The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Nepenthe]

Trump is going to eventually learn that he's just President, not the fucking King of America.

[Conando]

Not so sure on that one myself. I think he's going to drive this crazy train right off the cliff. I just hope he doesn't take all of us with him.

[Patticus]

24 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

Trump is going to eventually learn that he's just President, not the fucking King of America.

Unfortunately, his life in the over-privileged environment of the top of his family-owned business, where he could say and do whatever he wanted without consequence, means that he believes he is essentially a king.

[Tani Coyote]

I do believe this image is relevant.

Meanwhile, more reason to turn out in for state elections in 2017/2018/2019: the Popular Vote Compact is now passed or pending in the vast majority of state legislatures.

In total, 19 states have had it introduced for the 2017 session. For comparison, the second highest time it's been introduced was the 2007-2008 session, with 15 states introducing it.

If every state considering it that voted for Clinton or narrowly voted for Trump (Florida, Pennsylvania) passed this, plus another state that represents 10 electoral votes (Michigan, Wisconsin, or Virginia would be good bets), it would become law.

Of course, that requires the GOP be forced from power in a lot of these states, so more incentive to turnout and vote down ticket. It's not just Congress and the President that matter, but all these state politicians as well, because of how much of an effect they can have on federal politics.

On 2/8/2017 at 9:40 PM, SenEDtor Missile said:

There's a question that I only realized I never asked and kind of want an answer to:

Why does it seem like extreme (white) conservatism is on the rise in such a large number of first world countries lately?

Maybe I've just been ignorant due to lack of knowledge and attention span and it's always been there, but it only seems like recently that radical extremes like the GOP and various other conservative groups have come climbing out of the woodwork to try to stamp down the rise of progress. Did they just only start showing because they realized that they were no longer on the top of the shit pile and wanted to "remind the minorities their place" or something?

Action and reaction. The pendulum periodically swings hard to the right after it's had a chance to swing to the left for a little bit.

It's typical to blame the current ideology for society's problems rather than "shit happens."

4 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

Trump is going to eventually learn that he's just President, not the fucking King of America.

A part of me thinks he'll eventually just resign out of sheer frustration at the fact the job isn't what he was expecting.

[Patticus]

7 hours ago, Ogilvie said:

A part of me thinks he'll eventually just resign out of sheer frustration at the fact the job isn't what he was expecting.

While I might hope that this will happen, has Trump ever quit a job before?

More likely a scenario, I would think, would be Trump eventually becoming so frustrated and maddened that he begins to delegate more and more responsibility to Pence, who will endeavor to implement his more doable policy goals, make a halfhearted stab at the less practical ones, and fill in the gaps with his own agenda. Trump would assume a more ceremonial role, enjoying all the perks of the presidency, but not really getting involved in the day to day work, and only signing off on executive orders when they're obviously to his benefit.

[Kuzu]

*Slow clap*  I will never get over how this is the person they decided is fit to run our country.

[Wraith]

http://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-wont-take-travel-ban-to-supreme-court-10763249

 

 

[Patticus]

Quote

US investigators corroborate some aspects of the Russia dossier

For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration.

None of the newly learned information relates to the salacious allegations in the dossier. Rather it relates to conversations between foreign nationals. The dossier details about a dozen conversations between senior Russian officials and other Russian individuals. Sources would not confirm which specific conversations were intercepted or the content of those discussions due to the classified nature of US intelligence collection programs.

But the intercepts do confirm that some of the conversations described in the dossier took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier, according to the officials. CNN has not confirmed whether any content relates to then-candidate Trump.

The corroboration, based on intercepted communications, has given US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of some aspects of the dossier as they continue to actively investigate its contents, these sources say.

Reached for comment this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, "We continue to be disgusted by CNN's fake news reporting."

Spicer later called back and said, "This is more fake news. It is about time CNN focused on the success the President has had bringing back jobs, protecting the nation, and strengthening relationships with Japan and other nations. The President won the election because of his vision and message for the nation."

Spokespeople for the FBI, Department of Justice, CIA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

While the more salacious elements of Steele's dossier are still unconfirmed, and may forever remain unverifiable (if Putin's thugs do a thorough job), clearly investigations are ongoing to ascertain the accuracy of as much of the dossier as is humanly possible. Quite what'll happen if it's all true, I don't know, but it'll sure be fun to find out.

[8ther]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

http://news.sky.com/story/president-trump-wont-take-travel-ban-to-supreme-court-10763249

 

 

...I don't get it

[Speederino]

If at first you don't succeed, even when the action was deemed unconstitutional by literal courts, just do it again. And again. And again. I mean it has to work eventually, right?

In all seriousness, I doubt it will be literally the same thing. Maybe there will be less restrictions or some kind of caveat for permanent U.S citizens, but even so I just find it hilarious that he's seriously considering doing it again so soon after the first dismal failure. I mean it's scary, duh, but his gross incompetence does give me a good laugh.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Not that much of a reason to be too hopeful for, but good news to offset the dread for a while.

Amazing how Spicer immediately comes out and claims "fake news" when things like the dossier come back up and he starts talking about Trump bringing back jobs and strengthening ties with Japan -- first off, any president that would weaken those ties to our asian allies in the midst of a rising and belligerent China is beyond stupid, so that's not much of a praise than it is a sigh of relief that he didn't botch that up, nevermind that it's not really a guarantee he won't inadvertently do that in the future.

And has Trump actually created any jobs at all? Because last I checked, he was throwing tantrums on Twitter majority of the time, and the only actual work he did was sign an EO that risked causing more problems than anything good.

[KHCast]

It's amazing how I'm still seeing people convinced the polls were rigged and that Trump actually won both the popular vote and college vote. I mean Jesus as if the reaction to his nomination wasn't indicative of that statement being bullshit, the only things I see to back it up is "But California may have tons of illegal votes" and the Jill stein recount. Both of which are not credible until proven to claim massive voter fraud. (This isn't even bringing up Trumps own potential shadiness with votes)

 

Though these people still think Obamacare isn't related to the ACA...

[SenEDDtor Missile]

7 minutes ago, KHCast said:

It's amazing how I'm still seeing people convinced the polls were rigged and that Trump actually won both the popular vote and college vote. I mean Jesus as if the reaction to his nomination wasn't indicative of that statement being bullshit, the only things I see to back it up is "But California may have tons of illegal votes" and the Jill stein recount. Both of which are not credible until proven to claim massive voter fraud. (This isn't even bringing up Trumps own potential shadiness with votes) Though these people still think Obamacare isn't related to the ACA...

In the real world we call that self-delusion or denial. In their fantasy world, it's "alternative facts".

[Patticus]

8 hours ago, Speederino: Hero of Hyrule said:

If at first you don't succeed, even when the action was deemed unconstitutional by literal courts, just do it again. And again. And again. I mean it has to work eventually, right?

Here's how it'll play out: Trump will put forward EO after EO on immigration, and if the judiciary shoots them all down, Trump will take whichever order he likes best to the Supreme Court, after Gorsuch is confirmed, and we shall see if Gorsuch is Trump's puppet or not. If an EO comes out of the White House that isn't sloppy and can actually hold up in court, the opposition will, one way or another, bring the issue up to the Supreme Court, and again we will see if Gorsuch is Trump's puppet or not.

The Muslim ban was one of Trump's key campaign promises, alongside the wall and bringing jobs back. He's not going to leave it alone.

[Tani Coyote]

Seeing that "Death to America" rally yesterday was an excellent metric for confirmation bias on both sides.

The media painted it as being anti-Trump, when really, radical Iranians hold that rally just about every year.

The right, meanwhile, started circulating a supposedly similar rally by Muslims in Chicago from 2014, claiming they were saying "Death to America," but actually listening to the clip shows no such thing happened. Furthermore, it wasn't a Muslim rally, but a pro-Palestine rally.

It's scary times we live in. There's increasingly no such thing as truth, just which set of lies you prefer.

6 hours ago, KHCast said:

It's amazing how I'm still seeing people convinced the polls were rigged and that Trump actually won both the popular vote and college vote.

It doesn't help that Trump won't stop harping on about it. Now he's ranting about it in meetings with Senators, claiming illegal voters are the only reason he lost New Hampshire.

How far does a person have to retreat into their own asshole to seriously believe Democrats can't win anything without voter fraud? Sadly, lots of his fans lick this right up.

For better or worse, though, Trump claims Elizabeth Warren is the new face of the Democratic Party.

[Patticus]

1 hour ago, Ogilvie said:

For better or worse, though, Trump claims Elizabeth Warren is the new face of the Democratic Party.

In the vacuum left by the DNC chair's emptiness, with no solid strategy for fighting back, she has been perhaps the most prominent Democrat leading the charge against the Trump administration, asking pointed and difficult questions of multiple nominees at a time when most of the voices heard are Republican. McConnell silencing her over her reading of Coretta Scott King's 1986 letter denouncing Sessions' candidacy for federal judge has only elevated her position within the party - a very rare strategic mistake on McConnell's part.

She'll be running in the 2020 primaries - she has hired an assistant to advise on foreign policy, and IIRC her committee positions put her in a good position to become very well informed on matters she hasn't been known to be strong with over the coming years.

[Candescence]

Warren is going to be a far, far better candidate for the Dems than Clinton ever was, that's for sure. She doesn't have the same kind of baggage Clinton has and is much better positioned to take on populist positions without stooping to Trump's level. If Trump doesn't somehow "fix" the economy or elevate his personal popularity by 2020, he's fucked if the Dems pick Warren to run against him.

[Tani Coyote]

On the other hand, some conservative voices are celebrating her rise as the face of the Party. They believe she'll do her part to alienate swing voters and deliver Trump a second term.

Though ultimately, how much the Democrats' moves succeed or fail is proportionate to Trump's success in his first term. Economic populism is the name of the game, and if Trump fails to deliver in this department, it would be easy for the Democrats to swoop in and take back government-directed economic reform.

I just hope that when the time for a bipartisan infrastructure bill comes, Democrats in states Trump won aren't scared into supporting it to a point they'll let bad parts of the bill get through.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

But let's be realistic and ask what are the odds of Trump actually doing well on what matters? Sure he'll do what he thinks is best to protect the country militarily, but everything else...?

I'm not saying this to joke around either. Worst case scenario is we have another 9/11 equivalent that boosts his approval at the worst moment.

And that also brings into question how effective Warren is...I had little clue about this woman until recently. She's not one to shoot herself in the foot is she?

[Phos]

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html

MI6's dossier on trump's intelligence revived from the Kremlin have recently been verified in part by US intelligence.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/

I don't think impeachment is enough anymore. 

[Patticus]

16 hours ago, Ogilvie said:

On the other hand, some conservative voices are celebrating her rise as the face of the Party. They believe she'll do her part to alienate swing voters and deliver Trump a second term.

Which is why she will need to partner up with a younger moderate or centrist, perhaps one of Obama's cabinet appointees like Castro. Then you have left-wing and centrist credibility in one solid package. I think it could be a winning combination, but it really depends on Trump's performance, as well as whether any scandals break around any currently-good Democratic contenders in the next 3 years or so. We don't need another John Edwards.

[CleverSonicUsername]

Edwards cheating on his cancer suffering wife almost seems quaint compared to the bullshit Trump has said and done, and yet here we are.

[Tani Coyote]

http://nypost.com/2017/02/12/trumps-white-house-eyes-potential-foes-in-2020-election/

We now have an idea who Trump sees as potential competitors in his 2020 bid (yes, he's already planning it). The list is... not what you'd expect.

Quote

Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, asked consultants to scour the backgrounds of four outspoken Democrats — Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, two sources close to the administration said.

“The White House political department wants people to start looking into them,” said one source close to the White House. “Trump is obsessed with running for re-election.”

Both Murphy, a freshman senator who has lambasted Trump’s immigration orders, and Brown, a 10-year Senate vet who made Hillary Clinton’s VP short list, are seen as viable threats who can quickly raise money and build a network of supporters, the sources said.

Hickenlooper, who founded a brewery before becoming governor of the Western swing state, is seen as a less-combative rising star, the sources said.

But the White House’s “biggest fear” is that Cuban, a billionaire businessman, would run because he can appeal to Republicans and independents, the sources said.

“He’s not a typical candidate,” the second insider said. “He appeals to a lot of people the same way Trump did.”

Warren and Bernie are seen as non-threats due to age, Gillibrand is seen as too young, and Cuomo and Booker are seen as dragged too far down by corruption probes.

The irony is pretty thick here, as they're writing off candidates on the basis of age or things that make them unpalatable.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/12/top-trump-aide-says-white-house-has-enormous-evidence-voter-fraud.html

Joy to the world, Trump is apparently going to make Pence head a voter fraud investigation commission.

Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, takes the middle ground: he believes voter fraud is an issue, but federal money shouldn't be spent on it.

Which I think is code for how he knows voter fraud is self-serving right-wing bullshit, and he knows nothing fruitful would come of this.

Let's note the irony of some Republicans complaining about voter fraud in elections they won.

20 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

But let's be realistic and ask what are the odds of Trump actually doing well on what matters? Sure he'll do what he thinks is best to protect the country militarily, but everything else...?

There's always dumb luck giving him good circumstances, or a sufficiently poor enough candidate that turnout is too low to see him lose the election.

Quote

I'm not saying this to joke around either. Worst case scenario is we have another 9/11 equivalent that boosts his approval at the worst moment.

Yeah, that's a fairly scary possibility. I'd hope people wouldn't equate an attack to meaning we have to keep the current President in office if there's a better alternative, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Quote

And that also brings into question how effective Warren is...I had little clue about this woman until recently. She's not one to shoot herself in the foot is she?

She can be pretty vocal. She's loved by progressives, but there's an anxiety she may not resonate with non-white Democrats (the same problem Bernie had).

[Blacklightning]

4 hours ago, Ogilvie said:

Let's note the irony of some Republicans complaining about voter fraud in elections they won.

Even as someone who doesn't engage in politics much, I feel like the reasoning behind this is pretty simple - they lost the popular vote by a historically wide margin (at least, as far as electoral college wins go) and the overwhelming majority of the country hates them right now. The Republicans are desperate to convey both of those as fallacies to artificially inflate the presence of their supporters - which the election proved was less a silent majority like Trump claimed and more of a vocal minority - to make their regime seem less awful to outsiders and people on the fence within the country.

Of course, considering there have been, what, four notable cases of actual voter fraud in the previous election? Actually going through with an investigation into it would only undermine their stance further, and it's pretty hard to believe that even Trump isn't aware of that. My guess is that Republicans are going to treat it something like the current state of the Muslim ban - talk big, claim they'll get shit done, then quietely slip it under the rug of some other controversy and hope people forget about it.

[Speederino]

What I don't get is, if these reports of Trump hating this job are true, why on earth he'd WANT to run for a second term. A small comfort I've been taking lately is that, for all the stress and worry we've gone through in the last few weeks, his own life must be absolute hell right now.