It CAN Happen Here....

[The Don]

No fire, but lotsa smoke, including a federal settlement agreement and penalty for "routine" money laundering in AC:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ia-money-laundering-banks-oligarchs-manafort/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...f65e4b05c37bb7bbbdb?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/23/is-...crimes-may-be-the-presidents-biggest-problem/
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-taj-mahal/index.html

Exactly, there always seems to be plenty of smoke for the allegations against President Trump, but any fire seems to be gratifyingly/frustratingly (depending on your point of view) difficult to find. Lots of allegations of sexual harassment were made and yet there are no successful convictions. Allegations are made about Donald Trump, or at the very least his campaign, conspiring with the Russians and yet concrete evidence seems to be absent, all we can do is to attempt to join the dots. All kinds of allegations are made about President Trump attempting to obstruct justice but when what he actually said is examined ("I hope you can....") , it proves to be frustratingly ambiguous.

In the U.S. you are innocent until proven guilty. The threshold for criminal guilt is AFAIK "beyond reasonable doubt". Looking at the GOP I think that they will require that level at the very least and probably somewhat beyond (if that's possible) before they will even consider starting impeachment much less actually find him guilty.

Of course it doesn't help that IMO they are running the investigation to ensure that nothing is found.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And the right-wing nuts were sure President Obama was going to institute martial law via Jade Helm 15.

The only thing that endures is that the folks that run around with their hair on fire turn out to be wrong.

Exactly this is no big deal, he is trying to become like Putin not Hitler, so why make a big deal of it?

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're entirely correct, but it doesn't help make the case that Trump is somehow the epitome of evil in two-legged form.

The man is a boor and a fool. There's no telling whether the guy will straighten up and fly right, or implode and resign. I make no representations as to the possibility of the former, but would not be surprised to see the later.

Is he going to wake up in the early morning hours tomorrow and crown himself President for Life? I seriously doubt it. I seriously doubt too many people involved with National Command Authority are very happy with the man or his policies so far.

I hate to try to talk all the ledge walkers out of their head spinning joy at the impending right wing dictatorship, but having seen people do exactly the same thing in anticipation of the coming left wing dictatorships (that have never developed) I feel obligated to point you folks towards some semblance of sanity.

Could you show me how any other president has had such a declared war on objective reality as Trump? He unlike all those other ones you have mentioned really is using the playbook of the politicians he really likes, Putin, Duterte and the like.

His twitter account is now the way to get official on record communications from the white house as he is destroying the white house press pool.

Downplaying his successes in these regards by comparing his actual actions to conspiracy theories does a disservice to the many real successes of this president.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ok, but so far in the US, a vote from a black person matters as much as a vote from a white person. Homogeneity in votes cast matters not at all. The largest group of homogeneous voters where Democrats. They didn't get their candidate elected.

Yes but black people are unfortunately concentrated in states that don't matter. At a base a vote in wyoming is worth 5x one in california. That is how the president could lose by 3 million votes and still win, despite the idea of votes being equal. Face it republicans can not get elected to the white house by winning the most votes, that hasn't happened since what 1988?

Always great to game the system.

 

[ahhell]

Yes but black people are unfortunately concentrated in states that don't matter. At a base a vote in wyoming is worth 5x one in california. That is how the president could lose by 3 million votes and still win, despite the idea of votes being equal. Face it republicans can not get elected to the white house by winning the most votes, that hasn't happened since what 1988?

Always great to game the system.

2004

 

[ponderingturtle]

2004

That is a reelection. It really does seem that republican candidates can not win initial election anymore by winning the popular vote.

 

[lomiller]

By definition a small group....

And by definition a number of different groups

 

[uke2se]

The majority of white women voted for Trump.

Women. Not white women.

 

[Brainster]

That is a reelection. It really does seem that republican candidates can not win initial election anymore by winning the popular vote.

Until Obama in 2008, no Democrat had gotten more than 50.1% of the vote in a non-reelection year since--anybody? anybody? Beuller?--since FDR in 1932.

 

[uke2se]

Until Obama in 2008, no Democrat had gotten more than 50.1% of the vote in a non-reelection year since--anybody? anybody? Beuller?--since FDR in 1932.

We're talking about the popular vote, not the majority vote. Nice try tho.

 

[Brainster]

We're talking about the popular vote, not the majority vote. Nice try tho.

In that same period of time, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush I all received the majority vote in non-reelection years.

 

[uke2se]

In that same period of time, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush I all received the majority vote in non-reelection years.

Yes. Just like ponderingturtle said. Having trouble keeping up?

 

[The Don]

Women. Not white women.

Women are a homogeneous group ?

Personally I'd say that the life experiences and concerns of an upper-middle class, college-educated, black woman growing up in California are quite different to those of a white, working class, high school dropout in one of the "flyover" states and they cannot be considered homogeneous, at least from a political standpoint.

OTOH Trump managed to identify (or they him or a mixture of the two) a very large group of white, lower middle and working class voters with comparatively low educational achievement the majority of whom profess a Christian faith could be considered homogeneous and campaigned towards them.

 

[Minoosh]

Ok, but so far in the US, a vote from a black person matters as much as a vote from a white person.

Doesn't that depend on what state those voters are in?

 

[uke2se]

Women are a homogeneous group ?

As much as white is.

Personally I'd say that the life experiences and concerns of an upper-middle class, college-educated, black woman growing up in California are quite different to those of a white, working class, high school dropout in one of the "flyover" states and they cannot be considered homogeneous, at least from a political standpoint.

OTOH Trump managed to identify (or they him or a mixture of the two) a very large group of white, lower middle and working class voters with comparatively low educational achievement the majority of whom profess a Christian faith could be considered homogeneous and campaigned towards them.

You can find any number of more or less homogeneous groups. White, lower middle and working class voters with comparatively low educational achievement the majority of whom profess a Christian faith can be considered one, but just like with women - another - you can further subdivide it.

 

[The Don]

As much as white is.

Have I claimed that the white electorate as a whole is a homogeneous group ?

You can find any number of more or less homogeneous groups.

True, and Trump seems to have found a particularly large one to appeal to. It seems to have won him the election and it also seems to be continuing to support him in the early part of his Presidency.

One of the many flaws of a first past the post electoral system where there aren't just two candidates is that large groups, even if they aren't a majority, can end up winning even if they don't poll the majority of votes or even win the popular vote where there are individual "constituencies".

Trump or his team could craft a simple message to attract and retain the support of this group. The Democratic Party had a much tougher job. They had to appeal to a large number of different groups which meant that:

• Their message needed to be more complicated
• This in turn was enough to turn off some people, the traditonal Democratic Party voters in coal country preferred the simple "I will get your jobs back" lie to the complicated truth
• A message that appeals to part of your support risks alienating another part. Hillary was too corporate for the Bernie Bros, Bernie would likley have been too socialist for some or many on the right of the Democratic Party

White, lower middle and working class voters with comparatively low educational achievement the majority of whom profess a Christian faith can be considered one, but just like with women - another - you can further subdivide it.

You can, but there seemed to be enough commonality there for them to be marketed to as a single group and Trump did it successfully IMO.

 

[uke2se]

Have I claimed that the white electorate as a whole is a homogeneous group ?



True, and Trump seems to have found a particularly large one to appeal to. It seems to have won him the election and it also seems to be continuing to support him in the early part of his Presidency.

One of the many flaws of a first past the post electoral system where there aren't just two candidates is that large groups, even if they aren't a majority, can end up winning even if they don't poll the majority of votes or even win the popular vote where there are individual "constituencies".

Trump or his team could craft a simple message to attract and retain the support of this group. The Democratic Party had a much tougher job. They had to appeal to a large number of different groups which meant that:

• Their message needed to be more complicated
• This in turn was enough to turn off some people, the traditonal Democratic Party voters in coal country preferred the simple "I will get your jobs back" lie to the complicated truth
• A message that appeals to part of your support risks alienating another part. Hillary was too corporate for the Bernie Bros, Bernie would likley have been too socialist for some or many on the right of the Democratic Party

You can, but there seemed to be enough commonality there for them to be marketed to as a single group and Trump did it successfully IMO.

Even if you are right, and this large group of people all have the exact same circumstances that lead them to vote the same way yet again (which I don't believe - a Virginia coal miner, for example, that doesn't get his job back probably won't vote the same way again, while a jobless schmuck from the midwest might), the group isn't large enough to win elections on its own. Trump relies on partisanship - that republican voters of all kinds crawl to the cross - and that the Democrats can't expand the voter base. Given the normal low turnouts of US elections, there's plenty of room to grow for the Democrats.

 

[The Don]

Even if you are right, and this large group of people all have the exact same circumstances that lead them to vote the same way yet again (which I don't believe - a Virginia coal miner, for example, that doesn't get his job back probably won't vote the same way again, while a jobless schmuck from the midwest might), the group isn't large enough to win elections on its own. Trump relies on partisanship - that republican voters of all kinds crawl to the cross - and that the Democrats can't expand the voter base. Given the normal low turnouts of US elections, there's plenty of room to grow for the Democrats.

I'm not denying any of this, and it is very possible that the Democratic Party will be able to find and field a candidate who can appeal to the various parts of the electoral alliance and win the presidency in 2020.

My point was that although Donald Trump didn't win the popular vote, much less get more than half the votes, IMO the largest single voting bloc got their man elected - which is kinda the way that FPTP tends to work.

BTW, I think that the Virginia miner will vote for Trump again in 2020 unless the Democratic Party candidate comes up with a fundamentally different pitch to the unappealing (albeit accurate) one that Hillary had last year - that to get a job that miner will have to move and/or retrain.

Trump will point to that one coal mine that opened up a month or so ago as evidence that his policies are working (although it had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with a rebound in the price of steel) and that if the Virginia miner keeps the faith, allows the environmental and workers protections to be eroded a little further and taxes to be cut a little more then surely more jobs will follow

 

[Cayvmann]

Trump is making decisions that will have long-term, potentially irreversible consequences. Cutting health insurance coverage for the poor leads directly to deaths. Cutting environmental protections allows damaging effects that could have been prevented. Cutting taxes for the richest people in the country increases deficits and reduces money available for all programs. Putting right-wing jurists on the Supreme Court shapes the laws for generations. Etc., etc.

Trump isn't doing those things (by himself). (Most of) Those things will require the legislators to enact.

If we just keep blaming the president then the real culprits will continue to get away with this crap. The president might be for all of these things, but has no power to change laws.

 

[Bob001]

Trump isn't doing those things (by himself). (Most of) Those things will require the legislators to enact.

If we just keep blaming the president then the real culprits will continue to get away with this crap. The president might be for all of these things, but has no power to change laws.

A lot of day-to-day government activity is the result of regulatory decisions by cabinet and lower officials that don't require legislative approval at all. Tillerson is gutting the State Dept. Jeff Sessions is cutting back on investigating voter intimidation and police misconduct, but increasing prosecution for minor drug crimes. Homeland Security has changed its priorities about who gets deported. The EPA is run by a guy who doesn't believe in global warming and is reducing environmental protections. Etc., etc. The laws already gives the President enormous powers in many areas. And that's apart from all the federal judges he will be able to appoint, rubberstamped by a Republican Congress.