The Trump Presidency: Part 18

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wonder if Trump really thinks there's nothing wrong in that phone call transcript, or if he thinks there is, and that he can gaslight the entire world about it.

Both would be in-character.

Pretty sure he's into the gaslighting himself stage.

 

[Belz...]

Pretty sure he's into the gaslighting himself stage.

He's really in his 'crazy grandpa off his meds' stage.

 

[Ambrosia]

Unless there is a significant economic downturn before the election, I think President Trump's reelection prospects are comfortably more than 50% because:

• Incumbents tend to get reelected unless something exceptional happens during their tenure and/or they are running against an exceptional candidate
• President Trump's support is more or less exactly where it was when he was elected
• The Democratic candidates are old and relatively uninspiring IMO
• The Republicans are making extraordinary efforts to try as suppress the Democratic Party vote
• Left-leaning third party candidates will poach support from the Democratic Party

Not going to happen.

i) this incumbent is having something exceptional happen during their term. (impeachment)
ii) exactly. And last time he was running against HC AND lots of Dem voters were thinking it'd maybe be a good time to vote 3rd party as a result of HC's poliing being waaaaay ahead.
iii) maybe so, but none of them are HC (see ii)
iv) they will always do that anyway
v) not in nearly as many numbers as last time.

Lets not forget Trump won the presidency by a *really*narrow margin in 3(?) key states. I just can't see his base carrying him to victory. Yes he's *really* popular with his MAGA base, but that's not enough numbers.

Short of the Dem candidate doing something major league terrible during the campaign Trumps going to fall short I think. I find it already scary enough that he has as much support right now as he does.

If the GOP ditch Trump before the election for whatever reason (impeachment or some other tipping point where the Republicans finally turn on him in numbers) then I think the GOP will win. I can't see them getting there with Trump though.

 

[Segnosaur]

Not going to happen.
Lets not forget Trump won the presidency by a *really*narrow margin in 3(?) key states. I just can't see his base carrying him to victory. Yes he's *really* popular with his MAGA base, but that's not enough numbers.
...
If the GOP ditch Trump before the election for whatever reason (impeachment or some other tipping point where the Republicans finally turn on him in numbers) then I think the GOP will win. I can't see them getting there with Trump though.

I agree that between the narrowness of Trump's 2016 win, the and his inability to expand beyond his bigoted base means that the likely result is a Trump loss.

However, I do have to disagree with your suggestion that republicans could win if they ditch Trump. I figure the Republicans have become the "party of Trump", and while some people will vote along party lines regardless of who the candidate is, I figure enough voters will see republican politicians turning on Trump as a personal attack on them and their principles that it will turn a probable narrow defeat into a slaughter.

 

[smartcooky]

What's really weird is that it could be both. The insane can believe contradictory things at the same time.

and so can conspiracy theorists.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree that between the narrowness of Trump's 2016 win, the and his inability to expand beyond his bigoted base means that the likely result is a Trump loss.

However, I do have to disagree with your suggestion that republicans could win if they ditch Trump. I figure the Republicans have become the "party of Trump", and while some people will vote along party lines regardless of who the candidate is, I figure enough voters will see republican politicians turning on Trump as a personal attack on them and their principles that it will turn a probable narrow defeat into a slaughter.

Yea they are just too tied into Trump now to distance themselves from him in a year. By 2024 things might be different but they are the Party of Trump more than they were the party of W 16 years ago.

 

[smartcooky]

Not going to happen.

i) this incumbent is having something exceptional happen during their term. (impeachment)
ii) exactly. And last time he was running against HC AND lots of Dem voters were thinking it'd maybe be a good time to vote 3rd party as a result of HC's poliing being waaaaay ahead.
iii) maybe so, but none of them are HC (see ii)
iv) they will always do that anyway
v) not in nearly as many numbers as last time.

Lets not forget Trump won the presidency by a *really*narrow margin in 3(?) key states. I just can't see his base carrying him to victory. Yes he's *really* popular with his MAGA base, but that's not enough numbers.


Short of the Dem candidate doing something major league terrible during the campaign Trumps going to fall short I think. I find it already scary enough that he has as much support right now as he does.

If the GOP ditch Trump before the election for whatever reason (impeachment or some other tipping point where the Republicans finally turn on him in numbers) then I think the GOP will win. I can't see them getting there with Trump though.

States in which many of the people who are likely to have voted for him are now hurting badly from his ill-advised trade and agricultural policies.

The thing that must really be worrying GOP is not just that fact that they have lost these recent elections in Kentucky and most especially, in Virginia where both houses flipped to blue for the first time in 25 years - its the way and the where of how they lost them... in the suburbs. That is an area that mostly supported Trump in 2016, and they have swung hugely against them in 2019.

The 2020 election could well be decided by the suburban working mums of America, people whose focus is on things like healthcare and the the future well being of their children. Its also worth keeping mind that, as in with any election, there is a demographic of voters coming that didn't vote in the last election - people who have reached voting age.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

States in which many of the people who are likely to have voted for him are now hurting badly from his ill-advised trade and agricultural policies.

The thing that must really be worrying GOP is not just that fact that they have lost these recent elections in Kentucky and most especially, in Virginia where both houses flipped to blue for the first time in 25 years - its the way and the where of how they lost them... in the suburbs. That is an area that mostly supported Trump in 2016, and they have swung hugely against them in 2019.

The 2020 election could well be decided by the suburban working mums of America, people whose focus is on things like healthcare and the the future well being of their children. Its also worth keeping mind that, as in with any election, there is a demographic of voters coming that didn't vote in the last election - people who have reached voting age.

At the same time, recall that courting votes in the suburbs at the expense of blue collar workers (and specifically in the rust belt) was part of what sank us.

 

[smartcooky]

... and speaking of flipping, there is an interesting story that came out of Virginia

Two years ago Juli Briskman, a former government contractor flipped the bird at Trump's presidential motorcade as it was heading to the Trump National Golf Club.

This photo of her act went viral, and she was fired from her job.

Well now, Briskman has been elected on a Democratic ticket to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. Briskman will be involved in legislating on things that happen in Loudon County, and one of the things in that county is Trump National Golf Club!

Wee Hee!!

 

[smartcooky]

At the same time, recall that courting votes in the suburbs at the expense of blue collar workers (and specifically in the rust belt) was part of what sank us.

Then the lesson is clear, don't just court those votes, court them all.

Blue collar workers and suburban soccer moms are not mutually exclusive demographics.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then the lesson is clear, don't just court those votes, court them all.

Blue collar workers and suburban soccer moms are not mutually exclusive demographics.

And of course promise them crazy things that are impossible and make no sense that is what wins over the blue collar worker. Practical plans are for losers. They demand villains to blame (lazy Mexicans who stole their job(and yes being lazy and job stealing is quite the feat)) and vague promises of returns to times that technology changed decades ago. That is the way to win the blue collar vote.

 

[Ambrosia]

I figure the Republicans have become the "party of Trump", and while some people will vote along party lines regardless of who the candidate is, I figure enough voters will see republican politicians turning on Trump as a personal attack on them and their principles that it will turn a probable narrow defeat into a slaughter.

You might be right, it's certainly something I would *love* to see.

I live in the UK, but for a racist, incompetent, corrupt, elitist candidate to get not only his own vote, but that of his party absolutely slaughtered at the ballot box, when they are trying every dirty trick to win. That would go a long way, I think, for candidates of a similar type in other democracies to think twice.

 

[Bob001]

....
Well now, Briskman has been elected on a Democratic ticket to the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors. Briskman will be involved in legislating on things that happen in Loudon County, and one of the things in that county is Trump National Golf Club!

Wee Hee!!

More here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...aa11dc-003d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...935920-017c-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

 

[I Am The Scum]

It's not bribery either, where you are given something of value to do something for someone.

It absolutely is bribery.

... being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks,
receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in
return for:
being influenced in the performance of any official act...

There is no statute for "attempted bribery." Once you make the request, you're guilty, regardless of how the other person responds.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's all of that. Quid pro quo simply means "this" for "that". A sale is a quid pro quo. A barter is a quid pro quo. A bribe is a quid pro quo. Extortion in all it's forms is a quid pro quo. I won't tell your husband you slept with me if we have a threesome with your girlfriend, is a quid pro quo.

Precisely.

Often when invoking the quid pro quo, the problem is not that a discernible exchange took place (as you point out, it might be a totally lawful commercial exchange). The problem version is when a political figure receives "this" and...there is no "that" directly connected to it. This makes people wonder what the "that" is and what form it comes in.

Basically they have two choices, either disclose the entire exchange so that constituents/voters can be informed about how they behave or try to hide it and face the legal consequences.

We can easily connect dots on bribery these days, but it's not "illegal" because they disclose it. It's shady as hell and sucks, but the alternative is to drive illicit activity like that back underground where we can't see it.

We, the voters, are supposed to be the enforcement mechanism for that.

 

[portlandatheist]

The sour grapes of the close ( but not close enough candidate to win the primaries) could do us in again

 

[Dr. Keith]

It absolutely is bribery.


There is no statute for "attempted bribery." Once you make the request, you're guilty, regardless of how the other person responds.

And bribery is a separately listed reason for impeachment that does not rely on "high crimes or misdemeanors", which American voters have a hard time understanding.

Everyone understands what bribery is. The definition is simple and does not require interpretation or history lessons. Public official seeks anything of value personally in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act. If Trump has taught us anything it is to keep it simple.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The sour grapes of the close ( but not close enough candidate to win the primaries) could do us in again

I think the first time Tump ran Dems thought that they had the luxury of a protest vote. They were wrong.

Also, the policy difference between Hillary and Sanders was likely greater than the difference between Obama and Bush. Now, the party has moved to adopt a lot of Sanders's ideas, so there will not be as many voters who won't be able to vote for the Dem nominee because they don't see universal healthcare as a basic right.

 

[The Man]

Trump Tweets

Why is such a focus put on 2nd and 3rd hand witnesses, many of whom are Never Trumpers, or whose lawyers are Never Trumpers, when all you have to do is read the phone call (transcript) with the Ukrainian President and see first hand?

I wonder if Trump really thinks there's nothing wrong in that phone call transcript, or if he thinks there is, and that he can gaslight the entire world about it.

Both would be in-character.

You'll Trump writes...

"I will be releasing the transcript of the first, and therefore more important, phone call with the Ukrainian President before week’s end!"

Hilite added

So probably not even the same call.

 

[phiwum]

You'll Trump writes...

"I will be releasing the transcript of the first, and therefore more important, phone call with the Ukrainian President before week’s end!"

Hilite added

So probably not even the same call.

Definitely not. He's referring to an earlier call, which will somehow prove there was no quid pro quo in the later call. Maybe in the earlier call, he mentioned corruption in general and so it's all good or something.

The only reason why the first call is more important than the second is, I presume, that it's more innocent and hence proves Trump was clear as the driven snow on the second call too.