Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4686
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon May 21, 2018 7:21 pm UTC

FWIW most liberals I know were disappointed with Obama for being largely Bush 2.0. It's true they weren't as upset with him as they were with Bush, but that's because Bush started doing brand new wrongs, and Obama merely failed to improve (much) upon the modus operandi status quo he took over from Bush.

In my living memory that's basically been the pattern as Democrat and Republican administrations alternate: outrage at Republicans for making everything worse, excitement that the new Democrat will fix it, disappointment that the Democrat didn't change much at all, then outrage at the new Republican for making things even worse again, and wistful nostalgia for the days of being merely disappointed with the old Democrat in charge.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3382
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon May 21, 2018 8:36 pm UTC

Obama news, as the subject has come up.

(Not seen the wider list of suggestions myself. Would be disappointed if no "Barrack To The Future", "Obama, Where Art Though?" or "Fresh Prince Of DC" get mentioned, purely on grounds of obviousness.)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon May 21, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

"Barrack to the Future"?

Is that the one with the time traveling pirates?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3382
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon May 21, 2018 9:33 pm UTC

Ar.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue May 22, 2018 12:52 am UTC

ahh...
It's nice to see you be Light Hearted.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 22, 2018 2:20 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:FWIW most liberals I know were disappointed with Obama for being largely Bush 2.0. It's true they weren't as upset with him as they were with Bush, but that's because Bush started doing brand new wrongs, and Obama merely failed to improve (much) upon the modus operandi status quo he took over from Bush.

In my living memory that's basically been the pattern as Democrat and Republican administrations alternate: outrage at Republicans for making everything worse, excitement that the new Democrat will fix it, disappointment that the Democrat didn't change much at all, then outrage at the new Republican for making things even worse again, and wistful nostalgia for the days of being merely disappointed with the old Democrat in charge.


Folks were disappointed that Obama was reasonably moderate, yeah. And they wished he was more liberal. The same is absolutely true for Republicans. A crapton of people are unhappy that Trump isn't terribly conservative on some things. This is sort of inherent to the election system we have. When appealing to the base, one chooses a more extreme stance than for the general. This means the base will ALWAYS be left wanting a more extreme stance. It's not in any way a Democrat exclusive.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 2:34 pm UTC

No, people were upset at how Obama allowed all the fraud to go unpunished.

Name 2 executive who went to prison over the CDO shennanigans. Just 2. Only 1 did, the guy at Credit Suisse, and that was for actual fraud on his part, yet he wasnt even close to the biggest fraudster there.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1084
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby commodorejohn » Tue May 22, 2018 2:47 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:No, people were upset at how Obama allowed all the fraud to go unpunished.

Name 2 executive who went to prison over the CDO shennanigans. Just 2. Only 1 did, the guy at Credit Suisse, and that was for actual fraud on his part, yet he wasnt even close to the biggest fraudster there.

This really cannot be overstated (although if we're pointing fingers, a lot of the initial soft-pedaling of the response occurred on W's watch as well.) The resentment over that group of people being sent on their way with less of a slap on the wrist than a playful love tap after directly tanking the American economy in a massive way is widespread and surprisingly bipartisan.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue May 22, 2018 2:57 pm UTC

What could Obama personally have done about that?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 3:13 pm UTC

Get the justice department and SEC to do their jobs? If not, then send in the FBI? And if they wont for whatever legal reasons, then go after the people with the IRS for suspicious financial behavior? Failinging that, go after them with CPS?

Everyone is guity of something. If a police make a raid and they dont find what they are looking for they will find something else instead, maybe you smoke weed, maybe you own an illegal knife, maybe your place isnt clean enough and your apartment is in violation of fire code 271.1.45 subsection C.

If Obama was truly pissed off, he couldve found a way to ruin their day. But he didnt.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue May 22, 2018 3:23 pm UTC

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression the president doesn't have the power to "send in the FBI". He can fire and appoint a new FBI director if he loses confidence in them, that's about it. If the police and judiciary system failed to send these people to jail, Obama is a weird person to hold responsible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 3:40 pm UTC

Youre joking, right? The ability to fire someone all the power you need in order to force them to do the job they are literally there to do. There may be weird political plays involved (see the Abscam thing, where congress investigated the FBI so they responded by arresting members of congress), but if the director wont do their job the guy underneath them would get a promotion.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue May 22, 2018 3:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:... Obama was reasonably moderate ... Trump isn't terribly conservative ...


As viewed from which of these blobs?

Image
Image
Image

From a Danish point of view, Obama was authoritarian capitalist and getting more so by the week while he chased the Republicans in vain hope of acheiving consensus ... somewhere around Bashar al-Assad, if they'd kept it up for another two terms.

If you're wondering whether Denmark is very much like the old DDR, I suggest you learn a little Danish and then go and see for yourself. Don't bother to take your skis, though.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 3:55 pm UTC

The US is to the right of the UAE? Brazil is far left?

Yeah no, those charts are shit.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4686
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue May 22, 2018 4:00 pm UTC

I suspect you are conflating "left" with "authoritarian" and "right" with "libertarian" as many on the American right do these days, when those charts are explicitly listing them separately.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 4:11 pm UTC

No Im thinking in terms of social values and economics. Brazil is similar to the US on homosexuality, to the right on feminism, and while they talk leftwing in terms of economics they arent actually that much to the left.

So yeah, those charts are shit.

And really, Chavez is just as authoritarian as Obama? Say want you want about Big O, he was not a dictator who made entire media stations disappear.

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1420
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Xenomortis » Tue May 22, 2018 4:17 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I suspect you are conflating "left" with "authoritarian" and "right" with "libertarian" as many on the American right do these days, when those charts are explicitly listing them separately.

"Left-Right" lines are not consistent between countries or over time.
The typical political "left-right" spectrum in any given country is simply some line on that plot, and that line will change over time.
Image

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 22, 2018 5:11 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:... Obama was reasonably moderate ... Trump isn't terribly conservative ...


As viewed from which of these blobs?


Look, if you compare Obama to say, Sanders, Obama is pretty obviously more moderate. Likewise, Hillary is more moderate than Sanders. The party attempts to select for the most mainstream-sellable option. Obama and Hillary are definitely democrats, sure, but neither of them were extremists.

Trumps a little odder, because he wasn't the establishment choice. That said, he's still switched parties at least five times since the 80s. An extreme republican would be someone like Santorum, who takes most of the Republican tendencies and dials them up to 11. Those guys enjoy some success in the primary, but ultimately lose to more centrist options. Trump's a weird mix of centrist* and party outsider.

Neither Trump nor Obama are very libertarian at all. That axis mostly is not treated as important by the big two parties. You get some differences when looking at third party options, but basically everyone with a real chance to win the presidency falls solidly on the authoritarian side. Probably not too surprising. If you're after the power that the presidency entails, you probably plan to use it.

*Granted, a centrist willing to adopt, at least temporarily, plenty of extreme positions. Rough centrist overall ought not be confused with consistency/stability of views.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8128
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Tue May 22, 2018 5:45 pm UTC

Xenomortis wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I suspect you are conflating "left" with "authoritarian" and "right" with "libertarian" as many on the American right do these days, when those charts are explicitly listing them separately.

"Left-Right" lines are not consistent between countries or over time.
The typical political "left-right" spectrum in any given country is simply some line on that plot, and that line will change over time.

Yeah, like in Israel left-right means almost entirely where you stand in terms of Israel-Palestine relations. Economic left and right is entirely independent on that and very much not the main measure people use to describe politicians (or parties, or themselves).
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 6:10 pm UTC

Obama didnt go after the people who either caused or let happen the Great Recession. Lets not get distracted by nolan charts

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue May 22, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

I know Trump does it all the time, but I'm still not convinced it's the presidents job to "go after" people.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 6:20 pm UTC

But it is their job to make sure the DOJ is staffed with people who do.

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue May 22, 2018 6:31 pm UTC

True, but for the president to judge their abilities based on whether or not they managed to send a particular group of people down, would be a bit... hands on. I don't think the president should be micromanaging the DoJ, and I suspect neither did Obama.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 6:37 pm UTC

Oh really? And we didnt judge Bush and Obama by their ability to take down one particular Saudi Arabian spoiled rich kid?

Mutex
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Tue May 22, 2018 6:42 pm UTC

I thought it was obvious from context "sending people down" meant sending them to jail, not assassinating people in foreign countries. The president is fully in charge of the military and foreign policy. They're not meant to meddle in domestic justice much at all.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Tue May 22, 2018 6:53 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I thought it was obvious from context "sending people down" meant sending them to jail, not assassinating people in foreign countries. The president is fully in charge of the military and foreign policy. They're not meant to meddle in domestic justice much at all.


This. In fact, one of the main complaints that I have with Trump is that he consistently meddles in things that previously had not been something presidents meddled in, whether or not it is technically legal for him to do so (and there are clearly grey areas there in some of his actions).
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 22, 2018 6:54 pm UTC

Yeah i was being snarky. But even while it is not the administration's job to make sure John Jones of Dewey Cheatham and Howe Financial Planners goes to prison for fraud, if the DOJ isnt going after John Jones you have to wonder what the priorities are, and if it's not one John Jones but hundreds of them and the DOJ still isnt doing anything you have to question just what the hell is going on. At some point, the pitches and torchforks are going to come out...

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 559
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Tue May 22, 2018 7:07 pm UTC

It's not the President's job to micromanage the Department of Justice, but it is the job of the person he appoints and Congress confirms. While the President can't (or at least shouldn't) tell the Attorney General not to go after certain individuals or not to prosecute certain crimes, he is perfectly within his rights to give the Attorney General direction and ask that emphasis and focus be placed on a particular area (drugs, gang activity, domestic violence, embezzlement, whatever ...).
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6361
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue May 22, 2018 7:16 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:...focus be placed on a particular area (drugs, gang activity, domestic violence, embezzlement, whatever ...).
Democrats? Brown people? The point is that justice should be apolitical.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

cphite
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Tue May 22, 2018 9:17 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Sableagle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:... Obama was reasonably moderate ... Trump isn't terribly conservative ...


As viewed from which of these blobs?


Look, if you compare Obama to say, Sanders, Obama is pretty obviously more moderate. Likewise, Hillary is more moderate than Sanders. The party attempts to select for the most mainstream-sellable option. Obama and Hillary are definitely democrats, sure, but neither of them were extremists.

Trumps a little odder, because he wasn't the establishment choice. That said, he's still switched parties at least five times since the 80s. An extreme republican would be someone like Santorum, who takes most of the Republican tendencies and dials them up to 11. Those guys enjoy some success in the primary, but ultimately lose to more centrist options. Trump's a weird mix of centrist* and party outsider.

Neither Trump nor Obama are very libertarian at all. That axis mostly is not treated as important by the big two parties. You get some differences when looking at third party options, but basically everyone with a real chance to win the presidency falls solidly on the authoritarian side. Probably not too surprising. If you're after the power that the presidency entails, you probably plan to use it.

*Granted, a centrist willing to adopt, at least temporarily, plenty of extreme positions. Rough centrist overall ought not be confused with consistency/stability of views.


Trump is a marketeer, not a politician.

The key difference is, a politician gets elected to advance an agenda. Trump advanced an agenda to get elected.

The most clear example is immigration. Trump ran his campaign on building the wall, calling immigrants names, and generally being a racist prick... but as recently as 2013 Trump was calling for open borders. His position, back then, was that open borders were a good thing; people ought to be able to come here and work.

Why the difference? Well, in 2013 he was still in the building industry, and immigrants are a cheap labor source; hence his support for them. In 2016, when he was running for the presidency, he saw that illegal immigration was something that he could use to rally people behind him; it was an issue that a lot of people cared about, felt passionate about, were angry about. And so he used that.

Don't get me wrong; Trump is every bit the racist shit-bag that he appears to be, else he wouldn't be able to say the shit that he says... but it was never the point of his campaign. Frankly, I don't think he cares one way or the other about immigration. If the wall gets built, he'll push that as an example of an accomplishment. If the democrats stop the wall from being built, he'll push that as an example of why he is still needed in office. Whatever happens, you can be sure that it was either his idea, or it's just the sort of thing you need him to protect you against.

Trump is going to take whatever position he believes will advance the one thing he cares about: His own success. If the democrats take Congress, and pass a bill that is completely contrary to the Trump agenda, but he thinks that he'd benefit by signing it - you can bet money he'll not only sign it, but will try to make it look like it couldn't have happened without him.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 559
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Tue May 22, 2018 10:04 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Democrats? Brown people? The point is that justice should be apolitical.

Jose

Justice should be apolitical. My point was that a presidential candidate runs on a platform giving promises like tougher penalties for violent crimes or securities fraud, and if he or she is elected, those promises need to be fulfilled. If the President can't or won't give direction to the various departments of the administration, he or she can't perform one of the basic functions of the job.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9922
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue May 22, 2018 10:32 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Trump is a marketeer, not a politician.

The key difference is, a politician gets elected to advance an agenda. Trump advanced an agenda to get elected.

The most clear example is immigration. Trump ran his campaign on building the wall, calling immigrants names, and generally being a racist prick... but as recently as 2013 Trump was calling for open borders. His position, back then, was that open borders were a good thing; people ought to be able to come here and work.

Why the difference? Well, in 2013 he was still in the building industry, and immigrants are a cheap labor source; hence his support for them. In 2016, when he was running for the presidency, he saw that illegal immigration was something that he could use to rally people behind him; it was an issue that a lot of people cared about, felt passionate about, were angry about. And so he used that.

Don't get me wrong; Trump is every bit the racist shit-bag that he appears to be, else he wouldn't be able to say the shit that he says... but it was never the point of his campaign. Frankly, I don't think he cares one way or the other about immigration. If the wall gets built, he'll push that as an example of an accomplishment. If the democrats stop the wall from being built, he'll push that as an example of why he is still needed in office. Whatever happens, you can be sure that it was either his idea, or it's just the sort of thing you need him to protect you against.

Trump is going to take whatever position he believes will advance the one thing he cares about: His own success. If the democrats take Congress, and pass a bill that is completely contrary to the Trump agenda, but he thinks that he'd benefit by signing it - you can bet money he'll not only sign it, but will try to make it look like it couldn't have happened without him.
Yep...All of that.
He's a creep and an idiot.

He'd not do those things.
He will do what he's told to do.

Who's telling him?
He knows nothing on his own.

George Will says so.
George Will's not a liar.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 23, 2018 12:29 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Trump is a marketeer, not a politician.

The key difference is, a politician gets elected to advance an agenda. Trump advanced an agenda to get elected.


Indeed. Now, politicians always do this to some extent, Trump just dialed it to an extreme, and didn't bother to attempt to hide it, really.

I have little doubt that he'd have happily run as a democrat if he'd thought it offered him better opportunity at the time, and adopted whatever issues were convenient to that end.

He's a republican for reasons of convenience, not reasons of conscience.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed May 23, 2018 1:27 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... nd-senate/
With Trump's approval rating rising, and Congressional polling down to a mere 5 point lead, 538 calls out an ugly scenario where Democratic opposition can't hold off gop changes anymore.
Remember, Democrats need a 8 point lead to take the House, and a14 point lead to take the Senate due to gerrymandering and rural/small state bias in the Senate.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 23, 2018 2:10 pm UTC

Rant
Spoiler:
Democrats had dominated the senate and house for decades prior to the 90s, and have had near complete control of many states at one point or another. They couldve gotten rid of gerrymandering in some fashion, but havent, because they use it too. Its a demon of their own devices.

/rant

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1695
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed May 23, 2018 3:36 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:While the President can't (or at least shouldn't) tell the Attorney General not to go after certain individuals or not to prosecute certain crimes, ...
Indeed!
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed May 23, 2018 3:47 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Rant
Spoiler:
Democrats had dominated the senate and house for decades prior to the 90s, and have had near complete control of many states at one point or another. They couldve gotten rid of gerrymandering in some fashion, but havent, because they use it too. Its a demon of their own devices.

/rant

That explains the House. The Senate is more complicated because it gets into coalition building. Did Democrats choose their coalition of black people and coastal states, and low voting groups?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9930
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 23, 2018 5:20 pm UTC

link

By unanimous decision, the NFL owners ban an expression of speech require all NFL players to stand for the pledge of alliagence.

Players are allowed to protest by staying in the locker room and out of sight of the public

*People riot due to police brutality*
"Why cant these hooligans protest nonviolently?"
*NFL players take a knee*
"NO, NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11032
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 23, 2018 6:16 pm UTC

sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happens-if-republicans-keep-control-of-the-house-and-senate/
With Trump's approval rating rising, and Congressional polling down to a mere 5 point lead, 538 calls out an ugly scenario where Democratic opposition can't hold off gop changes anymore.
Remember, Democrats need a 8 point lead to take the House, and a14 point lead to take the Senate due to gerrymandering and rural/small state bias in the Senate.


Yeah. We have some pro-democrat indicators, but it's definitely not a sure thing. If Republicans end up gaining ground at all, it's going to be increasingly hard for Democrats to slow down Republican changes. Even retaining the status quo is likely to be, in practice, a loss of power for Democrats, who have pinned their hopes on large midterm gains.

Which they might get, at least in the house. Trump's approval rating may be rising, but objectively, it's still not high.

CorruptUser wrote:Rant
Spoiler:
Democrats had dominated the senate and house for decades prior to the 90s, and have had near complete control of many states at one point or another. They couldve gotten rid of gerrymandering in some fashion, but havent, because they use it too. Its a demon of their own devices.

/rant


Well, of course. Neither side's hands are ideologically clean on this point. However, in terms of practical effects, as the Republicans hold the state houses now, it's largely to their advantage at present. Gerrymandering, voter access laws, there's a number of ways to get various small advantages if you've got power already.

sardia wrote:That explains the House. The Senate is more complicated because it gets into coalition building. Did Democrats choose their coalition of black people and coastal states, and low voting groups?


To some extent, yes. They have marketed consistently towards minority groups, youth for quite some time. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, but it does have tradeoffs. The urban/coastal thing I believe is rather less of a chosen attribute, but is a more normal result of ideological shifts.

At one point, Democrats were strongly farmer/union supporters, and while some union support still continues, this coalition has largely been abandoned by the party. Rural farmers in particular are...not a strong point for the Democratic party. Those sorts of counties are largely red now, often extremely so.

I don't think the party particularly wanted that, but rather, got it as a side effect of other things. High taxes are a highly visible pain point to self-employed people, for one thing. For another, folks have long blamed outside factors such as offshoring industry and immigration for lack of jobs. The democratic answer of a safety net and retraining has, in practice, not been very great. Even when it works and results in employment in a different sector, people may not enjoy change, especially if it's forced on them. If it doesn't work out well, a worker is even more likely to be embittered.

So, the Democrats have not done a great deal for the working class, and continue to lose influence with them, save for certain demographics they target. Fixing this may require some sort of ideological shift, or at least, a different way of approaching the problem.

Edit: Predictit recently opened betting on Trump's 2020 odds. So, there's that. I'm guessing highly subjective spitballing for the time being, but it's fun to see what others think the odds are.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Wed May 23, 2018 6:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3155
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Wed May 23, 2018 6:37 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Rant
Spoiler:
Democrats had dominated the senate and house for decades prior to the 90s, and have had near complete control of many states at one point or another. They couldve gotten rid of gerrymandering in some fashion, but havent, because they use it too. Its a demon of their own devices.

/rant


The Rs and Ds both tinkered with gerrymandering on a local level to benefit themselves. The problem is someone got wise on a national level, and decided to organize the GOP to seize national power(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP). So gerrymandering went from a 'all shitty politicians' moderate problem to 'there's a plan to actively disenfranchise people'.

Maybe the Ds would have done the same thing - but they wouldn't have had to. The USA is trending left with the youth, and should not need dirty tricks to gain the majority.

The way I see it, yes, both parties had idiots and blowhards and dirty tricks and corruption. The GOP just managed to swerve so hard to the right due to Fox News and right wing radio that they gave up on even pretending there were outliers. Corruption, fraud, bias, all get a pass. Why not, they'll still get elected.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Link, Soupspoon and 17 guests