The General American Politics Thread

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Admirable, but wouldn't it be better to have a left-leaning member if they want to appeal beyond straight white men? The more vocal part ("more vocal" being the key words here) of the RNC come off as out of touch with other groups, so it's gonna be quite some convincing to assure people outside their primary demographic that they want to appeal to them too without missing the point of their grievances.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/11/meet-the-man-trump-is-relying-on-to-unravel-obamas-environmental-legacy/

A noted climate change skeptic is going to oversee a rollback of EPA policy. Unsurprising, given the frequent false antagonism between economic growth and environmental protection.

God, I can only hope there are some clean energy initiatives in the infrastructure program Trump wants. Renewable energy is easily spun as both a left and right-wing policy, after all, though conservatives are always at risk of derailing it due to their approval of dirty energy sources.

7 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Admirable, but wouldn't it be better to have a left-leaning member if they want to appeal beyond straight white men? The more vocal part ("more vocal" being the key words here) of the RNC come off as out of touch with other groups, so it's gonna be quite some convincing to assure people outside their primary demographic that they want to appeal to them too without missing the point of their grievances.

Their primary message is that of fiscal conservatism, so my guess is they're trying to create a more libertarian GOP that is openminded on social issues but embraces free markets.

I guess we're seeing the delicate coalition between the conservative and libertarian elements in this Cabinet.

[KHCast]

I brought that up earlier in the statuses. A fucking skeptic of climate change. Jesus, this presidency is gonna be a roller coaster

[KHCast]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html

 

so this is a thing. Trump is actually telling his supporters to essentially stop fucking with minorities. And says he WONT try to reverse same Sec. Marriage despite what he clearly said before lol. Wow. Also still against women's rights as he wants abortion rights to be a states issue.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-60-minutes-first-interview/index.html

 

so this is a thing. Trump is actually telling his supporters to essentially stop fucking with minorities. And says he WONT try to reverse same Sec. Marriage despite what he clearly said before lol. Wow. Also still against women's rights as he wants abortion rights to be a states issue.

...I'm surprised to say I guessed right!

He's willing to concede gay marriage but is insisting on abortion restrictions and protection of firearm rights to shore up his conservative credentials.

Despite the Breitbart appointee (who is balanced by the moderate RNC chair), I think he's legitimately interested in being a populist. While we have Cabinet positions being floated, he hasn't narrowed them down, which leaves hope there will be some sanity in the Trump administration.

The condemning of hate crimes is actually a really good tone. I don't care if it's just posturing - the fact he did it all is double take inducing. He's telling those people who were cheering his victory on because it vindicated their bigotry that what they're doing is not okay. Now that he has the Presidential mandate, he just might be slowly fitting into the shoes.

I'll remain cautiously optimistic. We don't really know what will happen until he's in office.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

3 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

...I'm surprised to say I guessed right!

The condemning of hate crimes is actually a really good tone. I don't care if it's just posturing - the fact he did it all is double take inducing. He's telling those people who were cheering his victory on because it vindicated their bigotry that what they're doing is not okay. Now that he has the Presidential mandate, he just might be slowly fitting into the shoes.

I'll remain cautiously optimistic. We don't really know what will happen until he's in office.

Childish of me, but I can't help but imagining those same voters frothing at the mouth and collapsing on the floor in anger from hearing this.

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, SenEDtor Missile said:

Childish of me, but I can't help but imagining those same voters frothing at the mouth and collapsing on the floor in anger from hearing this.

Oh no, I'm the same way.

President Trump may not be the socialist messiah we've all been waiting for, but if he can at least make the bigots in our society let out animalistic war noises at the fact they've been duped into thinking they'd get Jim Crow Mk. II, I'll be pretty damned happy.

This is where I really think the Trump Hitler comparisons are finally peeling away. I've seen people quoting contemporary articles saying that Hitler's racist propaganda was just campaign talk to encourage caution about Trump saying similar things, but the fact he's outright condemning hate crimes makes him a far cry from Hitler. Hitler reveled in violence, and so far, Trump is condemning it.

I'll be okay if these next 4 years are meh as opposed to God awful. All we really need is some sort of protection for racial minorities and I can relax more for the rest of his term.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

4 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

Oh no, I'm the same way.

President Trump may not be the socialist messiah we've all been waiting for, but if he can at least make the bigots in our society let out animalistic war noises at the fact they've been duped into thinking they'd get Jim Crow Mk. II, I'll be pretty damned happy.

This is where I really think the Trump Hitler comparisons are finally peeling away. I've seen people quoting contemporary articles saying that Hitler's racist propaganda was just campaign talk to encourage caution about Trump saying similar things, but the fact he's outright condemning hate crimes makes him a far cry from Hitler. Hitler reveled in violence, and so far, Trump is condemning it.

I'll be okay if these next 4 years are meh as opposed to God awful. All we really need is some sort of protection for racial minorities and I can relax more for the rest of his term.

I'm currently cautious for the time being. Just because Trump is SAYING he'll do these things doesn't mean he'll keep to them if he thinks they don't benefit him, narcissist that he is. That being said, I would not be surprised if he's being like this purely in an attempt to fix his reputation for his failures as a businessman and his more questionable actions regarding sexual harassment and stuff.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

Full 60 Minutes interview: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This is just becoming more hilariours as we reach the next year. Now if he actually does something about it...

[Johnny Boy]

6 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

Oh no, I'm the same way.

President Trump may not be the socialist messiah we've all been waiting for, but if he can at least make the bigots in our society let out animalistic war noises at the fact they've been duped into thinking they'd get Jim Crow Mk. II, I'll be pretty damned happy.

This is where I really think the Trump Hitler comparisons are finally peeling away. I've seen people quoting contemporary articles saying that Hitler's racist propaganda was just campaign talk to encourage caution about Trump saying similar things, but the fact he's outright condemning hate crimes makes him a far cry from Hitler. Hitler reveled in violence, and so far, Trump is condemning it.

I'll be okay if these next 4 years are meh as opposed to God awful. All we really need is some sort of protection for racial minorities and I can relax more for the rest of his term.

Then again, there is some things that cause concern such as his Vice President having a long history of being homophobic and his senior adviser being a prominent alt right figure.

[KHCast]

Oh don't be mistaken, damage is likely going to be done to some degree in many groups even if not from Trump. Pence attempting on the past push anti-LGBT policies isn't very comforting, and even if his conversion therapy support was being made to be much bigger than it was, he wasn't outright condemning it, and still probably talks good about it to people face to face and recommends it in some fashion. Really, I've been more concerned about that guy than Trump regarding LGBT 

[Patticus]

Howard Dean says he doesn't want to push anyone out of the way in the mini-race for DNC chairmanship, praises Ellison as "excellent." The two worked together on Ellison's first Minnesota campaign, IIRC. I would personally like to see both Dean and Ellison as co-chairs, a combination that sounds hopefully be able to leverage both the Sandersian small donor machine and the big money donors necessary to influence small races. Something tells me such a combination would also invite criticism and cries of hypocrisy from campaign finance reform advocates, though - but until all elections are financed from the public purse, what choice does a party have if it wants to win?

Meanwhile, an opinion piece on Politico wonders whether Breibart News might become Trump's Pravda; the closest thing America has seen to a state-run news organization.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-breitbart-pravda-214451

[Candescence]

Honestly, for me, nothing else in Trump's administration matters more than what happens to climate change mitigation efforts, because that's one area where Trump not only has not backflipped, but also poses the threat of doing horrific amounts of damage and potentially endangering humankind. And that's assuming that the worst predictions are wrong and it's already too late.

[KHCast]

This is brilliant 

[Patticus]

A piece of news emerged today which says a lot about exactly how unprepared Donald Trump and his team is for the presidency, and gives some insight into why it's probably a great idea for prospective presidential candidates to have some experience in politics.

Quote

President-elect Donald Trump plans to spend more time with President Barack Obama learning how to assimilate into his new role after winning the most volatile election in decades.

According to one report, Trump seemed “surprised by the scope” of his new responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief. He and his team also apparently were unaware that they would need to replace the entire staff of the West Wing at the end of Obama’s term.

A senior aide close to the president-elect confirmed that Trump’s victory surprised even his closest advisers, and that Trump did not want to “jinx” his chances of winning the election if he planned the transition too early.

Trump is the first person elected to the presidency with no military or government experience. As a result, President Obama has personally pledged to spend more time counseling Trump than presidents typically do with their successors.

Obama and Trump met inside the Oval Office for a 90-minute meeting Thursday which concluded with the president-elect stating that he “looked forward to dealing with the President in the future, including counsel.” After the meeting, Obama agreed to do “everything we can to help you succeed, because if you succeed, the country succeeds.”

There is a bitter irony to all of this. Trump spent years criticizing the sitting president, most infamously when he perpetuated the long-standing rumors and conspiracy theories that have accused President Obama himself of not being an American citizen, despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Representatives for Trump did not respond when asked for comment and did not elaborate when asked for specifics on the meeting. Jason Miller, communications director for the Trump transition, said in a statement that  Trump, as a non-politician, “puts a premium on making the right decision, not the politically expedient one. President-elect Trump’s excellent judgment and temperament has served him well in business and in life, and he’s not going to be swayed by a bunch of political insiders responsible for filling up the swamp in the first place.”

Source.

He's going to shadow the president to learn how to be president. Is this for real? This isn't Walmart, this isn't Arby's, this is a job that you have to actually prepare for - ideally through lawmaking or something along those lines.

Even if you don't know all about all of the job, you should still have some knowledge of good parts of it; more than enough to know that you need to staff the West Wing yourself.

The presidency isn't an amateur hour job.

[Dizcrybe]

I can only imagine how mortifying this must be for Trump.

[KHCast]

"Oh shit, I had to do this stuff?"

[Tani Coyote]

The great news about Trump's Cabinet picks are those are all hypothetical because he can easily change his mind prior to January 20, as those need to be jointly appointed by the Senate and President.

On the other hand, the Chief of Staff and Chief Strategist are appointed by the President exclusively, so those are guaranteed.

Some mixed news, though: White House Chiefs of Staff only serve 2.5 years on average. So Priebus is likely to only serve until after the midterms. By the same token, chief strategists only tend to serve around 2 years, so we're likely to see Bannon go before or after the midterms.

10 hours ago, Johnny Boy said:

Then again, there is some things that cause concern such as his Vice President having a long history of being homophobic and his senior adviser being a prominent alt right figure.

Such is the price of coalition building, I guess.

We can just hope their roles remain relatively tertiary and secondary as opposed to primary.

9 hours ago, KHCast said:

Oh don't be mistaken, damage is likely going to be done to some degree in many groups even if not from Trump. Pence attempting on the past push anti-LGBT policies isn't very comforting, and even if his conversion therapy support was being made to be much bigger than it was, he wasn't outright condemning it, and still probably talks good about it to people face to face and recommends it in some fashion. Really, I've been more concerned about that guy than Trump regarding LGBT 

We can only cross our fingers that Trump serves the full four years and that the Senate never reaches a tie on social issues.

8 hours ago, Patticus said:

Howard Dean says he doesn't want to push anyone out of the way in the mini-race for DNC chairmanship, praises Ellison as "excellent." The two worked together on Ellison's first Minnesota campaign, IIRC. I would personally like to see both Dean and Ellison as co-chairs, a combination that sounds hopefully be able to leverage both the Sandersian small donor machine and the big money donors necessary to influence small races. Something tells me such a combination would also invite criticism and cries of hypocrisy from campaign finance reform advocates, though - but until all elections are financed from the public purse, what choice does a party have if it wants to win?

The old Social Democrat strategy: work within the system to destroy the system:

Funnily enough, that's Trump's argument on lobbyists and the Electoral College.

Quote

Meanwhile, an opinion piece on Politico wonders whether Breibart News might become Trump's Pravda; the closest thing America has seen to a state-run news organization.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-steve-bannon-breitbart-pravda-214451

Quite possibly.

On the other hand, if Trump keeps swinging to the left on certain issues...

A part of me is hoping he brought Bannon on board to have a direct line to the alt-right backers who helped him get in power, rather than giving Bannon the keys to the government. Actually: do we know if Bannon or Priebus was chosen first?

For all we know, Priebus might have been chosen and then suggested Trump appoint Bannon to stay in the good graces of the alt-right.

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

A piece of news emerged today which says a lot about exactly how unprepared Donald Trump and his team is for the presidency, and gives some insight into why it's probably a great idea for prospective presidential candidates to have some experience in politics.

Source.

He's going to shadow the president to learn how to be president. Is this for real? This isn't Walmart, this isn't Arby's, this is a job that you have to actually prepare for - ideally through lawmaking or something along those lines.

Even if you don't know all about all of the job, you should still have some knowledge of good parts of it; more than enough to know that you need to staff the West Wing yourself.

The presidency isn't an amateur hour job.

A part of me thinks the man legitimately thought he could just run a government like a business and is getting a massive wake-up call, realizing there are huge social responsibilities to it and not just pushing products.

Maybe in the 1800s barring Lincoln, when it wasn't that powerful of a post, but not today.

Let's pray Trump doesn't get overwhelmed and give the seat to Pence. I'd rather him trying to learn on the job than an experienced, malicious politician.

With Obama convincing him of the merits of a careful restructuring of Obamacare, though, this counsel position might be beneficial, barring Trump lying about it all prior to inauguration. I'm sure conservatives are horrified at the idea of Obama advising him as opposed to the Bushes, though.

[Tani Coyote]

I don't understand the liberal enthusiasm for the Electoral College choosing someone besides Trump. If they did pick Clinton against all odds, that would piss off a huge number of Trump supporters, vindicating their position that the system is rigged and corrupt. Never mind it makes a lot of liberals look bad: having disliked the results of a democratic election, they fell back on an oligarchy to have their way. This is particularly worrying from those who liked Sanders.

Then, let's be real. In all likelihood, the Electoral College will not swing towards Clinton, but another Republican. Realistically, what will happen is enough votes are diverted away from Trump to prevent him from having a majority. If that happens... the vote for President goes to the House, which has to pick between Trump, Clinton, and whoever had the most votes besides them. They could theoretically pick the third choice Republican, but that will, again, piss off a lot of Trump's supporters.

Considering 40% of them said they wouldn't accept anyone but Trump as legitimate, and this would undermine the whole idea of American democracy to have a third choice be chosen... it's an explosive situation. We avoid Trump, sure, but now we have millions of people, many of whom have guns and aren't entirely progressive on issues of equality, angered at the establishment.

I don't think there will be an overthrow of the government, but I wouldn't rule out insurrection. Or a shitload more hate crimes than we're already seeing. On the other hand, the House is where the Tea Party vibes are strongest, and I get the feeling they might pick Trump over the alternative, as they have anti-establishment overtones as well.

The anti-Trump protests are relatively peaceful despite incidents of violence (this is bound to happen with nearly any protest due to the numbers and emotions involved). I don't think pro-Trump protests would be the same if he has the election stolen from him.

We really are in a crappy situation. It looks best to let Trump win, but get to work on putting as many chains as possible on him so he can't do any lasting damage.

[KHCast]

I mean these people are already probably pissed with trump going back on what he's said for a lot of shit. Getting someone else may not actually piss them off at this point.

Sounds like a bunch of assumptions being made about what will happen imo. I mean if I were to assume what would happen, I'd wager they'd probably just do what they've been doing already when it comes to trump. Being loud. And maybe throw in what the left has been doing with the protests and Facebook. I don't see massacres or high levels of violence and killing resulting in trump loosing the electorates. Especially with how many are getting upset about his backtracking. They'd probably welcome someone that in their mind will suit their wishes better, even if it's a politician.

Fact of the matter is, we simply don't know what would happen. Maybe trump supporters riot and doom America, maybe they just end up being more of the same typical angry voters that wanted their guy to win, and they complain and bicker about it being rigged, maybe they don't mind and want someone else now, who knows at this point. 

The bigger thing to worry about if he ends up not getting the presidency is who the house will replace him with, which could very well be someone worse and more worrying. It's a damn if you do, damn if you don't situation. It's a gamble either way. Gamble with trump, or gamble with the electorate and whoever they pick.

[Cyalume]

As someone who lives in the conservative-dominated deep south of the USA, from what I've heard, many people around these parts wouldn't necessarily care if the electoral college chose a different Republican over Trump; It would cause some minor agitation, but nothing huge from what I gather in my immediate area. 

Pick Clinton by those means though at this point, and I'm pretty sure there would be hell, or blood, to pay.  They're probably full of hot air, yeah, but something tells me having the election taken away from them after they rightly won it (whether you disagree with the electoral college or not, it's how the system works and he did win) would cause riots the likes of which you've never seen. It would be much, much worse than whats going on right now; but I mean, if you undermine the entire election process and the candidate you vehemently disapprove of steals it from the candidate you did vote for, I could imagine that would piss a lot of people off.

Next to nobody here wants Clinton. A different Republican, sure. Gary Johnson, maybe. Even Bernie Sanders was better received, at least in my small town he was. Hillary was hated from the very get-go though.

[Patticus]

By the sounds of it, for the first time since the late 19th century we're going to have multiple "faithless electors" in play - that is to say, members of the Electoral College who won't go with the public or their party. Two members are trying to drum up support among their fellow electors for voting for John Kasich, Mitt Romney etc - any other Republican but Trump. They need 37 electors to turn for this to work, which would be totally unprecedented as very few electors have ever felt so strongly as to defy the people. At that point, the House of Representatives has to decide who gets in of the top 3 nominees - we know it'll be a Republican, since Clinton can't win there. I can't imagine what would happen then, as it's such an unfathomably distant prospect.

1 hour ago, Cyalume said:

Hillary was hated from the very get-go though.

As somebody who has been involved in politics since the start of the 1980s, she had a lot of baggage coming into the election, and I'd say that much of that was public perception. The public's perceptions of her have been heavily influenced by literal decades of anti-her propaganda, aided and abetted by the various scandals she and her husband found themselves in over the years; Whitewater etc, and a scathing national press on top. She too has been heavily influenced by all the crap that has dogged her these past decades, becoming much more secretive and un-trusting of others in the process, an unfortunate and detrimental side effect that contributed to the public's perceptions of her as a shady character, boosting her unpopularity.

As much as she was indisputably the most qualified candidate of our lifetimes, she was also the most unfortunate, and by far the most weighed down by accumulated shit. Had Barack Obama not run in 2008, she probably would have been our president these last 8 years, so I am fairly convinced that it was really these last few years that actually put the nails in the coffin of her presidential hopes; Benghazi, the "Clinton Cash" book, the "deplorables" comment etc. Her time was in '08, and while it's deeply saddening to see her go, that's how the cookie crumbled and we need to learn the lessons of the election and move on in earnest. There's no room for wallowing.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Sounds like a bunch of assumptions being made about what will happen imo. I mean if I were to assume what would happen, I'd wager they'd probably just do what they've been doing already when it comes to trump. Being loud.

A lot of these people are the ones who savor the fantasy of rising up against an oppressive government.

The times of the Electoral College pulling strange shenanigans are confined to earlier centuries; these days they follow the rules of winning the popular vote in many states.

Hell would quite likely break loose if the Electoral College invalidated the democratic process completely. As it stands, the people have a good deal of say in the final result; the EC changing in such a way to throw the election to a third candidate or the House tells the people their votes really do not matter.

No really. This is a borderline show election at that point. Trump or Clinton. That's it. Clinton has some claim to legitimacy by merit of winning the nationwide popular vote, but Trump is the legal winner in both state and national terms. I don't think a few hundred elites throwing out the law because it is inconvenient to them sets good precedent.

59 minutes ago, Patticus said:

As much as she was indisputably the most qualified candidate of our lifetimes, she was also the most unfortunate, and by far the most weighed down by accumulated shit. Had Barack Obama not run in 2008, she probably would have been our president these last 8 years, so I am fairly convinced that it was really these last few years that actually put the nails in the coffin of her presidential hopes; Benghazi, the "Clinton Cash" book, the "deplorables" comment etc. Her time was in '08, and while it's deeply saddening to see her go, that's how the cookie crumbled and we need to learn the lessons of the election and move on in earnest. There's no room for wallowing.

She can rest easy knowing the masses were with her. She may not have won, but she came far closer than any other woman has before.

There are several women in both parties who will most likely try their luck in the coming elections. Now that it's apparent that women have a real chance of winning the Presidency, they just need to be very careful in how they proceed, I imagine we're going to see quite a few hopefuls in 2020 and onward.

[Candescence]

19 minutes ago, Noelgilvie said:

No really. This is a borderline show election at that point. Trump or Clinton. That's it. Clinton has some claim to legitimacy by merit of winning the nationwide popular vote, but Trump is the legal winner in both state and national terms. I don't think a few hundred elites throwing out the law because it is inconvenient to them sets good precedent.

The problem is, faithless electors aren't illegal, so they wouldn't be throwing out the law. The actual state-based popular vote is practically a suggestion even in states that criminally punish faithless electors. Having a bunch of elites who can disregard the popular vote if they feel that the alternative is a negative result of tyranny of the majority in a certain case is literally how the Electoral College was designed, in order to compromise between a regular popular vote and the President being picked by Congress.

Of course, that's one of the main reasons why the Electoral College needs replacing, but let's not pretend the possible outcome we're contemplating is a bug, not a feature.