Trump presidency

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3378
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:56 am UTC

You know that thing in the Foundation series where a politicians words are analysed, and he says precisely nothing? Sure you do. Anyway, I think Trump's in that class. Whether or not he intends it. Unqualified/iable statements and clauses are all I see in that snippet. Pretty much like every campaign promise he's made that hasn't seemed outright ridiculous in its own right. "<Unfounded truth> Or, I don't know, you tell me.. though a lot of people are saying it, right?"

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sun Feb 05, 2017 2:25 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:I can't think of anything more dangerous to a free society its president or prime minister delegitimizing impartial judges.

On the one hand, I totally agree. When UK judges ruled that the executive didn't have the right to withdraw from the EU without the consent of parliament, I found it chilling that our government encouraged (or, at least, didn't condemn) the personal attacks that piled on the judges - including mocking their sexuality. In a country such as ours without a written constitution, it's more important than ever for judges to be impartial, free of political pressure and their judgements respected.

On the other hand, I've long viewed judges in the US to be thoroughly delegitimized already because of how openly partisan they are. The fact that one can predict how the supreme court will vote on any particular issue purely based on which party appointed them is a scandal. It's impossible to even pretend they are going to judge any issue impartially on its merits...

Because it's a lifetime appointment, judges are known to mellow out once they're in. It was Chief Justice John Roberts, for instance, appointed by GWB, who saved (the main part of) The Affordable Care Act in its lawsuit. It's also important to remember that the pretty large majority of cases they hear are relatively boring and almost always have unanimous decisions.

I personally doubt that Roberts has any interest in overturning Roe v. Wade.

Edit: I almost used "the ACA" but didn't. Was there that much furor over it before?

Ha ha ha who am i kidding

Edit2: I do think now, though, that the moniker has become accepted by its supporters you can drop the word-filter

Edit3: this judge Robart (heh) was *also* appointed by W. and reading a bit about him he seems like a pretty great dude.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:22 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
elasto wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:I can't think of anything more dangerous to a free society its president or prime minister delegitimizing impartial judges.

On the one hand, I totally agree. When UK judges ruled that the executive didn't have the right to withdraw from the EU without the consent of parliament, I found it chilling that our government encouraged (or, at least, didn't condemn) the personal attacks that piled on the judges - including mocking their sexuality. In a country such as ours without a written constitution, it's more important than ever for judges to be impartial, free of political pressure and their judgements respected.

On the other hand, I've long viewed judges in the US to be thoroughly delegitimized already because of how openly partisan they are. The fact that one can predict how the supreme court will vote on any particular issue purely based on which party appointed them is a scandal. It's impossible to even pretend they are going to judge any issue impartially on its merits...

Because it's a lifetime appointment, judges are known to mellow out once they're in. It was Chief Justice John Roberts, for instance, appointed by GWB, who saved (the main part of) The Affordable Care Act in its lawsuit. It's also important to remember that the pretty large majority of cases they hear are relatively boring and almost always have unanimous decisions.

I personally doubt that Roberts has any interest in overturning Roe v. Wade.

Edit: I almost used "the ACA" but didn't. Was there that much furor over it before?

Ha ha ha who am i kidding

Edit2: I do think now, though, that the moniker has become accepted by its supporters you can drop the word-filter

Edit3: this judge Robart (heh) was *also* appointed by W. and reading a bit about him he seems like a pretty great dude.

There's more to being a conservative/liberal than the ACA act. Also, Robert's is the reason we have millions not covered via the Medicare/medicaid exemption. He's also ruled conservatively in a whole gamut of issues, from voting rights to corporations. Fox news is just upset that Roberts wasn't 100% partisan when he compromised on the ACA and left only parts of it in place.That's the only reason he's considered liberal at all.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:23 pm UTC

That was just an example (note the "for instance"). Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, is more willing to break with the liberals on 5-4 decisions.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:57 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:I can't think of anything more dangerous to a free society its president or prime minister delegitimizing impartial judges.

On the one hand, I totally agree. When UK judges ruled that the executive didn't have the right to withdraw from the EU without the consent of parliament, I found it chilling that our government encouraged (or, at least, didn't condemn) the personal attacks that piled on the judges - including mocking their sexuality. In a country such as ours without a written constitution, it's more important than ever for judges to be impartial, free of political pressure and their judgements respected.

On the other hand, I've long viewed judges in the US to be thoroughly delegitimized already because of how openly partisan they are. The fact that one can predict how the supreme court will vote on any particular issue purely based on which party appointed them is a scandal. It's impossible to even pretend they are going to judge any issue impartially on its merits...

This problem in the UK is what I thought of as well. I posted something about Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who also called judges fake, the case against him politically motivated and the big problem is that his supporters agree with it. This was a case against him based on something he said, which was a violation of the first article of our constitution. To then call the judges fake, partial and the case politically motivated is a direct assault on the justice system. That's a thing that can destabilize the country. Having politicians shout out those things is something you'd expect in a country where judges really are partial and where cases really are politically motivated. And countries where that happens are pretty bad places to live in.

Mentioning things like "So-called judge", "fake judge", "a case to silence me" (that's claiming that your right of free speech is being violated, a horrible victim-role thing to say), are just an insult to the democracy and state of law of your country. You say that you have zero trust in it, and while it's technically not illegal to do so (it's again a free speech thing), as a politician it's a call for your support to reject the judges and the law in your country.

Here's another one from Trump: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828342202174668800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

If you're being stopped from introducing a law that's unlawful, it's not the judge's fault that you're being stopped, and things that go wrong as a result of the law not being introduced is not on him. It just means that a core part (in this case the right to go there for vacation, study or living in a country where you're not being locked up for criticising the government) cannot be given up in exchange for what you want (in this case, some security, and how much that is is a second thing for debate).

As for the fact that judges have a clear party preference, that is something that should be addressed. But that's no simple case. You can't simply introduce a law that says you can't have a party preference if you're a judge. You'll get the same backlash as Trump is getting now and even then, it doesn't make you impartial on political cases. It only makes it appear that way. It may reduce the "colour" of a ruling from bright red to red-leaning-to purple, so to say, but it won't impose neutrality. For that you need a big social change and that won't happen anytime soon.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:03 pm UTC

https://taxfoundation.org/faqs-border-adjustment
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/ ... border-tax
I found something interesting about Trump's border tax. Trump doesn't know what it actually does and the economists proposing it are backed by politicians who are taking advantage of Trump's ignorance to advance their own goals.
The border adjustment is a way of modifying the current U.S. income tax. Right now, the income tax applies to businesses’ income from production in the United States. Under a border adjustment, the income tax would apply to businesses’ income from sales in the United States

The effect of this is to theoretically remove distortions from the market. Trump only likes it because it has the words border and tax in it. Politicians want it because it's a way to lower the corporate tax rate.


User avatar
HES
Posts: 4861
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: Trump presidency

Postby HES » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:04 pm UTC

You really couldn't make this shit up!

A kitten on twitter wrote:Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies!
Again with accusing his enemies of the exact thing he is doing. Surely even his supporters will see through it eventually?
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:41 pm UTC

HES wrote:You really couldn't make this shit up!

A kitten on twitter wrote:Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies!
Again with accusing his enemies of the exact thing he is doing. Surely even his supporters will see through it eventually?

His supporters will see through it when they aren't his supporters anymore. This isn't about truth, it's about power.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:55 pm UTC

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
kingofdreams
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:31 pm UTC
Location: An avatar making factory

Re: Trump presidency

Postby kingofdreams » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:09 pm UTC

John Bercow just nixed the possibility of trump addressing parliament during his state visit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38884604
Picard- I shall appoint you my executive officer in charge of radishes

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5093
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Xeio » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:43 pm UTC

So it turns out Trump is signing executive orders he either doesn't read or doesn't understand.

Clearly, nothing can go wrong with having a literal rubber-stamp president...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:57 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:So it turns out Trump is signing executive orders he either doesn't read or doesn't understand.

Clearly, nothing can go wrong with having a literal rubber-stamp president...

Trump lies so much, it's hard to tell when he's telling the truth. Is this his way of demoting Bannon? Either way, Bannon lost influence. The real question is if Bannon will continue to influence the white House.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Lazar » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:40 am UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:29 am UTC



This is getting into tabloid-ish dumb material.

At very least, people should read the original article from the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/p ... .html?_r=0

However, there's also this piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... effe17c47f

Honestly, if we're talking "Steve Bannon" here, there's a chance that some of these "leaks" are on purpose to test how well they can control the message. I find it far more likely that Bannon is testing a media strategy to see how much dumb shit the New York Times actually publishes. The New York Times is happy to publish bad news about Trump from alleged insiders, but surely they don't even know which articles are legit or not.

Trump's strategy throughout the campaign is well documented. He was a guess-and-check campaigner. His focus groups were Facebook news and when things "stuck" that's when he brought it to the campaign speeches. I'd bet he is continuing his strategy that has worked so far: "leak" news to test the waters of certain stories, and then from that feel how he should govern.

At least, that's how the "Trump Machine" works, not necessarily Trump himself. But it doesn't really matter if its Bannon pulling the strings, or some close advisors to Trump. That's how his machine seems to work.

In any case... New York Times alleges that Trump's staff can't find a light switch? Erm... there's a limit to how much I can believe. That sort of shit is figured out within the first week or two, tops.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:07 am UTC

I went to a Democratic meeting just to see the local opposition. It was pretty disappointing. Lots of fear mongering, not a lot of organization. Nobody seems to understand why Democrats lost. Almost nobody had any data to back up their talk. I dare say the average attendee is worse than the worst posters here. Oh well. Maybe the next meetup will go better.

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:03 am UTC

Donald Trump’s team cannot find the light switches to the cabinet room in which they conduct their meetings, and have to speak in the dark and feel their way out of the room

<...>

Pete Souza, photographer to Barack Obama, said on Twitter: “The light switch is on the wall right by the door.”

Yeah. Sorry. Don't buy that.

(And even if it's somehow true it's not credible and so shouldn't be being reported in any news outlet that values its reputation.)

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3887
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:26 am UTC

elasto wrote:
Donald Trump’s team cannot find the light switches to the cabinet room in which they conduct their meetings, and have to speak in the dark and feel their way out of the room

<...>

Pete Souza, photographer to Barack Obama, said on Twitter: “The light switch is on the wall right by the door.”

Yeah. Sorry. Don't buy that.

(And even if it's somehow true it's not credible and so shouldn't be being reported in any news outlet that values its reputation.)


At a guess: Trump has assembled a collection of organizational leaders he respects because they're "winners" by being at the top of their organizations, such that none of them are particularly good at following. Internal strife and backbiting are underway as they struggle to determine who is really Pack Alpha. My guess is the "can't find the light-switch" leak had someone's name attached, not just "team".

The earlier bit about Bannon's appointment to the National Security Council being something that Trump signed without looking at it just says that even being in the position of PotUS doesn't exclude him from the need to fight to assert his position as "Pack Alpha".
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I went to a Democratic meeting just to see the local opposition. It was pretty disappointing. Lots of fear mongering, not a lot of organization. Nobody seems to understand why Democrats lost. Almost nobody had any data to back up their talk. I dare say the average attendee is worse than the worst posters here. Oh well. Maybe the next meetup will go better.


What happens if you try to point out what they're doing wrong, or why they really lost? Are you going to be thrown out?

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:03 pm UTC

If local Dem meetings are focusing on what they can personally do nationally, they're gonna get depressed. If you don't have a Democratic mayor/council, start there. If you do, move up to state legislature representatives. If those are dems, go to congressional representatives. No matter the answer to those questions, work on getting young people registered to vote (it shouldn't be too hard to convince them at this point). Have bi-weekly or monthly trash cleanups. Find a deforested town-owned area and convince the relevant people to let you plant native trees there. Like has been said a million times, political activity doesn't start with unseating Trump and getting the next president elected.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:28 pm UTC

Liri wrote:If local Dem meetings are focusing on what they can personally do nationally, they're gonna get depressed. If you don't have a Democratic mayor/council, start there. If you do, move up to state legislature representatives. If those are dems, go to congressional representatives. No matter the answer to those questions, work on getting young people registered to vote (it shouldn't be too hard to convince them at this point). Have bi-weekly or monthly trash cleanups. Find a deforested town-owned area and convince the relevant people to let you plant native trees there. Like has been said a million times, political activity doesn't start with unseating Trump and getting the next president elected.


This is really true, but even if your local and state representatives are Democrats, it doesn't necessarily hold that you can elect national ones -- especially if you are from a state like TX. (I know I'm letting my liberal Austinite come out here, but it is true).

Heck, even at my college, there is a similar issue! The town is liberal, yet the county went for a republican president for the first time in several election cycles. Our district is too big for the state representatives to be democrats as well (this is compounded by the fact that I go to a rural school, but still).

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:51 pm UTC

PhoenixEnigma wrote:Anyone getting the impression a lot of this is a shoot first, ask questions later sort of approach?


With regards to the immigration thing, certainly. It'd have been much less of a problem had there been a reasonable delay for implementation. At least then, bugs like "oh shit, we fucked up the green card thing" could be fixed with much less disruption to everyone involved. This particular form of implementation is kind of terrible at avoiding change costs.

Also, either I have the wrong idea about the NSC, or I'd think that the Director of National Intelligence and the chairperson of the Joint Chiefs would pretty much always have responsibilities and expertise pertaining to what they're discussing? I mean, maybe not alternative-facts expertise related to the subjects at hand, but at least real facts?


Yeah, oddly enough, this hasn't been reported on well. It simply means that the generals are not obligated to attending meetings on subjects outside of their purview. Most likely trade agreements, given Trump's focus. It's not even new, really. Bush did the same thing.

It's kind of a nothing event, especially in comparison to the immigration troubles. Now, it may be that he continues to make poor decisions about who should be at what meeting, but this sort of arrangement isn't that odd.

Liri wrote:Where's Tyndmyr with that "Trump's all talk, and he lies, so he'll probably be okay."


Stupid busy at work. End of Jan always has a ton of crap for us small business owners. Never fear, I'm back to disagree with ya, though I fear I can't reasonably respond to every interesting point posted while I was busy.

sardia wrote:
Liri wrote:Where's Tyndmyr with that "Trump's all talk, and he lies, so he'll probably be okay."

He's referring to the super serious stuff that has no equivocation. Like Trump jails his political opponents before the primary or something. You can do a lot of damage before it's unconstitutional. Trump just needs to stick with his promise of tax cuts, Scotus Judges, and abortion. Everything else is whatever to Republicans. For the people who voted Trump, this stuff is like popcorn to them, it may or may not feel good, but it's not really substantive. How many people did this really affect, 200? 1000? 10,000? Now if you talk the ACA? Now he's playing with fire.


Indeed. This stuff is prolly red meat to his base. Anti-muslim you say? I'm sure they'll manage to accept that. Probably not a ton of Muslims in his base. Also, the restriction itself is probably not unconstitutional, though...it was implemented particularly stupidly, which might push it over the line. Not a lawyer, so can't be 100% sure, but I suspect the poor presentation gave leverage to judges that wanted to oppose it anyways.

elasto wrote:One of the most brilliant one-liners to come out last year was: "The press took Republican Donald Trump literally but not seriously - whereas Trump’s supporters took him seriously but not literally."

Well, it turns out he was meant to be taken both seriously and literally.

In the UK there is a thing called 'Bregret' - where Brexit voters wish they could take it all back. I wonder what the equivalent term might be for Trump voters who are now starting to get slightly cold feet..?


Don't think there's that many of 'em. At least judging by my facebook feed, those who were pro-Trump prior to the elections till seem to be, and those who were anti-Trump...are still vocally anti-Trump. There seems to be very little lessening(if any!) of partisanship, nor do people seem to wish to swap sides.

Mostly, they're gleefully looking at the age of some of the older liberal justices and doin' the math. If anything, they view the protests of the left as a sign that they're on the right track. So far, it's viewed as them winning, not something that they should fear or resist, and they don't really empathize with the left on that.

sardia wrote:You bring up valid points but that wasn't my point. I wasn't saying Democrats need better marketing, I said Democrats should sell abortion in exchange for tax increases, votes, environmental regulations, and social spending. If they agree, Democrats drop opposition to abortion, flat out.


I think that'd be a hard sell to the base at this point. Sure, if you could pull it off, it would be powerful strategically. I just don't think it's the kind of offer that would be very palatable to Democratic voters.

LaserGuy wrote:Not worth the effort. The pro-life groups are the hardcore Republican supporters--they don't want social spending OR abortions. Charity is the church's job, not the government's. There's nothing that Democrats can offer them that they'd be interested in. White evangelicals went over 80% for Trump; White Catholics went over 60% for Trump (Democrats do fine among non-white religious folk).


Yeah. Those are exactly the demographics you want to target. Big potential for improvement. The groups where you already have everyone...further efforts face harshly diminishing returns. It's much like how the Republicans could do better with minorities. With the right tradeoffs in the right places, they could see solid increases. In the short term, yeah, appealing to the base is always easier than attacting new people, but if you never attract new people, over the long term, you can lose voter share.

And at least some religious people are VERY big on government meddling with social rules. If you worked it right, you could end up with a smaller, more libertarian republican party, and a larger big government democratic party...albeit with some dilution as to the sort of big government they want.

I think it's probably desirable for the democrats, just challenging to sell to their base. Announcing that rolling back Roe v Wade is on the table at the DNC might cause outright mutiny. You might be able to de-focus on it in the long game, but in the short term, it's very challenging to dramatically change position on something that's been so central for so long.

Thesh wrote:You make that assertion, but I don't know why. Absolutely everything we know about why Trump won was because of the Hillary stuff with the emails and the leaks, not because we offended too many racists and theocrats that had no intention of voting Democrat in the first place.


Nah. Yeah, yeah, Clinton was a poor candidate. Accepted. That said, the slate was weak, and any candidate was going to be probably as bad off. The loss of power for the Democrats, however, is not merely this presidential election. They've taken a bath literally everywhere. If they still held majorities in congress/senate, they could limit Trump's power much more than they can at present. If they held state houses more frequently, they'd enjoy more systemic advantages.

Yes, Hillary had flaws, but Hillary alone is not responsible for the situation the Democrats now find themselves in.

Fantastic Idea wrote:Ummmm. I find following your logic very hard. I don't even know what you're talking about.
What are democrats trying to shame republicans for, and why shouldn't they be ashamed? If they're not ashamed then... why is it an issue? It's just people talking past each other, right? Racism is shameful, right? Behaving in a racist way is bullshit, and we ...shouldn't call them out for it?
And how does that compare to every time an angry conservative calls me a 'precious snowflake' who needs a 'safespace'?
Isn't that them trying to 'shame' me for having a concept of respectful behavior?


It's an issue because the Republicans have mostly unchecked power at this point, and will likely gain additional power over the course of Trump's term. Senate seats in 2018 look ugly. Supreme court is only gonna get more conservative. I would prefer the Democrats improved their game to provide a roughly equal alternative. The country is healthiest when we have two good options to select between. Right now, that seems fairly far removed from reality.

Yeah, talking past each other happens, but right now, that isn't a good outcome. Democrats can't really be satisfied with ignoring republicans and being ignored by them. It's not working out well for them. Appealing to more voters may not be a moral necessity, but it is a practical step to getting more balance of power.

I see a lot of younger Democrats arguing for conflict on the basis of some moral rightness, but...okay, end of the day, what does that get you? How you fight matters, if winning actually matters. Sometimes this does involve compromise. Broader appeal and compromise usually go hand in hand. Now, the question of what's worth compromising on...that's a sticky one, with a lot to consider. Lots of possibilities. But just doing the same thing the Democrats have been doing up until now is probably not a great strategy.

The local politics involvement is good, I think. Yeah, maybe not every local position is partisan, but there's a lotta value to being involved regardless. There's a limit to how much forwarding memes on twitter and marching does. A *lot* of stuff boils down to dedicated people in local party politics.

Anyway, to get back around to talkin' about Trump...his response to the "killers" thing seemed...surprisingly reasonable. Unpopular on the right, but not actually wrong. Yeah, yeah, how and why you kill matters, but with regards to the accusation leveled, it's a fair statement. Describing us as killers is one of those instances that pretty much highlights the rights version of being PC.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Vahir » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Yeah. Those are exactly the demographics you want to target. Big potential for improvement. The groups where you already have everyone...further efforts face harshly diminishing returns. It's much like how the Republicans could do better with minorities. With the right tradeoffs in the right places, they could see solid increases. In the short term, yeah, appealing to the base is always easier than attacting new people, but if you never attract new people, over the long term, you can lose voter share.

And at least some religious people are VERY big on government meddling with social rules. If you worked it right, you could end up with a smaller, more libertarian republican party, and a larger big government democratic party...albeit with some dilution as to the sort of big government they want.

I think it's probably desirable for the democrats, just challenging to sell to their base. Announcing that rolling back Roe v Wade is on the table at the DNC might cause outright mutiny. You might be able to de-focus on it in the long game, but in the short term, it's very challenging to dramatically change position on something that's been so central for so long.


If only the democrats had done more pandering. /s

Abandoning centrist positions to appease the far right would just make the democrats look even more like sell outs, and leech away what little leftist support they still have.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:34 pm UTC

If Democrats pivot right, The progressives don't have any other choice. Besides, the alternative is more Trump. The best way to stop Trump is to crush his supporters in 2018. Take back the House and claw back as many states as possible to get ready for the 2020 redistricting. Let's see Trump preen after he's hauled in front of Congress for a Nixon style impeachment.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dark567 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:If Democrats pivot right, The progressives don't have any other choice. Besides, the alternative is more Trump. The best way to stop Trump is to crush his supporters in 2018. Take back the House and claw back as many states as possible to get ready for the 2020 redistricting. Let's see Trump preen after he's hauled in front of Congress for a Nixon style impeachment.
Yeah... The problem is both a combination of geography and where the alternatives are. Progressives are already focused in a few blue states and gaining new Districts or States has to go beyond that. Really the Dems need to create a new Blue Dog coalition that focuses on winning some regional seats.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's an issue because the Republicans have mostly unchecked power at this point, and will likely gain additional power over the course of Trump's term. Senate seats in 2018 look ugly. Supreme court is only gonna get more conservative. I would prefer the Democrats improved their game to provide a roughly equal alternative. The country is healthiest when we have two good options to select between. Right now, that seems fairly far removed from reality.

The UK has exactly the same problem. I think Corbyn has a lot of decent ideas, he just makes too many blunders and lacks the respect of his MPs and the public alike. And the LibDems still haven't recovered from being wiped out electorally because of 'enabling' the Tories.

A strong opposition enables a political leader to keep the extremist wing of his party in check; He can always credibly threaten them they'll cost the party the election if they don't pipe down. When the opposition is weak, the squeaky wheel gets the grease - meaning pandering to the noisy ideologues over the more pragmatic and level-headed centrists.

In the UK there's always the possibility that there'll be a split - with the centrist portion of Labour merging with the LibDems (and perhaps even a few 'wets' from the Tories) - to form a new political powerhouse centre-ground coalition. Sadly there's no such possibility for you guys... :(

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:52 pm UTC

Democrats can't really be satisfied with ignoring republicans and being ignored by them. It's not working out well for them. Appealing to more voters may not be a moral necessity, but it is a practical step to getting more balance of power.

If the Democrats pivot right on most of their core issues just to regain power, then what is actually the point? What is actually the benefit to having Democrats in power over Republicans in power if both groups are in a race to the right?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

elasto
Posts: 3481
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:16 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:If the Democrats pivot right on most of their core issues just to regain power, then what is actually the point? What is actually the benefit to having Democrats in power over Republicans in power if both groups are in a race to the right?

Exactly the same dilemma is facing Labour in the UK, with no easy answer here either...

speising
Posts: 2252
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Trump presidency

Postby speising » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:30 pm UTC

You know how they say that you don't have to run fast to escape the lion, just faster than the next guy?
As long as the dems are left of the reps, they remain the only choice for all of the left.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:18 pm UTC

speising wrote:You know how they say that you don't have to run fast to escape the lion, just faster than the next guy?
As long as the dems are left of the reps, they remain the only choice for all of the left.


The problem is that if people aren't happy with their party, the tendency is for them just to stay home, and certainly not for them to donate their time and money to the cause.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:29 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
speising wrote:You know how they say that you don't have to run fast to escape the lion, just faster than the next guy?
As long as the dems are left of the reps, they remain the only choice for all of the left.


The problem is that if people aren't happy with their party, the tendency is for them just to stay home, and certainly not for them to donate their time and money to the cause.

They aren't that happy with Hillary, and she still managed to rack up huge margins in blue States. The Democrats need political flexibility on local and regional matters. Yea that means going back to the 2008 days where you had Democratic defections all the time, but it still meant Democrats had power.

Maybe Democrats can focus on increasing voter turnout via legal means in blue controlled States.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
speising wrote:You know how they say that you don't have to run fast to escape the lion, just faster than the next guy?
As long as the dems are left of the reps, they remain the only choice for all of the left.


The problem is that if people aren't happy with their party, the tendency is for them just to stay home, and certainly not for them to donate their time and money to the cause.

They aren't that happy with Hillary, and she still managed to rack up huge margins in blue States. The Democrats need political flexibility on local and regional matters. Yea that means going back to the 2008 days where you had Democratic defections all the time, but it still meant Democrats had power.

Maybe Democrats can focus on increasing voter turnout via legal means in blue controlled States.

She didn't rack up the youth vote, precisely because she was viewed as too moderate. There are already plenty of young people who refuse to identify as Democrat or Liberal because the terms are no longer far enough Left for them. What, exactly, is the rationale in telling the millions of leftist young people who already declined to vote to "suck it up"?
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:20 pm UTC

Liri wrote:She didn't rack up the youth vote, precisely because she was viewed as too moderate. There are already plenty of young people who refuse to identify as Democrat or Liberal because the terms are no longer far enough Left for them. What, exactly, is the rationale in telling the millions of leftist young people who already declined to vote to "suck it up"?


If they didn't rally when the opponent was Donald fucking Trump, I don't really see the point of even attempting to reach out to those voters.

Every moderate you convert is worth TWO liberals who refuse to vote. You decline a vote to the Republican party AND gain a vote for your own. I don't see a point in reaching out to the non-voters living in la-la land who apparently don't give a shit about the country. At very least, the conservative Pro-Trump voters do care about the country, even if their values are grossly different than mine.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:23 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:23 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:She didn't rack up the youth vote, precisely because she was viewed as too moderate. There are already plenty of young people who refuse to identify as Democrat or Liberal because the terms are no longer far enough Left for them. What, exactly, is the rationale in telling the millions of leftist young people who already declined to vote to "suck it up"?


If they didn't rally when the opponent was Donald fucking Drumpf, I don't really see the point of even attempting to reach out to those voters.

Every moderate you convert is worth TWO liberals who refuse to vote. You decline a vote to the Republican party AND gain a vote for your own.

On the other hand, if there was ever a lesson that voting actually matters, this was it.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:34 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:She didn't rack up the youth vote, precisely because she was viewed as too moderate. There are already plenty of young people who refuse to identify as Democrat or Liberal because the terms are no longer far enough Left for them. What, exactly, is the rationale in telling the millions of leftist young people who already declined to vote to "suck it up"?


If they didn't rally when the opponent was Donald fucking Trump, I don't really see the point of even attempting to reach out to those voters.

Every moderate you convert is worth TWO liberals who refuse to vote. You decline a vote to the Republican party AND gain a vote for your own. I don't see a point in reaching out to the non-voters living in la-la land who apparently don't give a shit about the country. At very least, the conservative Pro-Trump voters do care about the country, even if their values are grossly different than mine.


Moderate Republicans preferred Trump over a right-wing Democrat in overwhelming numbers. The number of Republican defections to the Democrats was insignificantly small--Trump got basically the same numbers as Romney. The Democrats could have nominated Ted Cruz and they still wouldn't have gotten votes from the moderate Republicans.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:39 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:She didn't rack up the youth vote, precisely because she was viewed as too moderate. There are already plenty of young people who refuse to identify as Democrat or Liberal because the terms are no longer far enough Left for them. What, exactly, is the rationale in telling the millions of leftist young people who already declined to vote to "suck it up"?


If they didn't rally when the opponent was Donald fucking Drumpf, I don't really see the point of even attempting to reach out to those voters.

Every moderate you convert is worth TWO liberals who refuse to vote. You decline a vote to the Republican party AND gain a vote for your own. I don't see a point in reaching out to the non-voters living in la-la land who apparently don't give a shit about the country. At very least, the conservative Pro-Drumpf voters do care about the country, even if their values are grossly different than mine.


Moderate Republicans preferred Drumpf over a right-wing Democrat in overwhelming numbers. The number of Republican defections to the Democrats was insignificantly small--Drumpf got basically the same numbers as Romney. The Democrats could have nominated Ted Cruz and they still wouldn't have gotten votes from the moderate Republicans.

Yeah exactly. Fuck moderation essentially. Like there's not this "ideal goddamn middle" or anything.

e: I'm tipsy
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:54 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:She didn't rack up the youth vote, precisely because she was viewed as too moderate. There are already plenty of young people who refuse to identify as Democrat or Liberal because the terms are no longer far enough Left for them. What, exactly, is the rationale in telling the millions of leftist young people who already declined to vote to "suck it up"?


If they didn't rally when the opponent was Donald fucking Drumpf, I don't really see the point of even attempting to reach out to those voters.

Every moderate you convert is worth TWO liberals who refuse to vote. You decline a vote to the Republican party AND gain a vote for your own. I don't see a point in reaching out to the non-voters living in la-la land who apparently don't give a shit about the country. At very least, the conservative Pro-Drumpf voters do care about the country, even if their values are grossly different than mine.


Moderate Republicans preferred Drumpf over a right-wing Democrat in overwhelming numbers. The number of Republican defections to the Democrats was insignificantly small--Drumpf got basically the same numbers as Romney. The Democrats could have nominated Ted Cruz and they still wouldn't have gotten votes from the moderate Republicans.

Yeah exactly. Fuck moderation essentially. Like there's not this "ideal goddamn middle" or anything.

e: I'm tipsy

Btw, this is how the Democratic meetup went downhill too.

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

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:02 am UTC

Everyone was tipsy?

Don't blame them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:25 am UTC

Mutex wrote:Everyone was tipsy?

Don't blame them.

All of the above. Eh, I was upset he won, but they were clearly not thinking straight. And that was before the alcohol.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4517
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:45 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Liri wrote:She didn't rack up the youth vote, precisely because she was viewed as too moderate. There are already plenty of young people who refuse to identify as Democrat or Liberal because the terms are no longer far enough Left for them. What, exactly, is the rationale in telling the millions of leftist young people who already declined to vote to "suck it up"?


If they didn't rally when the opponent was Donald fucking Trump, I don't really see the point of even attempting to reach out to those voters.

Every moderate you convert is worth TWO liberals who refuse to vote. You decline a vote to the Republican party AND gain a vote for your own. I don't see a point in reaching out to the non-voters living in la-la land who apparently don't give a shit about the country. At very least, the conservative Pro-Trump voters do care about the country, even if their values are grossly different than mine.


Just want to add that this whole line of reasoning explicitly assumes that Republicans are not required to compromise. I've heard lots of noise being made that Democrats should have tried to be more accommodating to moderate Republicans or conservative Christians or whatever, but never have I heard someone (on the Republican side anyway) say, "Well moderate Republicans should have sucked it up about abortion/tax cuts/climate change/whatever for the good of the country to prevent Donald Trump." No, it's only the Democrats who are ever required to compromise their values, only Democrats who are ever required to make concessions.

Of course, the reality is that this strategy has been wildly successful for Republicans, so there's no real reason to expect them to change. Even the Republican leaders who expressed grave reservations about Trump in the primaries ultimately fell in line rather than endorsing a Democrat. The supposed "moderates" preferred Donald Trump and his agenda to Hillary Clinton by overwhelming majorities. So no, there's no point in compromising to moderate Republicans because there are no moderate Republicans. There are people who voted for Donald Trump, and there is everybody else.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests