The Trump Presidency VII

[Aridas]

How is it possible to cast multiple votes against Trump/Republicans in the upcoming elections?

I'm asking for a friend.

Talk to the people around you. Find which ones weren't going to vote. Convince them to vote. Multiple votes!

 

[Craig4]

WHy would you want a bigot for a friend?

And I think Trump has sort of maxed out the Bigot vote. Very few votes to get there he has not already got.

And they are background noise. The failed genetic experiments and products of incest who go to his rallies are just there and there's no point in courting them. What's in play is a small part of the electorate who vote the lesser of two evils. You've got to push them just a bit, like about three percentage points to see Trump as the greater of two evils.

 

[uke2se]

A friend of mine is telling me to expect a big jump up in the popularity polls for DJT thanks to the Supreme Court ruling. He says this will especially happen if Trump now proceeds to ban more Muslim countries and the South and Central American countries immigrants, refuges, and the like are coming from.

He believes that this big positive response to Trump will secure the House and senate in November.

His reasoning is that (according to him) two thirds of Americans are like him in that they don't want Muslims and people from (latrine) countries coming to America. Like him they will be so glad that Trump is saving the nation from these enemies that they will vote him in for a second term.

I wish I could say for sure he was wrong, but I don't think Trump is going to get the bump he expects.

A friend of yours said that? I would suggest you drop him as a friend post haste.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Gotta love GOP money management.

Fortune: In a decade, federal debt will reach an overwhelming $33 trillion, the equivalent of 113% of GDP—and $6 trillion higher than the CBO had forecast before the Trump agenda passed. Interest on U.S. borrowings would become the fastest-growing item in the federal budget, more than tripling to almost $1.1 trillion annually. At that point, carrying costs would equal one-half of spending on Medicare, and if inflation or interest rates exceeded the relatively low thresholds in the CBO’s forecasts, the interest bill would soar even higher. “That increase represents money the U.S. is just throwing away—that’s crowding out the funding on everything from health care to the military,” says Marc Goldwein, the CRFB’s senior policy director.

Thought these boys wanted a strong military. Oops, decades of GOP debt-fueled "growth" have taken their inevitable toll. When voters let themselves be bought out and deluded by such transparent shenanigans, shouldn't be surprised Hell shows up in a hand basket.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

You are telling me that there is more to fiscal responsibility than blaming the Democrats?

 

[The Don]

Given the fact that:

1) I doubt any of the liberal Justices will be resigning any time soon. (Given the crap the republicans pulled on Obama, they will probably arrange to stay on the court even if they die... "Supreme court Justices Zombie Ginsberg" anybody? I can certainly see them not wanting to reward the republicans with any more court seats.)

2) The Republicans invoked the 'nuclear' option, to make it easier to confirm supreme court justices

3) There is a chance that the political pendulum will swing the other way, and the Democrats could end up taking the white house in 2020, as well as the senate. (Remember, Trump's personal popularity is stuck at around 40% and given the fact that there aren't many more racists around, he may have a hard time winning re-election.)

There is a very good chance that this could all backfire on the republicans. Imagine the type of supreme court nominations someone like Pelosi or Sanders could make now that the republicans have called off any rules of decorum.

I wish I shared your optimism. I firmly believe that unless there are exceptional circumstances like an economic crash, Donald Trump being arrested or an amazing and inspirational Democratic Party candidate being found that the President has a better than even chance of being re-elected - if he chooses to stand.

I say this because although he "only" has 40% support, that 40% are highly motivated to go out and vote for him and his racist policies. They're also the 40% least likely to have their vote lost by gerrymandering and/or voter suppression. OTOH a significant proportion of the 45%+ who may be thinking of voting for the other candidate need to be inspired to get out and vote and/or risk losing their vote due to the aforementioned gerrymandering and/or voter suppression.

I therefore think that the GOP will likely have the Presidency until (at least) 2024 and will retain control of both House and Senate for most, if not all, of that period. Those elder judges aren't going to last for ever and so a 6:3 or 7:2 GOP-leaning SCOTUS is very much on the cards. They will make the laws for a generation so look for states to get to choose on matters such as:

• Legality of abortion
• Teaching evolution
• Gay rights
• "Separate but equal" treatment of the races
• The role of religion in lawmaking

This will allow the majority of the US landmass (though a minority of the population) to slip back to the 1950's where they're clearly more comfortable. Indeed, it may be like an antebellum US where progress is made in the integrated, forward looking states and the backward looking segregationist states talk about things like charm and matters whilst sucking hard on the teat of the government handout machine.

 

[Segnosaur]

Trump said during the election he wanted a "Muslim ban". He told Guilliani to help him implement a "Muslim ban".

So the supreme court (at least one member that was picked under shady circumstances) decided "You know, we're not going to pay attention to what people said". So much for evidence.

Actions speak louder than words. Instead of assuming that Trump told the truth on the campaign trail, why not examine what he actually did?

Because the words he spoke on the campaign trail (and after the election to Guilliani) point to his intent.

That doesn't explain why North Korea and Venezuela are on the list. It doesn't explain why Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are not on the list.

As others have pointed out... there were multiple iterations of the ban. the first one ran into legal problems. Basically, the ban is just the most bigoted policy Trump could implement but still cover it with a fig leaf of false respectability.

And the fact that North Korea and Venezuela are on the list doesn't mean the Muslim ban is not based on religious bigotry any more than the fact that Nazi Germany killed gay people didn't mean that anti=semitism wasn't a driving force in the holocaust.

It also doesn't explain why Muslim-majority Chad was taken off the list, ostensibly for improving its security--the stated goal of the ban.

Ah yes, improving security. this was a bogus justification. Given the fact that:

1) there hadn't been a lot of terrorist activity from individuals immigrating from the countries listed in the ban (Most U.S. terrorist activity is pretty much home grown)
2) The U.S. already had significant vetting of individuals coming from those parts of the world (for example, refugees could easily wait a couple of years before admission into the U.S., undergoing several rounds of interviews with both the U.S. and U.N.)

From: https://apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30...port-disputes-threat-posed-travel-ban-nations
Analysts at the Homeland Security Department’s intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump’s travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

So, anyone who's not a racist would really have a hard time justifying the ban as being necessary to "improve security".

In fact, if anything, the muslim ban actually HARMS americans, since:
- Many doctors have emigrated to the U.S. from the affected countries, and the U.S. needs more medical people. So by supporting a racist policy with the false goal of "keeping America safe", you're actually making it worse off.
- By targeting countries like Iraq, the U.S. may be alienating potential allies, people who might have been willing to assist the U.S. Now that the U.S. has told them "We are racist against you", good luck getting them to help out.

So you have a president who spoke at length about wanting a muslim ban, who originally tried to implement a ban that contained only muslim minority countries (before deciding he needed to hide his bigotry a little bit) that actually had the effect of making America less safe.

 

[Darat]

Thread was getting a tad long so split to new continuation thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=330349

Posted By: Darat