least tried to look like a moderate during 2015 and 2016," myself. Those promises not to cut Medicaid and Medicare, for example, unlike every competing candidate despite how Republican voters strongly opposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid overall.

 

[a_unique_person]

[/xhilite]



Well, when you address troops in Iraq and say “everyone is getting a 10% raise because I went to bat for the troops” (and no one gets anything close to a 10% raise) and not lose a single point t in the poles, then you can pretty much announce anything short of turning the country over to Putin and the supporters will eat it up and ask for seconds.

He could boast about being able to go and shoot someone and it not making any difference to his popularity or going up to any woman and being able to grab her by the pussy without it affecting him. Just putting that thought out there. Wait. No. That's literally what happened.

 

[Craig4]

Maybe the military and other agencies play a role in past inaugurations, but my understanding that all that is needed to make a new President is for the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS to administer the oath of office.

Actually, any federal judge can do it.

 

[Aridas]

Ehh, a few bits of random news time.

North Dakota farmer: Trump 'took away all of our markets'

Sounds about right. Related to that, though...

More than half of Trump's farmer aid has gone to the top 10% of farms, and it will likely get worse

A new EWG study confirms what had already been reported: The aid program Donald Trump's team scurried to put in place after Trump's trade wars suddenly left American farmers without buyers for their crops has largely been sucked up by corporate megafarms. Small farms, the ones most in jeopardy from the sudden loss of fought-for markets, are only getting the scraps.

According to the study, more than half of the aid provided by Team Trump's "Market Facilitation Program" has gone to the top 10% of recipients. 82 farms have gotten $500,000 or more; the largest farm has received $2.8 million.

The bottom 80% of aid recipients? They got less than $5,000, on average. That is ... not much.

Rep. Elijah Cummings' Baltimore home burglarized

More information to come tonight, supposedly, but... the timing does make it rather suspicious.

This is Trump's Base: FBI Cites Right-Wing Conspiracy Groups Like QAnon as Domestic Terrorists

The incidence of racial hatred and violence has done nothing but increase during the administration of Donald Trump. In fact, the relationship between hate crimes and Trump is so tightly correlated that one study shows an increase in violence of 226 percent just in the counties where Trump has held a recent rally.

<snip>

"The FBI for the first time has identified fringe conspiracy theories as a domestic terrorist threat [...] It lists a number of arrests, including some that haven’t been publicized, related to violent incidents motivated by fringe beliefs."

<snip>

The report forecasts that "conspiracy theory-driven extremists are likely to increase during the 2020 presidential election cycle." And FBI Director Christopher Wray (a Trump appointee) warned that “a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we've investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence.”

Mmm. It wouldn't even remotely be wrong to say that Democrats are the Party of Decency, these days, by the look of it, especially compared to the Republicans.

 

[a_unique_person]

When can't think of anything else to do, raise tariffs. Or tweet. Whatever.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All this business about what voters want and what they respond to yada yada... it's all meaningless. The 2016 election was all about massive manipulation of beliefs, and I'm not overstating 'massive'.

Read Cyberwar How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect A President : What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know, 2018 by Kathleen Hall Jamieson.

I don't say this lightly or to be preachy. It's shocking even to me who has had a keen interest in political messaging and propaganda since GW beat Gore. You almost have to skim parts of the book because every excruciating detail about how Clinton was demonized is documented. It wasn't normal campaigning or even extreme normal campaigning.

The Russians and their bots and trolls, along with the Trump and his GOP agitators completely snookered half of the voting public. You have to read the book to understand how this wasn't the same old propaganda you believe you know.
Be careful there are a number of books with similar names.

From the Kirkus Review:

Jamieson surveys the damage: Millions of Americans swallowed Russian-generated lies and went at each other even as the “electoral systems of twenty-one states by one count and thirty-nine by another were hacked.” Allowing that it wasn’t Russians but American voters (and the Electoral College) who put Trump in office, the author performs an after-battle analysis of the “social disruption,” with hackers hooking former FBI Director James Comey into reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and even gaming the presidential debates. Jamieson is clear on why the Russians would have targeted Clinton; she is just as clear that the “legacy media” failed in their task and swallowed narrative lines whole—attributing misinformation to WikiLeaks, for one, and not “St. Petersburg,” bypassing any discussion of Russian involvement until well after the fact. Chalking up the knowns and unknowns, the author concludes that by commission on one hand and omission on the other, both of the leading nominees "increased our collective vulnerability to Russian machinations in very different ways”—machinations, she adds, that aren’t likely to stop.

There’s no good news in this book, which both admonishes and forewarns. Somber but necessary reading for those interested in the democratic process and its enemies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When can't think of anything else to do, raise tariffs. Or tweet. Whatever.

Well nanynana, Trump doesn't care if China stops trading with the US altogether. So there.

 

[mgidm86]

Rep. Elijah Cummings' Baltimore home burglarized

More information to come tonight, supposedly, but... the timing does make it rather suspicious.

....

Cummings property (was it his actual home? I know it was property he owned) was burglarized before Trump made any of his Baltimore tweets, so the timing is not suspect.

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — Baltimore Police are investigating after the home of Rep. Elijah Cummings was broken into early Saturday morning.

...

This was several hours before President Donald Trump tweeted criticizing Cummings and his district including Baltimore.

Your link claims it happened after Trump's tweets. Every other article I've read (3) say the opposite.

 

[Aridas]

Cummings property (was it his actual home? I know it was property he owned) was burglarized before Trump made any of his Baltimore tweets, so the timing is not suspect.

Your link claims it happened after Trump's tweets. Every other article I've read (3) say the opposite.

Looking further, the other articles seem to all say home. They also say that the tweets came after, as well, so thank you for that catch.

Incidentally, the Daily Kos link now has this prominently featured -

Editor's Note: The post has been corrected to reflect that the break-in did not happen after Trump’s tweets attacking Cummings. We regret the error.

With that said - that the burglary happened so closely, before or after, certainly does makes it suspicious, bearing in mind that suspicious is not the same as actually blaming anyone.

 

[phiwum]

With that said - that the burglary happened so closely, before or after, certainly does makes it suspicious, bearing in mind that suspicious is not the same as actually blaming anyone.

Since it happened before the tweets, I see no reason for suspicion. You'd have to imagine Trump knowing he was about to start this fight before he did (very unlikely, since he was triggered by Fox News) and the administration paying someone to break in.

This isn't Watergate. This is coincidental.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Since it happened before the tweets, I see no reason for suspicion. You'd have to imagine Trump knowing he was about to start this fight before he did (very unlikely, since he was triggered by Fox News) and the administration paying someone to break in.

This isn't Watergate. This is coincidental.

Agreed.

The after narrative relied only on someone inspired to go after Cummings which would be within the realm of probability. That appears to not be possible at this point.

The before narrative requires a whole woven tale of a planned act and then the tweets as taunts afterwards. Without any kind of proof, it requires taking a dive into the deep end.

I guess we're not all afflicted with TDS after all :9.