GMG Classical Music Forum

The Back Room => The Diner => Topic started by: Jeffrey Smith on November 09, 2016, 07:04:39 PM

Title: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 09, 2016, 07:04:39 PM
Now that we have achieved extinction, time for a thread to chronicle the ups and downs of President Trump.  So while Todd remains away, I have taken up his burden.

I was going to title this thread Trump Trauma but wanted something not so obviously biased.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Andante on November 09, 2016, 08:18:58 PM
Is he worse than Hillary ?? 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on November 09, 2016, 10:02:48 PM
Is he worse than Hillary ??
Hillary is not president, so that is not what this thread is for.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on November 09, 2016, 10:58:21 PM
Ha! The Trump Tracker®. ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 02:01:24 AM
Quote from: H.L. Mencken
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 10, 2016, 02:22:59 AM
Quote from: H.L. Mencken

    Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

Is it always valid or just in some cases?  :D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 03:36:14 AM
;)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 04:06:43 AM
Is it always valid or just in some cases?  :D

Not if we retain an Electoral College system where the person who wins the most votes actually loses.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 10, 2016, 05:06:07 AM
Not if we retain an Electoral College system where the person who wins the most votes actually loses.

I agree 100% but in your estimation what are the chances that USA get rid of this anomaly any time soon?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on November 10, 2016, 05:19:23 AM
I agree 100% but in your estimation what are the chances that USA get rid of this anomaly any time soon?
In hindsight, Obama should have tried to in 2009, but oops.

The USA needs a number of very big reforms to the democratic process, including:
- new, more restrictive financing system
- nonpartisan drawing of congressional districts based on data but not based on which party benefits
- primary elections which function as run-offs, with the top two candidates from any party advancing to the general election (very important for creating more moderation and centrism in Congress)
- abolition of Electoral College
- civil/criminal court judges are not elected by political party
- statehood for Puerto Rico and District of Columbia

But I doubt we will see any of those happen for 20-25 years.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 10, 2016, 05:25:14 AM
In hindsight, Obama should have tried to in 2009, but oops.

The USA needs a number of very big reforms to the democratic process, including:
- new, more restrictive financing system
- nonpartisan drawing of congressional districts based on data but not based on which party benefits
- primary elections which function as run-offs, with the top two candidates from any party advancing to the general election (very important for creating more moderation and centrism in Congress)
- abolition of Electoral College
- civil/criminal court judges are not elected by political party
- statehood for Puerto Rico and District of Columbia

But I doubt we will see any of those happen for 20-25 years.

Amen to all of these. To which I would add term limits for congress; 3 terms for the House, 2 terms for Senate. Then it's back to the farm or practice or whatever in hell it is that you did before.

Agree with your last too, sadly... :-\

8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 10, 2016, 05:35:09 AM
- primary elections which function as run-offs, with the top two candidates from any party advancing to the general election (very important for creating more moderation and centrism in Congress)

Why not allowing anyone, party member or independent, who meets the elligibility criteria and wants to run, to do so, with the additional condition of being supported by the signatures of a certain number of citizens? For instance, in Romania one only needs to obtain 200,000 signatures to run (total population less than 20,000,000). Such a system would have allowed Bernie Sanders to run on his own.

Quote
- civil/criminal court judges are not elected by political party

Wait a minute! Do you mean that civil/criminal judges are nominated by political parties?   :o
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 10, 2016, 05:36:11 AM
What is your best guess, guys?  Trump is self-serving by nature - he believes this to be "smart" - and I think it will be difficult for him to resist taking business advantage of his position in any way he can, though much of this will be under the radar.  Until it comes out...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 10, 2016, 05:37:09 AM
Amen to all of these. To which I would add term limits for congress; 3 terms for the House, 2 terms for Senate. Then it's back to the farm or practice or whatever in hell it is that you did before.

Agree with your last too, sadly... :-\

8)

Term limits = good.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 05:37:20 AM
In hindsight, Obama should have tried to in 2009, but oops.

Aye, that would have been the one Obama initiative that the Congress would have been behind, a hunnert percent  8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 10, 2016, 05:50:53 AM
Yup:

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on November 10, 2016, 06:02:59 AM
If only you knew, Calvin...
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/514637c0637201301a42001dd8b71c47)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on November 10, 2016, 06:54:15 AM
Where is the Democratic leadership?  Why are they silent?  These protests are being fueled by social media and becoming violent.
The Democratic leadership that spent yesterday making concession speeches, asking supporters for unity, and in Obama's case even saying he hopes Trump is successful? Your willful blind spot didn't go away when your guy won.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on November 10, 2016, 07:00:08 AM
In hindsight, Obama should have tried to in 2009, but oops.

The USA needs a number of very big reforms to the democratic process, including:
- new, more restrictive financing system
- nonpartisan drawing of congressional districts based on data but not based on which party benefits
- primary elections which function as run-offs, with the top two candidates from any party advancing to the general election (very important for creating more moderation and centrism in Congress)
- abolition of Electoral College
- civil/criminal court judges are not elected by political party
- statehood for Puerto Rico and District of Columbia

But I doubt we will see any of those happen for 20-25 years.

Thought of a few more!

- all political donations, to campaigns or to politically active organizations, must be publicly ID'd
- all federal candidates must release tax returns for at least 5 previous years
- Election Day is a national holiday

Wait a minute! Do you mean that civil/criminal judges are nominated by political parties?   :o
Yes! This is one of the worst things about the country. And judges run in elections, which has encouraged harsher sentencing for small crimes as judges race to see who can be "the toughest".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 10, 2016, 07:30:41 AM
Let's consider the possibility of a progressive Trump. No, I'm not joking. I posted this on the other thread, but I think it is worth re-posting here, now that the election is over:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/10/im-bernie-sanders-voter-heres-ill-vote-trump.html

My major objection to this is that it is too trusting of Trump's own statements. He could change his mind about any of these things tomorrow (and then maybe change it back again). But it is good to have all these facts in one place.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 10, 2016, 07:33:32 AM
Ok, I am still smarting over the defeat.

So I ask you fellow Democrats who are we going to run in 2020 and take back the White House?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 10, 2016, 07:35:03 AM
A term limits constitutional amendment tops Trumps agenda for his first 100 days.  He does not have support from the Republican leadership yet, but if he can get broad support across party lines and among the states, his presidency would offer the best hope for term limits becoming reality.

I await, with bated breath... :)

8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 10, 2016, 07:42:45 AM
I already alluded to Obama and Clinton calling for unity (on the other thread) and their followers ignoring that call.   But can you link to any leader calling for quiet since the protests have started?
Happened in 2012 too. What's your point?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 07:50:24 AM
I already alluded to Obama and Clinton calling for unity (on the other thread) and their followers ignoring that call.   But can you link to any leader calling for quiet since the protests have started?

Certainly there's been no sign of that from Trump.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 08:01:00 AM
My major objection to this is that it is too trusting of Trump's own statements. He could change his mind about any of these things tomorrow (and then maybe change it back again).

Ayyup.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 10, 2016, 08:17:43 AM
Honestly, that call to Clinton supporters who already do not accept Trump would only be effective from her or Obama.

Leadership from within the same group is required to tamp down violent protests no matter which side the protest is directed against.  That is my point.  There have assassination threats on social media.   Are you suggesting silence by Democratic leadership is appropriate?

I've suggested nothing. I was simply trying to understand your position, which was unclear to me. I am neither supporting nor attacking you (or your position in this post). I usually try to avoid this thread, but what people are saying is interesting to me.

To answer your question - I don't know. They've said the right things to try and bring people together. There are always outliers who don't listen. To bring attention to them by saying something about it is not always the right course of action. My assumption is that there have been threats against both candidates for some time. I doubt either would support those physical threats, but again saying something brings attention to these people. And I have not heard them regularly commenting on such things.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on November 10, 2016, 08:39:01 AM
My assumption is that there have been threats against both candidates for some time.
Yes indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/v/EcxkkrNSv-4
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on November 10, 2016, 09:18:13 AM
I already alluded to Obama and Clinton calling for unity (on the other thread) and their followers ignoring that call.   But can you link to any leader calling for quiet since the protests have started?
But what's wrong with protests? If they're non-violent, free speech and free expression are healthy.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 10, 2016, 09:21:30 AM
I foresee the potential for Trump trying to do something so extreme that his Republican majority legislative branch refuses to back him up.  This may well lead to his being ousted from office.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 09:44:42 AM
Is that really what you want?

Is that really a question for Brian or any of us here?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on November 10, 2016, 09:50:28 AM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with peaceful protests.  However, these are turning violent with reports of burning cars, bottles and other debris being thrown at police, etc.  As I said there have also been assassination threats on social media.  I hope there is no violence, certainly not physical violence - but if leaders that these protesters respect do not speak out to quell the momentum, it could easily descend into widespread violence. 

Is that really what you want?
Four objectionable things in your post.

1. As far as I can tell, the only reports of things on fire and a police officer injured are from one (1) city.
2. Empty assassination threats would be nothing new to our political scene, given that the new president has personally made them against his opponent.
3. The suggestion that these people will naturally turn violent, unless someone stops them, sounds racist.
4. Why would you then assume that I want violence? You read my post. My post said what it meant. Now you accuse me of wanting "widespread violence."
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 09:52:00 AM
Quote from: Matea Gold, Kari Lydersen & Mark Berman
Police in Boston said as many as 4,000 people participated in a march there and remained orderly and peaceful, a spokesman said Thursday morning.

Many protesters who turned out said they were fearful that Trump would follow through with his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants.

“I just felt waking up today that I was waking up to a whole new world, to a nightmare for my parents and people I care about and love,” said Tony, a 23-year-old line cook who declined to give his last name as he marched in Chicago, carrying his 6-year-old daughter on his shoulders.

“There's so much heartache,” he said. “It's a bad time to be a Muslim or an illegal citizen in this country.”
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Xenophanes on November 10, 2016, 10:03:55 AM
Trump is not starting off well. His transition team is rife with corporate lobbyists will advise him on appointments. So it does not look good.

But the Trump transition team is a who’s who of influence peddlers, including: energy adviser Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist for Koch Industries and the Walt Disney Company; adviser Eric Ueland, a Senate Republican staffer who previously lobbied for Goldman Sachs; and Transition General Counsel William Palatucci, an attorney in New Jersey whose lobbying firm represents Aetna and Verizon. Rick Holt, Christine Ciccone, Rich Bagger, and Mike Ferguson are among the other corporate lobbyists helping to manage the transition effort.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/08/trump-transition-lobbyists/

Then there are some likely members of Trump's cabinet: Giuliani, Christie, Huckabee, Palin . . .

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/loyalists-and-rivals-tipped-for-powerful-roles-in-trump-cabinet

Ewwww!



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 10:15:38 AM
Honestly, that call to Clinton supporters who already do not accept Trump would only be effective from her or Obama.

Leadership from within the same group is required to tamp down violent protests no matter which side the protest is directed against.  That is my point.  There have assassination threats on social media.   Are you suggesting silence by Democratic leadership is appropriate?

Since there is a transition to new leadership underway, both new and old have an obligation to step up. But being the outstanding unifier he is, "Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a high-profile Trump supporter, said the demonstrators were 'a bunch of spoiled cry-babies.'"

Yeah, that's how you do it, Rudy. Dismiss and belittle your opponents. That's how you win assent and bring the country together.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 10:20:26 AM
Yeah, that's how you do it, Rudy. Dismiss and belittle your opponents. That's how you win assent and bring the country together.

He's a shrewd one.  Rudy's acting up like that so that, in comparison, El Tupé will seem sober and benign . . . .
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 10:25:55 AM
He's a shrewd one.  Rudy's acting up like that so that, in comparison, El Tupé will seem sober and benign . . . .

Oh that's how it works. Silly moi.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 10, 2016, 10:30:50 AM
Paul Ryan and other prominent Republicans never failed to critisize Donald Trump throughout his campaign every time he said something they objected to.

However, the election is over.  Helping to guide the nation through the period of transition, especially after a controversial general election, requires responsible leadership.  Nursing old grudges is not productive.  He is the president for all of us, and while it is fine to work against policies you oppose  I don't think it is fine to stand by while violent protests occur.   Leadership requires continued calls by Democrats for quiet and acceptance of the outcome of the election.
Haven't they though? Here's a quote from Obama just hours ago...

Quote
“I believe that it is important for all of us — regardless of party, and regardless of political preferences — to now come together, work together and deal with the many challenges that we face,” Obama said. “I want to emphasize to you, Mr. President-elect, that we now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed. Because if you succeed, then the country succeeds.”
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 10, 2016, 10:32:17 AM
Are post-mortems acceptable here? Glenn Greenwald has a good one:

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 10:48:28 AM
Making America great again:  Trump’s administration is looking like it’ll be very white and very male
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 10, 2016, 11:19:33 AM
As I said there have also been assassination threats on social media.

any other shocking news?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 10, 2016, 11:22:02 AM
Guiliani's quote is certainly not what he should be saying, I agree.

since he's going to be one of your heroes, let's help you.

his name is Giuliani.

and if you're looking for him: he's up Trump's ass.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 10, 2016, 11:22:35 AM
Wish it were only a one-night stand...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 11:46:18 AM
Trump’s proposed tax cut will be one of the largest ever, possibly reducing federal revenues by more than $6 trillion in the next decade. His plan is in line with tax cuts envisioned by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Although taxes would be cut at every level, “the highest-income taxpayers would receive the biggest cuts, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income,” according to the Tax Policy Center. The richest 0.1 percent of the country would save, on average, more than $1 million.

What does that have to do with the poor? Well, the massive size of the proposed Trump tax is significant, because House Republicans are also calling for a balanced budget.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: snyprrr on November 10, 2016, 12:03:55 PM
I'm late to the party-

Power was cut for three days and three nights- I'm only just now being able to get my troll on


PLEASE- someone direct me to the nearest schadenfruede opportunity here!! I am craving the salty sweet delicious tears of a millennial snowflake's heartbreak, or even a Depends filled with an aged libtard's broken constitution. Please help me achieve my goal of laughing at at least one person per minute for the next three weeks.

Thank you. 0:)




Hillary 2016
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 12:08:28 PM
I'm late to the party-

Power was cut for three days and three nights- I'm only just now being able to get my troll on


PLEASE- someone direct me to the nearest schadenfruede opportunity here!! I am craving the salty sweet delicious tears of a millennial snowflake's heartbreak, or even a Depends filled with an aged libtard's broken constitution. Please help me achieve my goal of laughing at at least one person per minute for the next three weeks.

Thank you. 0:)

Hillary 2016

Apply here: https://www.greatagain.gov/index.html
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 10, 2016, 12:10:25 PM
Hillary 2016

Quote from: Callum Borchers
As conservative news outlets bask in the glow of Trump's victory, many appear to be losing their once-ravenous appetites for probes and prosecutions of his vanquished political foe. It looks like the desire to “investigate her from now until kingdom come,” as The Washington Post's Abby Phillip put it on CNN early on Election Day, was predicated on the assumption that Clinton would win.

After all, miring President Clinton in scandal could have been an effective way to undermine her agenda and set her up for defeat in four years. But what would be the purpose of dogging private citizen Clinton? The potential reward just isn't as great.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 12:53:19 PM
Guiliani's quote is certainly not what he should be saying, I agree.

My word, a concession. Will wonders never cease.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 12:58:13 PM
I pretty much agree with Laura Ingraham in this article (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/ingraham-angle-congratulations-america/):

Donald J. Trump didn’t just win the presidency — he demonstrated that the political leadership of this country completely failed the people. And he led the people to reject the old liberal dinosaurs once and for all.

[...]

During the transition, he should go to the big cities in Blue America — especially New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — and he should make clear that he is going to be president for everyone. Trump should make very clear that his policies are designed to help all Americans, and that he will not stop until he has ended the distinction between the red states and the blue states.


A pleasantly grandiose fantasy. He's already in New York, sequestered in his vulgar gold-plated mansion while angry crowds are gathered on 5th Avenue, and I doubt he's going to make anything clear to them anytime soon.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on November 10, 2016, 01:17:05 PM
The "Trump is not my president" demonstration is stupid. It just gives Trump cover to ignore the constituencies that did not support him. They need to acknowledge that he is their president, and hold his feet to the fire for everything he does that is detrimental to the exercise of their rights as U.S. Citizens. This includes failure to protect their right to equal protection under the law, huge tax cuts which will dramatically increase the deficit and prevent the government from fulfilling its obligations in education, public health, etc, or military adventures that cause loss of life.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: mc ukrneal on November 10, 2016, 01:19:59 PM
Shit.  That is the speech he gave before the protests began - Wednesday morning.  What he said was good, and something I have now posted TWICE.  But he needs to call for non-violence now, AFTER it has occurred..


It's from an article of him when he met Trump today. Here is the link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-makes-first-white-house-visit-as-president-elect-180707756.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-makes-first-white-house-visit-as-president-elect-180707756.html)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on November 10, 2016, 01:42:38 PM
Since SA is so alarmed about violence:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 01:49:09 PM
Okay.  It was very similar to what he said Wednesday:

"Yesterday, before votes were tallied, I shot a video that some of you may have seen in which I said to the American people, regardless of which side you were on in the election, regardless of whether your candidate won or lost, the sun would come up in the morning."

"Now, everybody is sad when their side loses an election, but the day after we have to remember that we're actually all on one team. This is an intramural scrimmage. We're not Democrats first. We're not Republicans first. We are Americans first. We're patriots first."


However, he did not address the violent protests.

By implication those remarks did. Has your beloved president-elect addressed the violence against Muslims, gays, and blacks documented by Brian above? No, I didn't think so.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 02:44:36 PM
a) He made those remarks Wednesday morning before the protests were reported.  Let me get this straight, are you saying that you think it is unnecessary for Democratic leaders to come out and denounce the violence?

b) I do think Trump should call for calm and denounce the violence against gays, Muslims and others.  Of course he should.

a) Wednesday morning, Wednesday evening. So what?
b) The ball's in his court now. Time for him to step up to the plate. Unfortunately his problem now is to quell the very emotions and anger he himself fomented in order to get the prize.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 10, 2016, 03:02:54 PM
Quote
The extraordinary meeting was a reflection of the swift and sudden change in the political mood between the frenzied last days of an election campaign and the reality of government and the transition of power between two administrations that follows.

Speculations here are that the now quieter Trump might be related to him receiving a bit of news from the latest security briefings (for example regarding Russia etc.) and other factual information.
However, the Obama couple did cancel a photo session with Trump and his wife.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: snyprrr on November 10, 2016, 03:39:22 PM
Clinton's gonna try have T sassynated and win the runoff with Pence before Electoral College convenes on Nov.18
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: snyprrr on November 10, 2016, 03:40:25 PM
Farange to Trump: when you meet Theresa May, please don't grab her pussy! ;)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Est.1965 on November 10, 2016, 03:41:49 PM
Farange to Trump: when you meet Theresa May, please don't grab her pussy! ;)

What an event that would be.  He would be sucked in, never to be seen again, I'm afraid... :P  And his name is Farage, not Farange? $:)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 10, 2016, 04:03:25 PM
From the evil New York Times:
"Updated, 8:37 p.m. | Donald J. Trump said Thursday that transgender people should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they feel most comfortable with — including at Trump Tower in New York.

Dipping into a contentious issue by taking a stand many Republicans oppose, Mr. Trump told a town-hall-style event, hosted by NBC’s “Today” show at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan, that when people go to the restroom, they should “use the bathroom they feel is appropriate.”

Now this is kind of interesting. To those who are freaked out of their minds by this bathroom issue, this will be seen as a betrayal of hard-line Conservative morality. To those who like the plumbing and myself couldn't care less, it is a position to applaud. Either way, the country will remain divided in this all-important issue.

I'll never forget the intermission at the Met many years ago when the ladies' room line was apparently longer than usual, and a poor woman was evidently in agony. Her husband ushered her into the men's room to do her business. The sky didn't fall. The performance went on. The guys waiting on line raised no protests. Three cheers for unisex.

One small point for Donald Trujmp.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 10, 2016, 04:36:24 PM
Clinton's gonna try have T sassynated and win the runoff with Pence before Electoral College convenes on Nov.18
I am good with that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: BasilValentine on November 10, 2016, 05:02:17 PM
I'm alarmed at suggestions above to impose term limits for legislators. Sufficient means to accomplish this already exist and limiting the choices of voters is a cheap and bad fix to more complex issues.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on November 10, 2016, 05:17:50 PM
I'm alarmed at suggestions above to impose term limits for legislators. Sufficient means to accomplish this already exist and limiting the choices of voters is a cheap and bad fix to more complex issues.

The overt power advantage of incumbency negates many of those 'sufficient means', unfortunately. If a long-time, powerful senator wants to retain his job until death, it isn't how well he has satisfied his constituents, many of whom are undemanding, after all, but how well he has satisfied the special interests which are vested in him.

I saw the other day that Pat Leahy, senator from Vermont, who was the local DA in my home town when I was growing up, got reelected to yet another term. That is his 8th. By the time it is done, if he lives through it, that will make 48 years. He is generally despised by every Vermonter I know, but no one of significance ever runs against him. I suspect if he ever had to move back 'home', he wouldn't know where it was.  Do you suppose that Vermont wouldn't benefit, after 48 years, by having a different point of view in that senate seat?   

8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Pat B on November 10, 2016, 05:47:36 PM
The "Trump is not my president" demonstration is stupid. It just gives Trump cover to ignore the constituencies that did not support him. They need to acknowledge that he is their president, and hold his feet to the fire for everything he does that is detrimental

+1

What did Obama say? "Don't boo. Vote." If you look at the turnout numbers and these protesters, they clearly missed the point.

What the Ds need to be doing now is working on 2018 (where they're playing defense in the Senate) and 2020. The first priority is to clean house at the DNC. The time to start was yesterday.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 10, 2016, 06:47:04 PM
What the Ds need to be doing now is working on 2018 (where they're playing defense in the Senate) and 2020. The first priority is to clean house at the DNC. The time to start was yesterday.


You ain't kidding.  The Democrats shit the bed.  We now are stuck with the worst outcome imaginable: single party control of the White House and Congress.  (Party doesn't matter.)  Given the electoral map in 2018, Democrats must hope for Trump to make many, major unforced errors, because it does not look good for them now.  Divided government now, divided government tomorrow, divided government forever!

Dems can take solace in the near certainty that there will be a recession in the next four years, with or without fiscal policy changes (though large-scale great power war could head it off), and that it is basically impossible for a president to win reelection under such circumstances.

All that written, I find the current hand-wringing by Dems, the anxiety (yes, anxiety!) many profess to feel, and the puerile, idiotic demonstrations against the results of an open, free, and fair election to be most entertaining.  I doubt the protestors understand that it doesn't help endear them to those who voted for Trump, it doesn't bind wounds, etc.  Good stuff.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 10, 2016, 09:10:03 PM
Clinton's gonna try have T sassynated and win the runoff with Pence before Electoral College convenes on Nov.18

Two possibilities:
1) Bribing the electors who will meet on Dec. 19th
2) Presidential pardon for Hillary

Racking up the turmoil on the streets might be a way of influencing the first.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Pat B on November 10, 2016, 10:00:41 PM
You ain't kidding.  The Democrats shit the bed.  We now are stuck with the worst outcome imaginable: single party control of the White House and Congress.  (Party doesn't matter.)  Given the electoral map in 2018, Democrats must hope for Trump to make many, major unforced errors, because it does not look good for them now.  Divided government now, divided government tomorrow, divided government forever!

The Ds will not retake the Senate no matter how many unforced errors Trump makes. He could nuke Houston, and Cruz -- or whatever Republican -- would still carry Texas. (If he nuked Austin then Texas voters would see that as a positive.) Nevada is the only decent chance for a D pickup and that would still leave them in the minority.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 10, 2016, 11:15:36 PM
Two possibilities:
1) Bribing the electors who will meet on Dec. 19th
2) Presidential pardon for Hillary

Racking up the turmoil on the streets might be a way of influencing the first.

Indeed, Trump is now telling the world that they are paid protestors:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552




Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 02:52:04 AM
Indeed, Trump is now telling the world that they are paid protestors:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552


Ah, getting more presidential by the day!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 02:57:20 AM
All that written, I find the current hand-wringing by Dems, the anxiety (yes, anxiety!) many profess to feel, and the puerile, idiotic demonstrations against the results of an open, free, and fair election to be most entertaining.  I doubt the protestors understand that it doesn't help endear them to those who voted for Trump, it doesn't bind wounds, etc.  Good stuff.

First and foremost, I am delighted to see you back, for as long as is convenient for you to tarry among us (up to and including perpetuity).

Second, and only incidentally, since the data point will contribute to your entertainment, last night I had a nightmare (nothing political in its content) such that I have never had in my life (in content) and, if ever, not for a long long time (in severity).

You're welcome.  (Why you should find that entertaining, is entirely up to you.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 11, 2016, 03:21:06 AM
Everyone should now get behind their President and hope for the best. And remember Trump can't do it all by himself. People revolting when the guy has barely even started the actual job is just a tad premature.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 04:40:52 AM
First and foremost, I am delighted to see you back, for as long as is convenient for you to tarry among us (up to and including perpetuity).

Second, and only incidentally, since the data point will contribute to your entertainment, last night I had a nightmare (nothing political in its content) such that I have never had in my life (in content) and, if ever, not for a long long time (in severity).

You're welcome.  (Why you should find that entertaining, is entirely up to you.)

To be clear, I agree that the protests, even where peaceful, are pointless, and where violent, criminal.

And lest I appear niggardly in serving too little entertainment, my family of immigrant citizens have slept very poorly this week.  For myself, I am sure it will pass, as I seem in some respects to be rather an ox.  But if suffering entertains you, knock yourself out.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 11, 2016, 04:49:52 AM
Everyone should now get behind their President and hope for the best. And remember Trump can't do it all by himself. People revolting when the guy has barely even started the actual job is just a tad premature.

Oh, indeed.  I remember so well the generous support Obama got from the other side of the aisle, plus the Republicans' lunatic fringe they did nothing to belay eg: the accusations on late night radio of his being the reincarnation of Hitler AND Stalin (!), how he wasn't even a citizen of these United States...the death threats (over 30 per day according to the Secret Service, mostly racial in motivation). Obama weathered all this with his typical good grace (at least publically), perhaps the time for such has past.
 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 04:53:24 AM
Everyone should now get behind their President and hope for the best. And remember Trump can't do it all by himself. People revolting when the guy has barely even started the actual job is just a tad premature.

Everyone should do what their own conscience and sense of priority impels them to do, so long as there's no violence towards others or their property. This election was won by a vagary of the electoral college system and not the popular vote, and to lecture people by saying they ought to support someone whom they have felt good reason to despise for over a year is a tad inappropriate. As for reaction from the new powers-that-be, we've had ass-kisser-in-chief Rudy Giuliani refer to the protestors as "cry-babies," and the only comment from Trump is that "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"

This is really bringing the country together big-time. And for those who disdain the protestors, it's nice to sneer at people who feel anxiety over this election so long as you're white and native-born.

A true president-elect facing opposition should step up to the plate, call for calm, ask for people to give him a fair chance. Not whine about the alleged "unfairness" of the objections. Yeah, it's only been a couple of days but the ball is now in Trump's court, and so far he's fumbling big-time.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 04:55:34 AM
Oh, indeed.  I remember so well the generous support Obama got from the other side of the aisle, plus the Republicans' lunatic fringe they did nothing to belay eg: the accusations on late night radio of his being the reincarnation of Hitler AND Stalin (!), how he wasn't even a citizen of these United States...the death threats (over 30 per day according to the Secret Service, mostly racial in motivation). Obama weathered all this with his typical good grace (at least publically), perhaps the time for such has past.

Well said. Let's not forget Mitch McConnell from day one determined to oppose everything Obama might do and wishing nothing more than for him to be a one-term president.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 05:00:45 AM
"Because I won, it was a very open and successful presidential election."

(I paraphrase, only slightly.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 05:06:50 AM
"Because I won, it was a very open and successful presidential election."

(I paraphrase, only slightly.)

Of course. Had Hillary won, it would have been rigged. (Despite all attempts at voter suppression of minorities.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 05:24:46 AM
Of course. Had Hillary won, it would have been rigged. (Despite all attempts at voter suppression of minorities.)

Q.E.D.!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 05:33:11 AM
Speculations abound as to whether President Elect Trump might be impeachable for this, that or the other between now and the day in January when he would otherwise assume Presidential office, yielding yet another parallel with Brexit in UK where some MPs have already declared their intention to vote against the triggering of Article 50 and the House of Lords might derail that action yet further, as indeed could the outcomes of any or all of the legal challenges that are pending; how likely success in either might be is anyone's guess who's prepared to guess. All of this serves only to foster ever greater uncertainty, confusion and instability but might yet also come to be compounded by overarching embarrassment. Imagine if UK is forced to abandon Brexit after (and despite) "the people having spoken" or Trump's Presidency cancelled as a consequence of his impeachment when, again, "the people have spoken" (although 337,636 more of them have so far spoken for Clinton than for Trump); one might well wonder what "the people" of UK and US will think about what it is that they have "spoken" ultimately being ignored and the platitudes about "the will of the people" being overturned (if ever they are so).
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 11, 2016, 05:34:35 AM
A true president-elect facing opposition should step up to the plate, call for calm, ask for people to give him a fair chance.

Which is exactly what he did with his victory speech.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 05:34:42 AM
Of course. Had Hillary won, it would have been rigged. (Despite all attempts at voter suppression of minorities.)
But Hillary did win the majority of votes, so it must have been rigged even though she lost the presidency! Funny how Trump's not complained about that...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 11, 2016, 05:35:06 AM
Saying in essence "mommy he hit me first" is childish and leads nowhere.  We have a new president and a new opportunity in this country.  Focusing on partisan talking points does not help solve any of the problems facing us.

Sanantonio, I think even you will forgive me for being unable to summon the least bit o' trust for someone who did so much to sow discord, hate, and distrust in a country that so needed something more positive.  We are a sick nation; Trump deliberately appealed to the political, racial, gender and 'other' differences that split us apart.  He made them worse.  To call for unity after that performance is disingenuous at best.  A splendid opportunity for the kind of 'healing' he is expecting to receive just by saying the word is the kind he himself refuses to give - a sincere apology from Trump for his leadership in the 'birther movement'.  This is our President-elect.  Psychologists know that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior - expect nothing but self-serving bluster from the man. At best (?  :laugh:)he will likely be a Republican puppet president in the  G.W. Bush mold.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 05:35:54 AM
Which is exactly what he did with his victory speech.

Has to be reinforced with each new day and in light of continuing challenges. Can't just be said as a convenient piece of oratory.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 11, 2016, 05:36:42 AM
Saying in essence "mommy he hit me first" is childish and leads nowhere.  We have a new president and a new opportunity in this country.  Focusing on partisan talking points does not help solve any of the problems facing us.

Precisely. It's way too early to judge. People should calm down and see what happens.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 05:40:34 AM
A true president-elect facing opposition should step up to the plate, call for calm, ask for people to give him a fair chance. Not whine about the alleged "unfairness" of the objections. Yeah, it's only been a couple of days but the ball is now in Trump's court, and so far he's fumbling big-time.
Calling for calm is hardly one of Trump's trump cards, is it? - and, in any case, calling for it one thing but achieving it is quite another. Yes, if he does get to the White House, he should indeed be given a fair chance but, again, that's unlikely to happen unless he first gives himself one and convinces the electorate that this is what he has done, is doing and will continue to do.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 11, 2016, 05:40:41 AM
Has to be reinforced with each new day and in light of continuing challenges. Can't just be said as a convenient piece of oratory.

Of course. He's only one man, and he hasn't even really started .. but he did step up to the podium and said it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 05:46:42 AM
Precisely. It's way too early to judge. People should calm down and see what happens.

Despite your condescending "calm down," is it not too early. We have had a year of revelations about this man, and I'm not about to go through the list again. He lost the popular vote and won solely because of the nature of the Electoral College, and I don't dismiss for a moment the concerns of those who are afraid for the future.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 05:47:16 AM
Calling for calm is hardly one of Trump's trump cards, is it?

I don't know why you say so . . . "Throw him out! Lock her up!"
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 11, 2016, 05:49:09 AM
The president-elect's professed hostility towards a free press is "a partisan talking point"?  I ask only for information.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on November 11, 2016, 05:50:58 AM
We have a new president and a new opportunity in this country.  Focusing on partisan talking points does not help solve any of the problems facing us.

Opposing bigotry is not 'partisan talking points'. You've got a new president that's been backed by the KKK and you've got racist scumbags joyfully crawling out of the woodwork, because Trump normalised their abhorrent views. Asking people to get behind this guy is asking them to go against common decency.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 11, 2016, 05:52:01 AM
Despite your condescending "calm down," is it not too early. We have had a year of revelations about this man, and I'm not about to go through the list again. He lost the popular vote and won solely because of the nature of the Electoral College, and I don't dismiss for a moment the concerns of those who are afraid for the future.

Not being condescending at all - this is your perception which is off base my friend. I sincerely mean that. You're clearly all worked up, instead of getting behind the situation you'd rather bitch and moan. That's fine, but it ain't going to do you or the situation any good, and it won't change anything. It's your time & energy.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 11, 2016, 05:58:26 AM
Despite your condescending "calm down," is it not too early. We have had a year of revelations about this man, and I'm not about to go through the list again. He lost the popular vote and won solely because of the nature of the Electoral College, and I don't dismiss for a moment the concerns of those who are afraid for the future.

I am one afeared. And I'm a ghost...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: BasilValentine on November 11, 2016, 05:58:37 AM
The overt power advantage of incumbency negates many of those 'sufficient means', unfortunately. If a long-time, powerful senator wants to retain his job until death, it isn't how well he has satisfied his constituents, many of whom are undemanding, after all, but how well he has satisfied the special interests which are vested in him.

I saw the other day that Pat Leahy, senator from Vermont, who was the local DA in my home town when I was growing up, got reelected to yet another term. That is his 8th. By the time it is done, if he lives through it, that will make 48 years. He is generally despised by every Vermonter I know, but no one of significance ever runs against him. I suspect if he ever had to move back 'home', he wouldn't know where it was.  Do you suppose that Vermont wouldn't benefit, after 48 years, by having a different point of view in that senate seat?   

8)

Yes, the symptoms are perfectly clear. Treating them by curtailing the electorate's choices is lazy and foolish. The power advantage of incumbency is now the only counterbalance to the raw power of money. Negating or minimizing it by getting big money and dark money out of the picture is what is needed. Campaign finance reform banning any but personal contributions of limited scope, supplemented by public financing if necessary, would be a start. Lobbying and influence peddling could be criminalized? Obviously, I haven't worked out the details. But treating the disease seems better than treating the symptoms. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 06:01:58 AM
Of course. He's only one man, and he hasn't even really started .. but he did step up to the podium and said it.

No, he's not only one man. He's potentially the most powerful man on the planet. Anything and everything he says or does from this time forth is YUUUGELY consequential in a manner that even your posts on Stockhausen are not.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 11, 2016, 06:07:23 AM
No, he's not only one man.

My point was, he can't do it all on his own.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 06:18:55 AM
My point was, he can't do it all on his own.

Which doesn't obligate any of us to bow down in fawning fealty. Loyalty also consists of holding his feet to the fire.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 06:31:01 AM
Not being condescending at all - this is your perception which is off base my friend. I sincerely mean that. You're clearly all worked up, instead of getting behind the situation you'd rather bitch and moan. That's fine, but it ain't going to do you or the situation any good, and it won't change anything. It's your time & energy.
The only things that might - and I have to say might - change anything now would seem to be (a) his own party turning against him with sufficient vehemence and practical success and/or (b) his being impeached for something or other before he assumes Presidential office in mid-January next; neither seems likely and neither is impossible.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 06:34:26 AM
This election was won by a vagary of the electoral college system and not the popular vote



There's nothing even remotely vague about it.  It has been in place since 1788.  If the Clinton campaign did not know how to win the election in this system, it is the Clinton campaign's fault alone.  This complaint is illegitimate.  People who dislike the Electoral College should either pursue a constitutional amendment to change it, or pursue a nationwide strategy of changing state election laws to force all electors to support the popular vote.  The solutions are well known.  Time to get to work.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 06:37:30 AM
The Electoral College is how we elect presidents; the popular vote is inconsequential.  After all the media fomenting the false narrative that Trump was de-legitimatizing our elective process, it is Liberals who wish to cast doubt on this election. Why?  Because their candidate lost.  We heard the same garbage in 2000 re: Gore.

Again - the more things change the more they stay the same. 

Interesting to read the Liberal taunt that Trump is the "most powerful man in the world".  He's not, but maybe he can finally begin to change what is wrong with this nation's political culture.

Not a taunt, but a fact stated dispassionately. And I understand perfectly well that the EC is how we elect. But the popular vote should not be discounted either: Trump ought to understand he was elected against substantial opposition; 50% of the country opposes him.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 06:39:37 AM


There's nothing even remotely vague about it.  It has been in place since 1788.  If the Clinton campaign did not know how to win the election in this system, it is the Clinton campaign's fault alone.  This complaint is illegitimate.  People who dislike the Electoral College should either pursue a constitutional amendment to change it, or pursue a nationwide strategy of changing state election laws to force all electors to support the popular vote.  The solutions are well known.  Time to get to work.

Vagary - "an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in someone's behavior." Not related to "vague." Not all parts of the definition apply in this case, but "an unexpected change in a situation" most certainly does. Kindly use the dictionary before posting.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 06:46:14 AM
Vagary - "an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in someone's behavior." Not related to "vague." Not all parts of the definition apply in this case, but "an unexpected change in a situation" most certainly does. Kindly use the dictionary before posting.



Nice try. 

Your complaint is still illegitimate. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 06:47:42 AM
Vagary - "an unexpected and inexplicable change in a situation or in someone's behavior." Not related to "vague." Not all parts of the definition apply in this case, but "an unexpected change in a situation" most certainly does. Kindly use the dictionary before posting.
Indeed; a vagary is analogous to the manifestation of a kind of inconsistency and applies to those things that are amenable to such inconsistency.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 06:54:09 AM


Nice try. 

Your complaint is still illegitimate.

It was so pleasant here when you were gone. Could you repeat?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 06:56:01 AM
It was so pleasant here when you were gone. Could you repeat?


Hugs.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 11, 2016, 07:00:18 AM

Hugs.

You too, babe.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 07:07:47 AM
There are two elements of our political process which have led to dysfunction: 1) partisan politics and 2) identity politics.


Overreliance on identity politics contributed to the Dems defeat.  If the posts not only here, but elsewhere (check the comments sections of left-leaning news outlets) are any indication, they have not yet learned their lesson.  Of course, the operatives of the DNC may, and that is more important.  They need to cook up some new jargon, jettison the old guard, and present fresh faces.  I'm watching Kamala Harris.  Assuming she has no skeletons in her closet, she could be a real star.

Trump may or may not be partisan, but he will have to appoint establishment Republicans to key roles.  Despite his brashness and promises to change things up, he will have to use many of the same people who other Republicans would have used.  His administration will be partisan.  And he has to rely on McConnell and Ryan to pass legislation.  I don't see them changing too terribly much.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 07:37:01 AM
But if suffering entertains you, knock yourself out.



Actual suffering does not entertain me, but much of what has been on display for the past few months of this cycle is not actual suffering.  Not at all.  It is the byproduct of manufactured hysteria that characterizes this election.  (There are those firmly on the left who have made similar observations. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/07/glenn_greenwald_on_donald_trump_the_dnc_hack_and_a_new_mccarthyism.html))  If we are, indeed, in an era of post-truth politics, it is widespread and non-partisan in nature.  The bigger question is how to change that.

I will say that I've always been amused by people so wound up in politics, who believe in it so much, with what amounts to religious devotion, that they actually get upset at electoral outcomes.  I've never had that problem, from the first time I cast a vote when I was 18.  Maybe it's that I realized that my vote doesn't really matter, and that my opinions don't really matter, and that there is always another election. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 07:38:28 AM
To use an old Clinton phrase, Trump proved he could triangulate disaffected Republicans and blue collar Democrats to build his winning coalition.  He just might be able to work with Senators Sanders and Warren on his "anti-conservative" policies, that is, if they don't let their own partisanship send them over the cliff of sabatauging Trump (while betraying their own followers) instead of working with him on issues they already support.


It is possible, but Trump will have to rely more on Republicans to pass legislation.  I don't know what kind of deals will be made, but I find it very difficult to believe that there will really be major roll-backs on trade, for instance.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 07:53:37 AM
True.  But it is amazing how persuasive Trump can become after winning a contest no one thought he could.


There is no doubt of his powers of persuasion, and he was underestimated for over a year.  He was also helped by the press, which gained readers, viewers, and clicks by lavishing thousands upon thousands of hours of coverage on his utterances.  The Senate, though, and senators, outlast presidents.  McConnell will prove a tougher nut to crack.




Anti-Trump protesters march for 3rd night; Portland police call it a 'riot' (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/us/oregon-protest-riot/)


Living in the 'burbs of Portland, this has been on the news every night.  Vandalism is common.  Last night, a woman driving alone had her windshield smashed while driving, and here was a case of actual suffering, as she appeared visibly shaken.  It wasn't until last night that the police did anything. 



Reid: Trump a 'sexual predator who lost the popular vote'



Looks like Gingrich was right.  The next president, no matter who, will not have any type of honeymoon.  At least Reid is gone in January. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 11, 2016, 08:07:08 AM
Are post-mortems acceptable here? Glenn Greenwald has a good one:

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/

That, and the accompanying piece on Brexit, are very worthwhile reading indeed. Thanks for posting it.

And this Facebook post from one Vincent Bevin (Americans might have heard of him before, I have not) pretty much sums it up:

Quote from: Vincent Bevin

Both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very, wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for thirty years.

Questions such as - Who are the losers of globalization, and how can we spread the benefits to them and ease the transition? Is it fair that the rich can capture almost all the gains of open borders and trade, or should the process be more equitable? Can we really sustainably create a media structure that only hires kids from top universities (and, moreover, those prick graduates that can basically afford to work for free for the first 5-10 years) who are totally ignorant of regular people, if not outright disdainful of them? Do we actually have democracy, or do banks just decide? Immigration is good for the vast majority, but for the very small minority who see pressure on their wages, should we help them, or do they just get ignored?

 Since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt. It seems in both cases (Trumpism and Brexit), many voters are motivated not so much by whether they think the projects will actually work, but more by their desire to say FUCK YOU to people like me (and probably you).

The leaders of these movements (Trumpstick, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage) have acted cynically for their own benefit. They've been willing to stir division and nationalism. And some of their supporters are real racists. The only solution for that small minority is to be crushed and thrown into the dustbin of history. But I refuse to believe this is the case for the larger group of supporters, that is, half of the UK or almost half of the US. They have some legitimate concerns, and the only outlet to vent they were offered was a terrible one.

If we want to move forward productively from these historical shocks (and please, let's try to do that), rich world urban dickheads (like me) need to recognize that they are not the only people on the planet with views worth listening to.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 11, 2016, 08:10:59 AM
Indeed, Trump is now telling the world that they are paid protestors:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/796900183955095552

Someone must have had a talk with the mind that is Donald Trump, and now Trump says the opposite - he loves the protests, & their passion for the great country:

https://twitter.com/inglesi/status/797047652017995776
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 08:30:44 AM
Someone must have had a talk with the mind that is Donald Trump, and now Trump says the opposite - he loves the protests, & their passion for the great country:
https://twitter.com/inglesi/status/797047652017995776

I think DT is being ironic, the same when he said that the country owes HRC a great debt!
He's going out of his way to be gracious, just so long as he doesn't overdo it and becomes phony...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on November 11, 2016, 08:33:04 AM
I think DT is being ironic, the same when he said that the country owes HRC a great debt!
He's going out of his way to be gracious, just so long as he doesn't overdo it and becomes phony...
He is clearly not intending to be ironic, even though you don't like HRC.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 11, 2016, 08:40:54 AM
Those who see Trump as the great "populist" will soon find themselves waking from their delusion:

From CNN today:  "To shape his administration, President-elect Donald Trump is drawing squarely from the "swamp" he has pledged to drain. Trump's transition team is staffed with long-time Washington experts and lobbyists from K Street, think tanks and political offices.  It's a far cry from Trump's campaign, which ended only Tuesday night, and message that he would "drain the swamp" in Washington. He has advocated congressional term limits and proposed a "five-point plan for ethics reform" that included strengthening restrictions on lobbying, including five-year bans for members and staff of the executive branch and Congress from lobbying, and expanding the definition of lobbyist to prevent more revolving door activity. But he has so far fully embraced lobbyists within his transition, and all signs point to a heavy influence from longtime Washington Republican circles on his transition. And with Trump mostly skipping detailed policy proposals during his campaign, they can have a powerful impact on his agenda."
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 11, 2016, 08:46:50 AM
You cinephiles might find this one interesting. Apparently Trump's favorite movie is Citizen Kane:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/13/did-citizen-kane-predict-donald-trump.html

Was his answer about accepting the results of the election inspired by the "fraud at polls" scene?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on November 11, 2016, 08:53:35 AM

     I'd rather see an end to gerrymandering than term limits. Term limits changes the faces, competitive districts mean voters matter more. Dems need to take the interests of their constituents seriously and not for granted. Repubs now have a chance, given to them by Trump, to unextinct themselves as a new, less doctrinaire party, one that isn't devoted to crushing its voters to feed its donors.

     The crisis that's arrived for the Dems doesn't leave them with no path forward. The healthiest part of the party is growing in popularity and influence. To better represent their constituents and retake territory lost to Trump the party needs to appeal to the working class Repubs are even now planning to ignore.

     From a conservative perspective the view is surprisingly congruent with the one from the liberal side. The Dems chose Blue zone solidarity over the path of reaching out to the disaffected working class. Repubs rode populist anger to victory. Now the shards of the old party are betting that they can use Trump to feed his voters immigration/deportation plus the old god/guns/gays. They don't think they have anything to learn. They won, let the Dems autopsy now. But there are conservatives and liberals who think there is something beyond the immediate results that they must learn.

     The voters on both sides who think the system is unresponsive to real needs are correct. Better prospects for Americans taken for granted and ignored will flock to the party that begins to help them. And it could be either party, though everything I know says inclusion, real inclusion will come from the Dems, because in a way unaffected by donor interests they want it. That's what the Sanders revolt was about, and what Warren is about. The Dems need to be feared and hated again, they need to pose a real threat, not just mocked for their insularity.

     The message of reform for liberals and conservatives alike is portrayed in a book, Hillbilly Elegy (https://www.amazon.com/Hillbilly-Elegy-Memoir-Family-Culture/dp/0062300547), that is now a bestseller.

     Conservatives and Liberals are reading it to rediscover the working class in America. Who will get there first? The early indications are that Trump will do very little for the Rust Belt voters that handed him the Presidency. He is in the process of filling slots with people determined to bring about the symbolism of solidarity with none of the real thing.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 09:06:42 AM
From CNN today:  "To shape his administration, President-elect Donald Trump is drawing squarely from the "swamp" he has pledged to drain.



He'll have to use establishment types for some roles.  His appointment to the big three and the NSC are what I'm watching.  I'd love to see Bob Corker at State.  Steven Mnuchin at Treasury would be a standard type of appointment, what, with his background at Goldman.  Jeff Sessions at defense would also be an establishment choice, and he was a Trump supporter.  I'm thinking Mike Flynn, former head of DIA and current Trump advisor, gets National Security Advisor.  Conservative choices, to be sure, but nothing out of the ordinary.  If Politico is right, and Forrest Lucas goes to Interior, I will laugh heartily.  It will be interesting to see what role, if any, Giuliani and Christie and Gingrich have.  I really don't want to see Gingrich at State, but it's not up to me.  I also dislike Andy Beal, and hope he has no official role in government.  (I'm just wondering if Trump keeps him in reserve for the Fed.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 11, 2016, 09:12:41 AM


Instead of focusing on Trump's tweets you ought to be wondering where the leadership is that ought to be emerging from the Democrats before the protests get uglier than they already are.

But I know it is much more fun to make attacks on President Elect Trump.

Interesting if you think that we should just forget what the President-elect says in general. I agree that there are countless unfortunate examples of what he says, but ignoring it would also mean ignoring the very content of the dialogues that are supposed to be essential for a democracy and for informed decision-making.

When he contradicts himself so blatantly, trying different versions which he momentarily finds useful for him and launching invented accusations, it shows a worrying lack of reliability and skills that we normally don´t associate with leading representatives in our political system and culture. Further whataboutism doesn´t change that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 09:16:03 AM
He is clearly not intending to be ironic, even though you don't like HRC.

Hmmn, HRC...
H for Her, R for Royal,
C for, I dunno, Cat, Chariot, Car, Caterpillar, Coffee, Cake...
Oh well, leave it to fill in the blank...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 11, 2016, 09:17:19 AM
...But, I am impressed at the level of self-abuse they can tolerate.

Agreed, they are most proficient in that, sadly, and suffer sorely from their own delusions.  On CNN, election night, the redoubtable John King showed on his "Magic Wall" the extent of Republican advance in this country, saying (almost as an aside) "Democrats don't like it when I show this map..." Better to face the music, my (supposedly) liberal friends...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 09:22:16 AM
Interesting if you think that we should just forget what the President-elect says in general.



American citizens should pay attention to every form of communication attributed to Trump, and people who can't vote an who are in other countries can and should as well, though their opinions are obviously less important in that they will have no influence on any future votes, lest they become citizens and vote.

I suspect, however, that Trump will start to be more contained, and some/many/all electronic communications in the future will be more tightly controlled.  While an "outsider" (to the extent a billionaire can be such a thing), he will have to face the security and control mechanisms in place for all presidents.  Sure, he can ignore some of them, which may be his inclination, but I doubt he will be quite so bombastic going forward. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on November 11, 2016, 09:29:15 AM
Hmmn, HRC...
H for Her, R for Royal,
C for, I dunno, Cat, Chariot, Car, Caterpillar, Coffee, Cake...
Oh well, leave it to fill in the blank...
I continue to admire your graciousness.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 09:35:00 AM
A while back there was talk of John Bolton at State.


Yeah, I've read that.  The 'stache shouldn't be allowed in Foggy Bottom.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 09:35:46 AM
Well, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on Trump's communication blunders as he transitions from candidate to President Elect to President which will unfold over the next several months.  There will be some hiccups early on, but I suspect his Twitter account will soon become an official stream of policy announcements.
A stream of semi-consciousness, more like...

Anyway, "Currently Listening to: Anonymous to Zwilich"? No Albéniz, then? Or Alfano? Or Alkan?...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 09:36:51 AM
I continue to admire your graciousness.

Yeah, right!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 09:38:01 AM
A while back there was talk of John Bolton at State.  As far as his own staff: Guiliani has said he is not interested in an official job.  I'd guess Gingrich might be some kind of adviser without portfolio.  I've also seen rumors of Stephen Bannon as Chief of Staff, and KellyAnne Conway has reportedly been promised a job doing something.

I heard Trey Gowdy for Attorney General. Now, that's a smart dude!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 09:42:23 AM
Yeah, right!
"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up. G. K. Chesterton".

or

Don't ever take a wall between US and Mexico down until you know that there was never any reason for it to have been put up...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 11, 2016, 09:46:30 AM
Oh, great, now Trump has a French "girlfriend" :  http://www.francetvinfo.fr/elections/presidentielle/pourquoi-marine-le-pen-peut-jubiler-apres-l-election-de-donald-trump_1913019.html
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Archaic Torso of Apollo on November 11, 2016, 10:28:46 AM

He'll have to use establishment types for some roles.  His appointment to the big three and the NSC are what I'm watching.  I'd love to see [...snipped]

Pepe the Frog should be considered for a position, too.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 11, 2016, 10:50:34 AM
Oh, great, now Trump has a French "girlfriend" :  http://www.francetvinfo.fr/elections/presidentielle/pourquoi-marine-le-pen-peut-jubiler-apres-l-election-de-donald-trump_1913019.html
Tell that to the Marines...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 11, 2016, 10:59:36 AM
Tell that to the Marines...

 :laugh:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 11, 2016, 12:28:37 PM

During the transition, he should go to the big cities in Blue America — especially New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco — and he should make clear that he is going to be president for everyone. Trump should make very clear that his policies are designed to help all Americans, and that he will not stop until he has ended the distinction between the red states and the blue states.[/i]

The problem is, it wouldn't be true, and people would know.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Pat B on November 11, 2016, 12:34:30 PM
He'll have to use establishment types for some roles.  His appointment to the big three and the NSC are what I'm watching.  I'd love to see Bob Corker at State.  Steven Mnuchin at Treasury would be a standard type of appointment, what, with his background at Goldman.  Jeff Sessions at defense would also be an establishment choice, and he was a Trump supporter.  I'm thinking Mike Flynn, former head of DIA and current Trump advisor, gets National Security Advisor.  Conservative choices, to be sure, but nothing out of the ordinary.  If Politico is right, and Forrest Lucas goes to Interior, I will laugh heartily.  It will be interesting to see what role, if any, Giuliani and Christie and Gingrich have.  I really don't want to see Gingrich at State, but it's not up to me.  I also dislike Andy Beal, and hope he has no official role in government.  (I'm just wondering if Trump keeps him in reserve for the Fed.)

What happened to Christie for Transportation? I also like Ben Carson for Agriculture.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 11, 2016, 01:12:04 PM
"Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up. G. K. Chesterton". or
Don't ever take a wall between US and Mexico down until you know that there was never any reason for it to have been put up...

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
...There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.'

Robert Frost
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on November 11, 2016, 01:16:16 PM
Quote from: Robert Frost: Mending Wall
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbour know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbours."
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbours? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbours."
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 03:40:03 PM
The problem is, it wouldn't be true, and people would know.


True, and the Democrats have already made clear that either Trump is not their president (very meme-y) or they will work actively to block him, so whatever he may say is irrelevant to the American left.  That's why some of the pleas, on this very forum, no less, for him to say something about the protests/riots occurring now are fundamentally disingenuous.



What happened to Christie for Transportation? I also like Ben Carson for Agriculture.


If Giuliani doesn't want AG, Christie may want it.  Christie for Transportation would make for some fun hearings.  Maybe Carson gets HHS.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 06:39:39 PM
I don't believe it! (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-parts-of-health-law-1478895339)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 07:54:16 PM
A spiffy, modernized NAFTA on its way? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37945913)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 11, 2016, 08:01:03 PM
A spiffy, modernized NAFTA on its way? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37945913)

To be fair to Trump, he said from the start that his first preference was for improving NAFTA, not totally ending it.

Of course, what Canada and Mexico think of as improvements are not likely to match Trump's idea.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 11, 2016, 08:08:22 PM
To be fair to Trump, he said from the start that his first preference was for improving NAFTA, not totally ending it.

Of course, what Canada and Mexico think of as improvements are not likely to match Trump's idea.


It took only three days from the election to get a response.  It looks like an interested steel boss is Trump's USTR transition guy.  Could be fun for all involved.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Que on November 12, 2016, 01:06:40 AM
I don't believe it! (http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-parts-of-health-law-1478895339)

I do....  8) I guess there is an upside to Trump's unreliability. Didn't Trump hijack the Republican party whilst not being a Conservative at heart on many issues?
I think the Republican party is making a mistake in thinking this is "their" president. No matter how you look at it, Trump has proven to be very much his own man and he doesn't take orders from anyone. In my estimation he is not going to keep the most radical promises he made, and will try to make up for it on the economy and jobs. I actually agree with sanantonio on this.

Before you know it, he might strike a deal with moderate Republicans and Democrats on modifications to "Obamacare" that are actual improvements...
How else is he going to improve the fate of the impoverished rural lower middle class that voted for him? By taking away their health care?
Also, if he wants to give them back their "outsourced" jobs or create new ones, someone has to take the financial burden in terms if lost profit or necessary tax revenues for that. It might be big corporations and high finance that are going to pick up the tab on that?

The money will also come from big expenditure cuts on foreign policy. From a European perspective Trump's isolationism is going to be most interesting.
Trump is no longer willing to pay for keeping NATO afloat, and he is actually quite right. Though whoever pays, is calling the shots - a more isolationist course will decrease the global influence of the US. Since Europeans are going to have fend for themselves in the event that Putin will try to regain some of Russia's sphere of influence,  there is already talk behind the scenes on an European army. The European Union will have to pick itself up and reinvent itself to face the current crises. And we are now on our own. The biggest opposers to a common European defence policy are the Brits, who are conveniently making their way towards the exit...

The Brexiteers were overjoyed by Trump's victory,  him being a kindred spirit and all.. But those who actually thought it over realized that if America comes 1st, the rest of the world will come last.....including Britain. It is slowly sinking in that the US is not going to do Britain any "special favours" and once the UK leaves the EU, it will be "out in the cold alone"... So...Trump's ascent to power will actually work against Brexit, and any similar anti-EU sentiments throughout Europe for that matter...

Q
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 12, 2016, 07:02:52 AM
Contrary to tradition, it seems that Trump will not be living permanently in the White House, since he prefers New York, whereas Melania will.

Also, that "he was shocked to have won the election" (?), and plans to continue his rallies, which "are tremendous opportunities to get his messages out".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-president.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 12, 2016, 07:09:16 AM
Didn't Trump hijack the Republican party whilst not being a Conservative at heart on many issues?


That is correct.  However, McConnell and Ryan are more traditional conservatives, and despite focus on the president, it is Congress that controls the budget.  Trump will have to negotiate with his own party to get anything done.  Now, what that looks like is still developing.  For instance, how conservative does he go on the open SCOTUS seat to placate certain groups, and what does he get out of it?   



there is already talk behind the scenes on an European army.


Talk is fine, but I suspect the specter of substantial German remilitarization, which would be crucial to any effective European army, will cause many issues and delays.  Trump's non-interventionism - which should not be confused with true isolationism - will almost certainly prove far less potent than his campaign rhetoric promised.  I'm all for him putting the screws to Europe in terms of meeting defense expenditure targets, and in terms of European warm bodies replacing American warm bodies in some parts of Europe, but Trump will learn, if he doesn't already know, that simply redeploying tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of troops and shuttering multi-billion dollar facilities with valuable military assets has immediate electoral consequences at home.  Military contractors are hurt, which hits jobs in every state.  In addition, some defense programs are purposely designed to be multi-national (eg, the F35) to keep countries in the fold, though less to keep the US in the fold than fickle European nations.  (And then there are other arrangements like the surveillance programs with the English speaking countries.)  Combine that with what will probably be a fairly standard, and almost certainly more hawkish than Trump, national security team, and it is hard to see campaign rhetoric coming to fruition.  Hopefully he does soften the official US position to diplomatic relations with Russia and engage in more dialogue, and maybe he does work with Congress to weaken defense agreements with the Baltics and some other countries, but I seriously doubt NATO is going anywhere in the next four years.

As to how to pay for it, who are we kidding, from a political standpoint, deficits don't matter right now.  Trump should simply embrace the economic arguments of the left (eg, Paul Krugman), say that as a business decision, it is eminently sensible to borrow vast sums at current rates using 10 and 30 year maturity debt, and then splurge on infrastructure.  Only lip-service will be paid to controlling the budget, especially if promised tax cuts are made.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jo498 on November 12, 2016, 07:52:45 AM
Germany cannot be "re-militarized" without substantial re-negotiation of international treaties. It seems to be not sufficiently well known that one condition for the peaceful unification in 1990 was a reduction of the military as compared to the cold war status (Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany

I don't say that it absolutely cannot be done. But there are more hurdles than the unwillingness of Germany to pay more or sustain a larger military.

I know that it is a very unpopular opinion and I can understand why people from the former eastern bloc vehemently disagree but I think that re-enacting the cold war with the border pushed a little further east (so at least I can be grateful I will not be blasted to bits as I would have been in a 1980s WW III scenario but rather the Poles will) is not a great idea for peace in central/eastern Europe. This has to be achieved somehow together with Russia, not against them.
There is also no doubt that with the US gradually losing power in a global perspective and the emergence of a multipolar world "traditional" geostrategic alliances will matter again. A "central power" (geographically and economically, not militarily) like unified Germany cannot afford to cut all ties to Russia.

Therefore for me one of the few "silver linings" of Trump (as opposed to hawkish Hillary) is that with him the perspective for a less tense relation with Russia is better.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 12, 2016, 08:09:17 AM
But there are more hurdles than the unwillingness of Germany to pay more or sustain a larger military.



The primary hurdle I see, existing treaties or not, is acceptance by other countries, starting with France.  If the German people prefer to not pay for a massive military, well, good for them.  But how could "Europe" have an effective military - meaning one with something even reasonably close to the scope and power of the US - without its largest, richest country in the mix?

The anti-Russian news stories (propaganda?) in the last few months of the campaign were troubling, to say the least.  Putin is a nasty guy, an autocrat, sure, but ratcheting up tensions with Russia when US security is not threatened is bad for America, and it would be worse for other countries if it escalated further.  US planners have the luxury of calculating damage done in other countries in the event of conventional warfare or skirmishes.  Let's try more jaw-jaw for now.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 12, 2016, 08:20:25 AM
Trump may or may not be partisan, but he will have to appoint establishment Republicans to key roles.  Despite his brashness and promises to change things up, he will have to use many of the same people who other Republicans would have used.  His administration will be partisan.  And he has to rely on McConnell and Ryan to pass legislation.  I don't see them changing too terribly much.

This is it really. The country can expect little change in the next 4 years, more business-as-usual govt.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 12, 2016, 08:33:06 AM
Contrary to tradition, it seems that Trump will not be living permanently in the White House, since he prefers New York, whereas Melania will.

Also, that "he was shocked to have won the election" (?), and plans to continue his rallies, which "are tremendous opportunities to get his messages out".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/trump-president.html?_r=0

I'm still scratching my head why he wanted the job at all. He's 70. How many summers does he have left? And his Mar-a-lago estate is absolutely beautiful, the privates jets, Trump tower etc. .. this whole president gig is a lifestyle downgrade and tonnes of aggravation & stress. He is his own man. He certainly can't be adding years!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 12, 2016, 08:33:19 AM
The drastic cuts in European military has been going on for 25 years, so I doubt they are the result of any 1990-agreements concerning Germany. As the Wikipedia link above informs, the German army has only 2/3 of the soldiers allowed in the treaty.

This is overall changing now in Europe, reports say.
 
To me it´s quite absurd that for example the Russian, so-called "rebel army" in the miniature Donbass-Ukraine "republics" has more tanks than the combined armies of say the UK, Germany and the Czech Republic taken together.
( http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/05/26/separatists-in-donbas-have-more-tanks-than-germany-france-and-czech-republic-combined/
is one of many sources ).

Foreign policy should be a combination of both strength, as well as peace-seeking idealism acquainted with the most sophisticated conflict-handling.
 
The situation with Ukraine is complicated. There´s an aggression from Russia and some less fortunate acting from the West too, including that of idiotic visits to Ukraine by US generals literally giving American, worthless plastic medals to heavily wounded Ukraine soldiers, as if they were in American service. A total propaganda gift to Russia and a smack in the face to Ukrainian pride.

Obama seemed to recognize Ukraine as partly in Russia´s sphere of interest, and to give it low priority, not wanting to arm Ukraine. There´s a detailed interview with him telling of this. Whereas other US politicians wanted more intervention.

Somehow we don´t hear much of a possible international conference (also suggested by the more sensible Russian Yabloko politician Yavlinsky, unfortunately now completely marginalized) resulting in 1) the withdrawal of Russian troops 2) the establishing of UN/OSCE protection forces (Ukraine wants that, Russia is against it) 3) the establishing of a longer procedure leading to a new, lawful vote in Crimea 4) a new international treaty for the whole region.

Some international pressure for this could lead to a positive development.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 12, 2016, 08:45:24 AM
I'm still scratching my head why he wanted the job at all. He's 70. How many summers does he have left? And his Mar-a-lago estate is absolutely beautiful, the privates jets, Trump tower etc. .. this whole president gig is a lifestyle downgrade and tonnes of aggravation & stress. He is his own man. He certainly can't be adding years!

I can´t say, but there´ll probably (?) be no more of him doing appearances like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 12, 2016, 08:53:01 AM
I can´t say, but there´ll probably (?) be no more of him doing appearances like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I


Well, Donald Trump is the first president in the WWE Hall of Fame.  He is also the first president roasted on Comedy Central.  ("...they should call him the twentieth hijacker.")
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 12, 2016, 09:06:33 AM
And possibly one of the hottest, if not thee hottest first lady...

(http://images.telegiz.com/data/thumbs/full/8195/600/0/0/0/melania-trump-has-said-that-if-she-becomes-first-lady-of-the-us-she-would-focus-on-addressing-cyber-bullying.png)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 12, 2016, 09:15:00 AM
I can´t say, but there´ll probably (?) be no more of him doing appearances like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

Hahahaha ... or just being a great guest on the Howard Stern Show .. I always enjoyed his appearances there down through the years, he knew how to have fun in the spirit of that show.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Toccata&Fugue on November 12, 2016, 11:04:56 AM
I'm hopeful that there are enough semi-same Republicans who will not go for some of his more extreme ideas (building the wall, deporting every illegal immigrant, arresting Hilary, etc.). He's already started back pedaling on some of his promises, such as completely dismantling Obamacare. Since he changes his position on issues more often than most people change their underwear, it's rather hard to predict what the next 4 years will look like! If nothing else, he's given comedians a lot of fresh material.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Pat B on November 12, 2016, 11:44:30 AM
Talk is fine, but I suspect the specter of substantial German remilitarization, which would be crucial to any effective European army, will cause many issues and delays.  Trump's non-interventionism - which should not be confused with true isolationism - will almost certainly prove far less potent than his campaign rhetoric promised.  I'm all for him putting the screws to Europe in terms of meeting defense expenditure targets, and in terms of European warm bodies replacing American warm bodies in some parts of Europe, but Trump will learn, if he doesn't already know, that simply redeploying tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of troops and shuttering multi-billion dollar facilities with valuable military assets has immediate electoral consequences at home.  Military contractors are hurt, which hits jobs in every state.  In addition, some defense programs are purposely designed to be multi-national (eg, the F35) to keep countries in the fold, though less to keep the US in the fold than fickle European nations.  (And then there are other arrangements like the surveillance programs with the English speaking countries.)  Combine that with what will probably be a fairly standard, and almost certainly more hawkish than Trump, national security team, and it is hard to see campaign rhetoric coming to fruition.  Hopefully he does soften the official US position to diplomatic relations with Russia and engage in more dialogue, and maybe he does work with Congress to weaken defense agreements with the Baltics and some other countries, but I seriously doubt NATO is going anywhere in the next four years.

As to how to pay for it, who are we kidding, from a political standpoint, deficits don't matter right now.  Trump should simply embrace the economic arguments of the left (eg, Paul Krugman), say that as a business decision, it is eminently sensible to borrow vast sums at current rates using 10 and 30 year maturity debt, and then splurge on infrastructure.  Only lip-service will be paid to controlling the budget, especially if promised tax cuts are made.

Trump's messaging on this stuff was characteristically inconsistent. He'd say we're spending too much for NATO and debt is out of control; then he'd turn around and say we're going to have the strongest military and you print the money.

I basically agree with your predictions.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: BasilValentine on November 12, 2016, 11:48:18 AM
I'm hopeful that there are enough semi-same Republicans who will not go for some of his more extreme ideas (building the wall, deporting every illegal immigrant, arresting Hilary, etc.). He's already started back pedaling on some of his promises, such as completely dismantling Obamacare. Since he changes his position on issues more often than most people change their underwear, it's rather hard to predict what the next 4 years will look like! If nothing else, he's given comedians a lot of fresh material.

Is anyone actually gullible enough to think Trump plans to fulfill any promise that is not currently expedient? Seriously? Has anyone failed to notice what has happened to everyone who has trusted in Trump's name and promises over the last 40 years?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Pat B on November 12, 2016, 11:58:52 AM
Is anyone actually gullible enough to think Trump plans to fulfill any promise that is not currently expedient? Seriously? Has anyone failed to notice what has happened to everyone who has trusted in Trump's name and promises over the last 40 years?

It's not just his history. Presidential candidates have very little incentive to be honest about their agenda. They only have one more campaign and won't face a primary challenger in that. George W. Bush campaigned on opposition to nation-building, did the exact opposite, and still won re-election.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 12:27:48 PM
It's not just his history. Presidential candidates have very little incentive to be honest about their agenda. They only have one more campaign and won't face a primary challenger in that. George W. Bush campaigned on opposition to nation-building, did the exact opposite, and still won re-election.

Yes.

Donald Trump promised a lot of things shamelessly lied in order to get elected. So what? He´s not the first, nor will he be the last, to do so.

But what strikes me as inconsistent is the "liberal" outrage at his backstepping. Had he confirmed his electoral agenda, he´d have been accused of being a far-right ideologue unable to comprehend the very notions of political negotiation and compromise; now that he´s soften his stances and seems to steer precisely towards negotiation and compromise, he is condemned for not being true to his promises. Damn if you do, damned if you don´t.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Toccata&Fugue on November 12, 2016, 12:34:54 PM
Yes.

Donald Trump promised a lot of things shamelessly lied in order to get elected. So what? He´s not the first, nor will he be the last, to do so.

But what strikes me as inconsistent is the "liberal" outrage at his backstepping. Had he confirmed his electoral agenda, he´d have been accused of being a far-right ideologue unable to comprehend the very notions of political negotiation and compromise; now that he´s soften his stances and seems to steer precisely towards negotiation and compromise, he is condemned for not being true to his promises. Damn if you do, damned if you don´t.
I'm not condemning him for it, just pointing out as a possible source of comfort! I absolutely hope he operates with negotiation and compromise.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 12, 2016, 12:47:03 PM
Donald Trump promised a lot of things shamelessly lied in order to get elected. So what? He´s not the first, nor will he be the last, to do so.

The scale of his lying on all subjects, the demagogical methods and destroying of a meaningful political debate was unprecedented in recent, developed Western democracies. There´s statistical evidence for it. Where do political debates go after this? Maybe a television-drugged American public got what it deserved, but there´s no doubt that because of his campaign, he´ll go down as an absolutely iconic figure in early 21st century Western history, as the most important promoter of post-factual politics.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 12, 2016, 12:57:27 PM
The scale of his lying on all subjects, the demagogical methods and destroying of a meaningful political debate was unprecedented in recent, developed Western democracies.

No, it wasn´t. Nigel Farage and the Brexit gang were at it before him.

Quote
a television-drugged American public got what it deserved

As opposed to the educated, autonomous, immaculate, benevolent and honest "liberal" elites who are nothing to be blamed for. Their only problem is that they should dissolve the people and elect another...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Pat B on November 12, 2016, 03:49:14 PM
But what strikes me as inconsistent is the "liberal" outrage at his backstepping. Had he confirmed his electoral agenda, he´d have been accused of being a far-right ideologue unable to comprehend the very notions of political negotiation and compromise; now that he´s soften his stances and seems to steer precisely towards negotiation and compromise, he is condemned for not being true to his promises. Damn if you do, damned if you don´t.

Liberals are outraged that he was elected, not that he has already started backtracking.

The liberal response to the latter is more like mild relief, and maybe a wry chuckle. The left certainly did not expect him to keep all of his promises.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on November 12, 2016, 04:12:22 PM
I am just curious, which one of these talking points is Trump going to take action in? Forget accomplishing it:

1) Build a wall (and make Mexico pay for it)
2) deport 11million illegals
3) stand up to Putin
4) bring manufacturing jobs back
5) Achieve 6% (or is it 10%) GDP growth every year
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 12, 2016, 11:04:18 PM
Feel the Bern:

"People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer...To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him...To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him. "

OK, fair enough!

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: 71 dB on November 13, 2016, 02:15:21 AM
He´ll go down as an absolutely iconic figure in early 21st century Western history, as the most important promoter of post-factual politics.

Can post-factual politics work? How could anything not based on facts work in real life? The presidency will change Trump as a person more than he can change the country.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 13, 2016, 02:45:58 AM
Can post-factual politics work? How could anything not based on facts work in real life? The presidency will change Trump as a person more than he can change the country.

Politics in the sense of political debate, based on emotional manipulation and skipping or denying facts/rational analysis.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 13, 2016, 02:53:08 AM
As opposed to the educated, autonomous, immaculate, benevolent and honest "liberal" elites who are nothing to be blamed for. Their only problem is that they should dissolve the people and elect another...

I was pointing to the increased level of television entertainment in the political debate, and the rather extreme level of everyday television consumption in the US - that could have had the effect of seeing politics as a superficial show.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 13, 2016, 03:07:08 AM
No, it wasn´t. Nigel Farage and the Brexit gang were at it before him.

There were similar traits, yet they were not on the same extreme level.

But:
(http://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_small_article/public/blogs/cxgw0uqwiaaql9w_0.jpg)

Trump tower yesterday, Farage meeting Trump before Theresa May.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: EigenUser on November 13, 2016, 03:59:48 AM
Feel the Bern:

"People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer...To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him...To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him. "

OK, fair enough!

In some respects, I actually think that Sanders and Trump could make a good "odd-couple" team, assuming that Trump isn't used as a puppet by the GOP (which is wishful thinking based off of who Trump seems to be surrounding himself with in the past few days). They have very different styles and disagree on several things, but both seem to share concerns about working-class Americans. Unfortunately, Trump has no political record so he is basically one big wildcard. Who knows if he will actually deliver?. I just hope to god he doesn't run America like he ran his campaign.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Wendell_E on November 13, 2016, 04:57:54 AM
And possibly one of the hottest, if not thee hottest first lady...

(http://images.telegiz.com/data/thumbs/full/8195/600/0/0/0/melania-trump-has-said-that-if-she-becomes-first-lady-of-the-us-she-would-focus-on-addressing-cyber-bullying.png)

I'd say Michelle Obama, but Melania's really the only competition for the spot.  Jackie was beautiful, but not really hot.  I'm appalled that we'd discuss this totally irrelevant subject at all, of course.   :D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 13, 2016, 05:28:37 AM
(http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_45/1792276/161110-first-ladies-mbe-508p_f853e255444f292fbab38f7ef852a381.nbcnews-fp-1200-800.jpg)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 13, 2016, 06:14:41 AM
Gingrich apparently refuses to be Secretary of State, "because I don´t want to be".
Says he wants to be in charge of some "strategic planning".

https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/797797210457075713
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 13, 2016, 06:37:11 AM
Gingrich apparently refuses to be Secretary of State, "because I don´t want to be".
Says he wants to be in charge of some "strategic planning".

https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/797797210457075713

Too much real world work for him; he'd much rather impress us (and himself) with his idle pronouncements.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on November 13, 2016, 06:55:09 AM
In some respects, I actually think that Sanders and Trump could make a good "odd-couple" team, assuming that Trump isn't used as a puppet by the GOP (which is wishful thinking based off of who Trump seems to be surrounding himself with in the past few days). They have very different styles and disagree on several things, but both seem to share concerns about working-class Americans. Unfortunately, Trump has no political record so he is basically one big wildcard. Who knows if he will actually deliver?. I just hope to god he doesn't run America like he ran his campaign.

His team is populated by lobbyists and corporate consultants. Wall street is euphoric.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/

His working class supporters will be feel betrayed, is 0.1% supporters will be very pleased.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 13, 2016, 07:43:29 AM
(which is wishful thinking based off of who Trump seems to be surrounding himself with in the past few days). Trump has no political record so he is basically one big wildcard. Who knows if he will actually deliver?. I just hope to god he doesn't run America like he ran his campaign.

Many Americians liked the fact that he isn't a career politician leeching off of the system (something many despised about Hilary, and despise in general). And campaigning to get the job is a tough, nasty game .. Trump even said that himself during his victory speech. He's only got 4 years, which is such little time to get major change done. And I knew there wouldn't be much change once he got Pence .. it doesn't get more Republican or inside than that. I know Trump is his own man, and doesn't like being bullied .. but he'll be influenced no doubt.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 07:49:51 AM
Gingrich apparently refuses to be Secretary of State, "because I don´t want to be".


Great.  Hopefully Corker gets the job.



His team is populated by lobbyists and corporate consultants. Wall street is euphoric.


Of course he is bringing in the standard types of people.  He has to.  A neophyte president is bad enough.  The cabinet and presidentially appointed offices cannot be filled with neophytes as well. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: EigenUser on November 13, 2016, 07:55:00 AM
His team is populated by lobbyists and corporate consultants. Wall street is euphoric.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/11/if-you-voted-for-trump-because-hes-anti-establishment-guess-what-you-got-conned/

His working class supporters will be feel betrayed, is 0.1% supporters will be very pleased.


You are probably right. I wouldn't ever vote for Sanders OR Trump (though I do have great respect for Sanders), but it just would be nice if we could see two people who "should be" opposing each other work together. If we go by Trump's word (how he vehemently opposes TPP, how he would never approve the merger AT&T and Time Warner, offshore banking, etc.), then it might actually work since it would appear that they have a surprising amount in common. But, sadly, that is a big "if".

Many Americians liked the fact that he isn't a career politician leeching off of the system (something many despised about Hilary, and despise in general). And campaigning to get the job is a tough, nasty game .. Trump even said that himself during his victory speech. He's only got 4 years, which is such little time to get major change done. And I knew there wouldn't be much change once he got Pence .. it doesn't get more Republican or inside than that. I know Trump is his own man, and doesn't like being bullied .. but he'll be influenced no doubt.

I pretty much agree with you. Trump has little experience and, as loud as he is, I actually think he is a pretty weak person when it comes to government and he will be easily persuaded.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 07:58:02 AM
One thing I've noticed in the television press, in particular, and in a few other outlets, as well as forums, is the mention of stock markets.  On election night, there were the direst warnings about the tanking future markets.  A CNBC analyst very sternly warned that 401Ks would drop, and she made the erroneous assumption in her figures that 401Ks are fully invested in stocks (that is, post-truth politics), but of course that has not happened.  I've seen mostly stories about how strong the stock market has been since.  But the bigger story is getting much less coverage in the mainstream press, though the business press is obviously covering it.  Bonds have taken a big hit, Treasuries particularly.  The bond market is reacting to expectations that Trump will make good on his word to pour money into infrastructure, and the supply of debt will balloon.  With that major upward pressure on rates already showing, what happens if or when the Fed raises rates?  Oh, yes, a bubble bursts, or at least can burst.

Trump from the first debate:

"Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. And believe me: We're in a bubble right now. And the only thing that looks good is the stock market, but if you raise interest rates even a little bit, that's going to come crashing down.

“We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. And we have a Fed that's doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political — by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you're going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton."


Of course, if the Fed only raises by 25 basis points next, as I suspect will be the case - what possible justification would there be for a half-point or higher hike? - the market will probably not be rocked.  I'm placing some faith in Yellen here.  I don't see 1994 redux, but keep your eyes on bonds, I say.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 13, 2016, 08:06:22 AM
I pretty much agree with you. Trump has little experience and, as loud as he is, I actually think he is a pretty weak person when it comes to government and he will be easily persuaded.

I wouldn't say Trump is a weak person, clearly he's not, he stuck it out and won after-all .. but it doesn't even matter who becomes the president if they are apart of either of the 2 major political parties. In many ways they are like a puppet. The system is so corrupted by both parties and based on bribery that little if any change will occur by just one guy stepping into all of that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 08:29:40 AM
Corbyn loves Trump? (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-reducing-nato-presence-russia-putin)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 13, 2016, 10:21:10 AM
I am just curious, which one of these talking points is Trump going to take action in? Forget accomplishing it:

1) Build a wall (and make Mexico pay for it)
2) deport 11million illegals
3) stand up to Putin
4) bring manufacturing jobs back
5) Achieve 6% (or is it 10%) GDP growth every year

In the upcoming "60 Minutes" (tonight?), Trump will claim that 3 million illegals are to be deported, and a wall will be built, albeit as a fence in certain places.

3 million - that´s a lot of people anyway.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 10:32:19 AM
In the upcoming "60 Minutes" (tonight?), Trump will claim that 3 million illegals are to be deported, and a wall will be built, albeit as a fence in certain places.

3 million - that´s a lot of people anyway.


Damn, that beats the 2.5 million deported by Obama.  Wait, is Trump really that different?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 13, 2016, 11:06:09 AM
Correction: Trump says 2 - 3 million.


Damn, that beats the 2.5 million deported by Obama.  Wait, is Trump really that different?

It seems that according to Trump, these people are to be deported quickly, due to criminal records.
Paul Ryan however wants to focus on "securing the border":

http://time.com/4569034/donald-trump-undocumented-immigrant-deportation/ 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 11:52:27 AM
Hmm, the president-elect (and soon President) wants one thing, the Speaker something else.  It is the dawn of a new political era.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 11:59:00 AM
Dems rally around POTUS! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/13/one-third-of-clinton-supporters-say-trump-election-is-not-legitimate-poll-finds/)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 12:05:22 PM
I listened to an excerpt from Trump's 60 Minutes interview in which he said he was planning on deporting the criminals and securing the border before working on determining the fate of the rest of the illegals.  The US government can do both.

People are really working overtime trying to find inconsistencies with Trump's statements.



While Trump can order an increase in certain actions, he cannot institute major structural changes to the agencies involved without Congressional support.  At the very least, increased funding is needed.  This would mean that Trump could blame Congress for any failure to toughen up, and if Dems put up vocal and high-profile resistance, all the better.  I predict a bump up in deportations, but nothing in line with his rhetoric. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 12:41:07 PM
The only thing new he has proposed is the border wall.



That's not new, either.  There's about 600 miles of wall and fence (I think about 200 of it is a wall right now) along the roughly 2000 mile border between the US and Mexico.  It is logistically impossible to build a wall or fence the entire length, and it is irrelevant from an immigration flow perspective.  (The wall/fence would have to be focused around actual traversal areas.)  Trump simply tapped into nativist sentiment, proposed something both impossible and irrelevant but undeniably appealing to a good number of voters, and now he will throw a bone to his base by slightly upping the number of deportations.  Dismantling NAFTA would increase the flow of immigrants as Mexico's economy shrinks, and if there is a lot more wall when that occurs (which it won't), there will be a lot more tunnels under the wall, a lot more demolished sections of the wall, and a lot more people coming ashore in southeast Texas and between San Diego and LA. 

One reason why Ryan might not support much in the way of physical barriers is because a lot of US businesses, starting with agriculture, rely on illegal immigrant labor.  Those business interests are not interested in severe restrictions of immigration flow.  (Nor are wealthier urban types who rely on poorly paid domestic help via maid services, as well as other menial service workers, but that is a dirty little secret among both conservative and liberal elites.)  Alabama imposed strict limits on, and enforcement of, illegal immigration for a brief period, and it failed.  That's not to say more can't be done, just that not everyone, even in Republican circles, actually either cares about it or wants it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The Six on November 13, 2016, 01:09:35 PM
It will be interesting to see what happens during Trump's first year.  Everyone seems to be predicting a variety of things.  Mostly predicting his failure.

The only consistent thing about predicting Trump's actions is that almost all predictions have been wrong.

That's right, so you have to alter the prediction: Trump will succeed, but America will fail.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 01:21:06 PM
The only consistent thing about predicting Trump's actions is that almost all predictions have been wrong.



True, but his achievements need to be put into context.  He ran a vulgar, aggressive campaign against a terrible, widely unpopular candidate and won.  Now he will be President and will have to work with a Congress that, despite being controlled by the same party, has a different agenda.  The Supreme Court may rule against him, and some lower federal courts definitely will.  And he will have to deal with foreign leaders, some of whom don't care at all about American political opinions or interests and only worry about hard power and economic power.  Trump will succeed at some things, and fail at others, like every President who came before him.  The sheer outlandishness of some of his promises means that he will fail to live up to most of them.  That may not matter a huge amount since a lot of supporters, as the saying goes, took him seriously but not literally. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 13, 2016, 01:57:37 PM
Trump makes radical Chief of Staff pick, rattles Washington. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/politics/donald-trump-reince-priebus-white-house-chief-of-staff/)  Hey, wait . . .
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on November 13, 2016, 11:23:28 PM
Y'all cool with an antisemite named chief WH strategist?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 13, 2016, 11:31:02 PM
Stephen Bannon is reported to be a widely controversial choice here, including among Republicans, due to his campaign & Breitbart role, plus mentioned anti-semitism/domestic violence problems.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 13, 2016, 11:44:38 PM
I have no idea who Bannon is but I know who Jared Kushner is. So much for Trump´s antisemitism.  :D

EDIT:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Bannon married Mary Louise Piccard, his second wife, in April 1995. Their twin daughters were born three days later. Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness in early January 1996, after Piccard accused Bannon of domestic abuse. The charges were later dropped when his now ex-wife did not show up to court. Piccard also claimed that Bannon had made antisemitic remarks, a claim Bannon's spokesperson has denied.[31][32][33][34][35]

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on November 14, 2016, 04:50:43 AM
I have no idea who Bannon is but I know who Jared Kushner is. So much for Trump´s antisemitism.  :D

EDIT:
Ah, dropped charges. Just like Hillary then?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 05:16:13 AM
Ah, dropped charges. Just like Hillary then?

Yes. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a legitimately constituted, procedures following court. Justice is not a matter of popular vote/feeling.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on November 14, 2016, 05:20:45 AM
Yes. Everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a legitimately constituted, procedures following court. Justice is not a matter of popular vote/feeling.
To be Clear, I totally agree. But I find it ironic, considering Trumps repeted bleating about criminal Hillary.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 05:31:22 AM
To be Clear, I totally agree. But I find it ironic, considering Trumps repeted bleating about criminal Hillary.

Two candidates for the office of POTUS besmirching and slandering each other. Quite unheard of and unprecedented.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 14, 2016, 06:14:41 AM
Two candidates for the office of POTUS besmirching and slandering each other. Quite unheard of and unprecedented.  :laugh:

I have been thinking what seems to be a pattern with DT. He says something completely outlandish (build a wall, Mexico will pay for it, etc.) with a lot of shock value grabbing everyone's attention and after cooling off, is rather conciliatory as he was with Clinton and Obama. He didn't have to go out of his way to say that the country owed her a debt (when in effect it is the other way around) or scale down the wall to a fence.

It comes as a relief that instead of smoke continually coming out of his ears, he is getting down to business even with those who were opposed to him. I don't know if this is scripted, in other words, if he is aware he is doing this for effect or simply a character trait, fulminating in his initial reactions to things before actually mulling them over. His buttons seem easily pushed which is not such a good trait, that is if he is not in control. But the upside is what you see is what you get, unlike most politicos with a private and public persona.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: James on November 14, 2016, 06:16:45 AM
60 minutes interview ..

>> http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/watch-donald-trumps-interview-on-60-minutes.html

He's only taking a dollar a year to do the job, he's not taking the 400,000 a year the job pays. And no vacations! He claims too much needs to be done, lots of work.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on November 14, 2016, 06:21:39 AM
I have been thinking what seems to be a pattern with DT. He says something completely outlandish (build a wall, Mexico will pay for it, etc.) with a lot of shock value grabbing everyone's attention and after cooling off,
That's the reality show approach. Without being outlandish, you don't get noticed. It's a real pity it's come to that in US politics.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 06:39:38 AM
Completely offtopic (or maybe not): with openly pro-Russian candidates being elected yesterday as president in the Republic of Moldavia and Bulgaria, the "red belt" around Romania is now complete. From Sofia to Belgrade to Budapest to half of Ukraine to Kishinev, Putin´s men / friends are in power, and with the recent agreement between Putin and Erdogan, the Black Sea is for all intents and purposes a Russian lake. Bucharest still holds, though: parliamentary elections next month and there is no party or politician, mainstream or otherwise, who suggests or supports a pro-Russian foreign policy.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 14, 2016, 06:53:35 AM
Reports right now are that Erdogan in Turkey also plans a public vote reducing EU agreements, and that the reform process (dare I say Westernization) in Ukraine is experiencing severe difficulties, resulting, among other things, in people leaving the government and a new, partly Trump-inspired movement led by Saakashvili.
A very difficult time for the EU.

Marc Galeotti is one of the best analysts as regards Russia nowadays. He is often right in his predictions. Others have dealt with the bromance between the two macho-men Trump and Putin. Russian media have gone out of their way to praise Trump and criticize Western "establishment" since his victory.
But in this interesting article Galeotti describes the less attractive aspects of the bromance, from a Russian point of view, suggesting that Trump will work for better relations and trade with China, and maybe be a hardliner towards Putin.

Of course, we know nothing of what will really happen yet.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/13/watch-out-vladimir-theres-a-new-putin-in-town/
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 14, 2016, 06:56:31 AM
Attention grabbing, pussy grabbing - he has done major damage already to our country.  The disingenuousness of Republicans who demand "giving him a chance" astounds: 1.) calling for a civility Trump showed not an ounce of during a horrendous campaign we're still hemorrhaging from ; 2.) do I have choice? not really - we need to get over it as they say or pay a personal medical price that prob. won't be covered in our future anti-entitlement era; 3.) As has recently come out - and more forthcoming - the right made darn sure Obama's administration would fail, part ideological, part racist, all cravenly sick.  Should liberals not return the compliment to the best of our diminished ability?: 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/republicans-had-it-in-for-obama-before-day-1/2012/08/10/0c96c7c8-e31f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 07:01:56 AM
reform process (dare I say Westernization) in Ukraine is experiencing severe difficulties, resulting, among other things, in people leaving the government and a new, partly Trump-inspired movement led by Saakashvili.

You mean Georgia, right?

Quote
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/13/watch-out-vladimir-theres-a-new-putin-in-town/

Interesting judging from the two first paragraphs but can´t be read in its entirety without subscription.  ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 14, 2016, 07:06:13 AM
You mean Georgia, right?

Interesting judging from the two first paragraphs but can´t be read in its entirety without subscription.  ;D

No. Since he fled from Georgia, the former Georgian president Saakashvili was picked by the Ukrainian president Poroshenko as a governor of Odessa in Ukraine. He did some extreme reforms there, but recently quit, and has now started a new movement, protesting against Poroshenko.
Saakashvili is on very bad terms with Georgia and has a court case there.

I could read the article, skipping an add intro, but it may vary from country to country.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 07:10:56 AM
Since he fled from Georgia, the former Georgian president Saakashvili was picked by the Ukrainian president Poroshenko as a governor of Odessa in Ukraine. He did some extreme reforms there, but recently quit, and has now started a new movement, protesting against Poroshenko.

Blimey, I had no idea about his whereabouts after he lost the election in Georgia. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on November 14, 2016, 07:11:52 AM
No. Since he fled from Georgia, the former Georgian president Saakashvili was picked by the Ukrainian president Poroshenko as a governor of Odessa in Ukraine. He did some extreme reforms there, but recently quit, and has now started a new movement, protesting against Poroshenko.
Saakashvili is on very bad terms with Georgia and has a court case there.
Wait, what? How have I not seen anything about Saakashvili going to Ukraine?

(Andrei, check your PM box)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 14, 2016, 07:13:39 AM
Well, it´s not exactly a thing one would guess :)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 07:19:29 AM
(Andrei, check your PM box)

Thank you very much, Karlo. I agree with the author and I have thought about it myself as of late: Putin might just be in for a big and quite unpleasant surprise.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 07:43:29 AM
A very difficult time for the EU.

Tbh, I think EU was originally a sound project but it has long since gone astray. If populism and illiberalism are on the rise it is precisely because the political elites at both national and supranational level have chosen to (1) pretend that the problems economic and social globalization generated at an ever-increasing pace either do not exist or are self-solving and (2) dismiss the legitimate concerns and anxieties these problems raised among an ever-expanding number of citizens as the expression of "bigotry", "racism" and "nationalism". Using ostrich tactics, empty slogans and ideological catchwords for facing the reality is never a wise option, but unfortunately they seem to persist in their blindness, cowardice and stupidity even after Brexit.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 14, 2016, 07:45:33 AM
Two candidates for the office of POTUS besmirching and slandering each other. Quite unheard of and unprecedented.  :laugh:


At one point, in August or September, Clinton went about as far as a candidate can go, stating publicly that Trump was giving aid and comfort to our enemies.  She very carefully made it a point to use the phrase "aid and comfort".

Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Unfortunately for her, this charge never gained traction with the wider public.  At least she gave it the old college try.



Should liberals not return the compliment to the best of our diminished ability?


Oh, liberals absolutely should.  Have at it.  Republicans, in the meantime, can revel in Harry Reid's decision to kill most filibustering for executive and judicial appointments and ram through appointments bound to cause Dems uncontrollable and adorable fits of liberal rage. 

Maybe just a tad of circumspection on SCOTUS appointments is in order, though at the same time, I really like Lindsay Graham's idea about appointing Ted Cruz to the court.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 14, 2016, 07:48:17 AM
At one point, in August or September, Clinton went about as far as a candidate can go, stating publicly that Trump was giving aid and comfort to our enemies.  She very carefully made it a point to use the phrase "aid and comfort".

Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Unfortunately for her, this charge never gained traction with the wider public.  At least she gave it the old college try.

 ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 14, 2016, 07:58:03 AM
Reports right now are that Erdogan in Turkey also plans a public vote reducing EU agreements, and that the reform process (dare I say Westernization) in Ukraine is experiencing severe difficulties, resulting, among other things, in people leaving the government and a new, partly Trump-inspired movement led by Saakashvili.



I'd hope Trump devotes much more time to working with Turkey than worrying about Ukraine.  The former is an important ally, the latter a potential sinkhole of financial and strategic resources with no real payoff for the US, and a lot of risk.

Trump does have an advantage for a while in dealing with both Putin and Xi in that no one really knows what he will do.  It seems extraordinarily unlikely that Trump will become overtly cozy with Putin (despite press coverage to the contrary) or actually unilaterally impose tariffs of 45% on some Chinese imports, but for a while, that uncertainty gives him some leverage. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 14, 2016, 11:13:21 AM
What Could Stop President Trump From Putting His Portfolio First?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 14, 2016, 11:14:09 AM
What Could Stop President Trump From Putting His Portfolio First?


Congressional hearings.  Oh, uh-oh.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 14, 2016, 11:17:40 AM
(It might be a good time to explore the construction firms that have ties to the Trump companies.  I'm not saying for sure they will benefit from any infrastructure spending, it's just a hunch.  Of course, the ones set to benefit the most may be privately held.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 14, 2016, 11:55:19 AM
The market seems to have decided (http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-trade-is-getting-out-of-hand-buy-some-bonds-1479143922) that Trump won't cause trade wars or reckless international relations.

It has taken markets just four days to price in four years of President Donald Trump. The verdict of investors isn't just clear, but comes with a remarkable degree of certainty: More inflation, a little more growth, and no nasties such as a damaging trade war or a diplomatic disaster.

Rising interest rates and some inflation are not bad things in the current economic climate, in fact, that is what economists have been hoping for throughout the sluggish recovery under Obama.


The article suggests moving to currently sinking bonds as equities have gone up too much.  I believe the second part is true, but I'm not as sure about bonds.  I have to wait to see what Yellen does in December.  A Goldman guy warns of commodities becoming overpriced in the post-Trump rally as well. (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/13/metals-rally-overprices-impact-of-trumps-infrastructure-plan-goldman-sachs.html)  Markets can get too frothy too quick.  There has been no change to underlying fiscal policy yet, and there has not been a significant uptick in GDP growth.  The "bullish" forecasts for US GDP growth for 2017 and 2018 are just over 2% real growth each year.  This hardly supports big surges in the markets.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 14, 2016, 01:08:09 PM
THIS is special; complete and open disclosure and a turning over of his server ASAP, hearings and investigations de rigueur, he deserves nothing less than the works.  https://www.truthexaminer.com/2016/11/breaking-vp-elect-mike-pence-wants-to-keep-his-email-private-details/  "Pence for Prison, 2016," etc.  (Hillary was more compliant than he!)

Better detail here: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/11/14/whats-mike-pence-hiding-his-emails/92839560/  Hey, "Pence for Prison" has a nice alliterative ring to it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 14, 2016, 03:15:07 PM
At last, the US and Russia will reset their relationship. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/vladimir-putin-donald-trump-phone-call) 



(That's unheard of.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 15, 2016, 06:06:15 AM
Most of me is still deeply afraid of what's coming next, combined with a probably unwarranted cynicism along the lines of "well, what else did you expect". That said, there's part of me—probably the same part that gets deeply interested in how hurricanes work without taking into account their death tolls—that is now kind of curious about what will happen in American politics over the next few years.

Obviously, I was born in the US (and technically still a citizen of it) but haven't lived there for quite some time. My parents are both lifelong Democrats. I'm.... honestly not. What I've seen from the Democratic Party in recent years has been essentially the Party of Ineffective Governance: not much to distinguish them from Republicans in terms of corporate sponsorship or foreign policy, alienated from the working-class voters they depend on for power, and projecting no coherent message. I am extremely skeptical of them as an organisation, and this includes even nominal independents like Bernie Sanders who nonetheless are closely tied to the party.

So that's probably why I don't have any real emotional investment in the upcoming DNC civil war, any more than I would have an emotional investment in a President Hillary Clinton if I had thought she was more likely to win. The Dems pretty clearly have had their ineffective governance come home to them now that they're out of power on every level of government. (Why they were so complacent when the only level of government where they held power was the executive branch, I have no idea. Too many fat checks from donors, or something.) It remains to be seen whether what they'll do is more of the same, guaranteeing them a lockout until maybe 2030, or actually try to reinvent themselves, so that the lockout will only maybe last until 2020. I'm kind of half-heartedly watching, since I have strong suspicions of which one they'll pick. I'm also kind of keeping an eye on the Republicans, who had a similar breakdown in message over the last 8 years but were able to cover for that by being in opposition (so the message could be "we're not Obama"). They're still running on fumes from that, but once they've repealed Obamacare and ensured that the Earth becomes uninhabitable for human beings by 2100 instead of 2150, it's unclear what they're actually going to be trying to do.

Obama has talked about needing to rebuild from the local and state levels up, which gives me a feeling he wants to still be an active force within the party. Which, I mean, he has the organisational skills for sure. But a moment that stands out to me from the campaign is when he spoke in Michigan, talking about how he deserves some credit for saving the auto industry. Yes, thanks Obama, good job reminding a city full of unemployed ex-auto industry workers that you gave a few billion dollars to their CEOs, I'm sure they are very grateful. HRC's got Michigan in the bag now for sure. If that kind of disconnect shows no sign of being bridged, in 2018 and 2020 his organisation is probably going to result in a lot of Democratic candidates whose primary campaign message is "gosh, isn't Trump awful?" And then if the stars align, Great Cthulhu arises from his stone house at R'lyeh and the Democrats gain Senate seats in 2018, we get.... what exactly?

Then there's the DNC chair thing—I actually don't know much about any of the candidates, apart from that one of them was endorsed by both Bernie Sanders and Charles Schumer which suggests to me that the Dems are desperately trying to avoid any signs of internecine conflict and rush someone into the job. Clearly, it's not working. I will be watching the unfolding trainwreck, with popcorn.

On the Republican side of things, I think there may end up being similar civil wars now that they no longer have much of a Democratic Party to fight against—the deep divisions in the GOP have been pretty well documented by liberal-leaning media outlets though, so I do think (a) that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone and (b) the "war" won't be nearly as consequential as advertised. Not that the Republicans have shown themselves to be much more effective at governance, but despite the public overconfidence, I feel like a lot of them had basically no plan for what to do if they actually won. And being members of a major political party in the USA, this means they'll follow their leaders. And their leaders will I think be focused on minimising their chances of losing control in 2020 and letting Democrats control the post-census redistricting. <_<
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 07:55:05 AM
The Dems pretty clearly have had their ineffective governance come home to them now that they're out of power on every level of government.


This brings to mind a poll I remember from the late 80s or early 90s, where poll respondents associated Republicans with corruption and Democrats with incompetence.



On the Republican side of things, I think there may end up being similar civil wars now that they no longer have much of a Democratic Party to fight against


Defeatism is as bad as triumphalism.  The Democrats will fire Donna Brazile's duplicitous ass and put in someone new, and I suspect the party will move more to the left rhetorically and on some key policies.  The most important thing is how they package their message.  They can't blame voters, as some are still doing, for instance, by criticizing those who didn't vote.  The Dems have a lot of money and a strong organization.  2018 may still be rough, but 2020 is a good year to fight.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 15, 2016, 08:07:02 AM
A new word (for me, anyway) of possible interest for posters on this thread:  kak·is·toc·ra·cy : Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 15, 2016, 08:15:10 AM
Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Contemporary democracy in a nutshell.  ;D ;D ;D  >:D >:D >:D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 08:52:18 AM
A new word (for me, anyway) of possible interest for posters on this thread:  kak·is·toc·ra·cy : Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.


A new word for me.  The definition I found said government by the worst people.  I suppose one can consider Trump and Bannon to fit the bill, depending on how one looks things, but I'm not sure it applies to all of the executive branch, all of Congress, all of the federal judiciary, or all of the state government personnel, or local government personnel.  It is amusing to see a lefty assume an even more extreme stance than even the most partisan Republican.  Now Dems are saying the government is the enemy.  A delectable outcome of the election.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 15, 2016, 08:57:24 AM
Now Dems are saying the government is the enemy. 

This is what every party says, as long as the government is not theirs.  ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 15, 2016, 09:00:53 AM

A new word for me.  The definition I found said government by the worst people.  I suppose one can consider Trump and Bannon to fit the bill, depending on how one looks things, but I'm not sure it applies to all of the executive branch, all of Congress, all of the federal judiciary, or all of the state government personnel, or local government personnel.  It is amusing to see a lefty assume and even more extreme stance than even the most partisan Republican.  Now Dems are saying the government is the enemy.  An delectable outcome of the election.

Good observation, Todd; I suppose I am a little hot  >:D right now.  Anyway, , you always teach this lefty (left of Edward Kennedy) something, for which Thanks!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 09:08:23 AM
This is what every party says, as long as the government is not theirs.  ;D


Indeed.  Perhaps one day, all Americans will see that the best way forward is divided government.  I put my electoral money where my mouth is: I wrote in John Kasich and voted to reelect Ron Wyden.  (I also remained true to my principles and voted no on every statewide ballot initiative!)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 11:33:23 AM
Ah, Carson's out. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-carson-idUSKBN13A26M)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 15, 2016, 12:02:21 PM
Uniquely unprepared.

Trump seems to have assumed he could just take over Obama's staff, and now needs extra time with the man he'd previously had impugned in every way he could to be told what a prez  is supposed to do.

Hopeless.

I wonder how they are going to smuggle in someone in the administration who's going to be Pence's VP, when Trump has excused himself on fake medical grounds.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 15, 2016, 12:06:52 PM

I wrote in John Kasich...

A decent human being I have real respect for, a rara avis in his party...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 15, 2016, 12:08:39 PM
At some point Trumpo will find out he gets to appoint a new IRS chief.

The IRS is auditing his tax returns.

He'll also ghet to appoint the guy with whom he has to negotiate over that hotel a block over on Pennsylvania Ave he's got a lease on. And which he's probably going to use as a residence for the time he's a prez, and no doubt he's going to bill the taxpayer for the suites he needs in his own hotel.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 12:44:58 PM
He'll also ghet to appoint the guy with whom he has to negotiate over that hotel a block over on Pennsylvania Ave he's got a lease on.


He also gets to negotiate with the heads of state of countries where some of his creditors are domiciled.  I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is going to try to outdo Michael Bloomberg, who became much richer while mayor of New York.  (I know, I know, Bloomberg was only a mayor, though New York is the largest financial center, and Bloomberg does own a functional monopoly in his space, but the political and the business were never intertwined.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 15, 2016, 12:59:56 PM

He also gets to negotiate with the heads of state of countries where some of his creditors are domiciled.  I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is going to try to outdo Michael Bloomberg, who became much richer while mayor of New York.  (I know, I know, Bloomberg was only a mayor, though New York is the largest financial center, and Bloomberg does own a functional monopoly in his space, but the political and the business were never intertwined.)

I don't think your innuendo makes any sense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10542304/Michael-Bloomberg-spent-650-million-of-own-money-as-New-York-mayor.html
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 15, 2016, 01:09:54 PM
why do we rush right back out and declare, with such certainty, what’s going to happen next?[/i]

because Trump told us what he was going to do, and the only hope of this not happening is his incompetence.

stupid column
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 01:38:37 PM
I don't think your innuendo makes any sense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10542304/Michael-Bloomberg-spent-650-million-of-own-money-as-New-York-mayor.html


Bloomberg's net worth went up from around $5 billion in 2001 to over $20 billion while still mayor.  He's now worth over $40 billion.  $650 million is piffle in this context.  Bloomberg is shrewd, smart, and aggressive in business matters, and always has been.  He also operates what is close to a monopoly in financial data distribution.  I do not begrudge him any of that.  However, it is more than a little eyebrow raising when one's privately run company increases so dramatically in value while holding executive public office in the financial capital of the world.  (Yes, New York is still more important than London.)  I have no doubt that every action he took was legal and thoroughly vetted beforehand.  Working with executives and rich investors directly myself, it is very easy to understand some of the mechanisms at play.  No one he worked with would be dumb enough to ask for quid pro quo exchanges.  Rather, other smart businessmen (and women) make decisions based on what they think would and will make the most sense down the road, relationship-wise.  Trump will no doubt be more blunt in his approach, but I would not be a bit surprised if in 2020, he is worth more than he is today.  Legally, he's in a more precarious position given the scope and magnitude of federal expenditures and actions, but it is hard not to see similar dynamics at work.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 15, 2016, 02:00:03 PM
I'm also kind of keeping an eye on the Republicans, who had a similar breakdown in message over the last 8 years but were able to cover for that by being in opposition (so the message could be "we're not Obama"). They're still running on fumes from that, but once they've repealed Obamacare and ensured that the Earth becomes uninhabitable for human beings by 2100 instead of 2150, it's unclear what they're actually going to be trying to do. <_<

Interesting short television interview, for a layman, with a climate expert here, concerning climate politics:

1) Green technology, including in the energy sector itself, is getting increasingly competitive and it will inevitably advance on the market; Trump may halt some development, but it will be for a very limited period.

2) China has realized both the climate problem and the increasing necessity - as well as the profits - of green technology. The big question is whether they´ll use a possible, temporary US slow-down to either 1) similarly slow down their green technology, in order to maximize short term profits 2) probably wiser, invest in green technology, including the industries, maybe even getting ahead of the US, knowledge-wise and on the market.

3)  Anyway, Trump had a lot of support from rural areas, but urban communities are much more progressive as regards green technology, and they will most likely increase initiatives on a local US level, in many places.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 02:13:39 PM
Trump may halt some development, but it will be for a very limited period.


I'm not sure he can or even would want to.  Last December, in exchange for lifting oil export restrictions, renewable energy tax credits for wind and solar were extended.  If current trends continue, the US will surpass the EU and lag only China in renewable energy production by 2020.  That may change somewhat, but billions in investment are already in the queue.  There are now big enough corporate interests involved that Republicans will not reflexively kill such tax expenditures.  Trump will probably try to roll back restrictions that reduced coal production and use in some areas, and will push to allow for more oil drilling, but he will also run into the practical reality that in-force executive orders issued by Obama can't be reversed immediately, and new ones can't be implemented as speedily as he let on.  If he's a tenth the deal maker he claims to be, I would think he would gladly pursue more carbon based energy production in exchange for additional subsidies for other industries.  Trump could then brag that the US is a global leader in renewable energy production next cycle.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: EigenUser on November 15, 2016, 04:56:14 PM
Mitch Albom: Time to pause, reflect — and stop predicting (http://www.freep.com/story/sports/columnists/mitch-albom/2016/11/12/mitch-albom-donald-trump/93731484/)

There was a moment in the 2008 election when, at a town hall, John McCain heard a supporter tell him, “We’re scared of an Obama presidency.” The man was worried that Obama associated with terrorists.

McCain stopped the supporter and said, while he, McCain, thought he was the better candidate, Obama was “a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

The crowd booed, but McCain held firm. And everyone calmed down.

We can learn some things from that. One, this isn’t the first time citizens have been scared of a new presidency. Two, a calming word from the other side can go a long way.

Hillary Clinton tried to do that with her graceful concession speech. President Barack Obama tried to do it, too, meeting with President-elect Donald Trump and saying, before the cameras, “If you succeed, the country succeeds.”

But most everyone else who didn’t want Trump as president — especially in the media — has severely gone in the other direction. Dire predictions. Tears. Declarations that the nation as we know it is over and that we are on the verge of “a covert form of Jim Crow” (the New York Times) and “white supremacy’s last stand” (a CBC commentator).

Well, first, I sure hope they are wrong. But second, I’d like to pose a question to the “experts” in our business:

Why, after getting this whole election so colossally wrong, after misreading voters, misinterpreting polls, misjudging what people thought and how seriously Americans took certain words and actions — why do we rush right back out and declare, with such certainty, what’s going to happen next?


This so much. It is funny how the left has been constantly pointing out how Donald's campaign has been fueled by fear-mongering. The anti-Trump movement has been fueled by just as much fear-mongering and it is continuing beyond the election. When Donald says that the media has incited protests/riots after the election (I forget his exact wording, but it was something like that) he actually has a point (even though he says it in his own, distorted way). People have been fed so much trash by so many media sources that people are actually terrified. Discounting op-eds, I really do think that any article that makes a conclusion (i.e. Trump is a bigot/racist/misogynist) is garbage. Perhaps it may be true, but it is not for the author to decide. The author of an article needs to simply present the facts and actions taking place as they are and let the readers take them and interpret them on their own. No more editorializing and no more predictions.


Indeed.  Perhaps one day, all Americans will see that the best way forward is divided government.  I put my electoral money where my mouth is: I wrote in John Kasich and voted to reelect Ron Wyden.  (I also remained true to my principles and voted no on every statewide ballot initiative!)

John Kasich is one of the names that surfaced (to me, at least) this election cycle that I'd like to see stick around for awhile, along with Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, and Bernie Sanders. I voted Johnson/Weld (who I actually really liked, despite some shortcomings -- come at me, bros) and although I disagree with Bernie on the role of the federal government, I think he is a legit good guy.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on November 15, 2016, 05:09:41 PM

Indeed.  Perhaps one day, all Americans will see that the best way forward is divided government.  I put my electoral money where my mouth is: I wrote in John Kasich and voted to reelect Ron Wyden.  (I also remained true to my principles and voted no on every statewide ballot initiative!)

Although I don't agree with him much on policy, I regarded Kasich as the Republican contender for President with the most integrity. A sign of the times we live in the Trump could wipe the floor with him.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 15, 2016, 06:45:40 PM
I suspect the party will move more to the left rhetorically and on some key policies.  The most important thing is how they package their message.  They can't blame voters, as some are still doing, for instance, by criticizing those who didn't vote.  The Dems have a lot of money and a strong organization.
Yes I do feel like the result of this is going to be more power concentrated among the Democrats who espouse more leftist rhetoric—Warren, Keith Ellison even if he isn't picked as DNC chair, Harris although I'm not as hopeful about her as liberals are (but maybe she'll surprise me). They probably will become more partisan and negotiate less. Maybe this will lead to less incrementalism when/if they're in power again, less bolting new laws and executive orders onto shaky superstructures and more actual New Deal/Great Society reforms. But the time for that kind of thing in American politics has probably come and gone.

Also, while I am pretty defeatist about the Republicans (they'll probably actually get things done—it's just that all the things they want to do are utter crap) that will probably change to popcorn again if Trump picks Lewandowski for RNC chair >_>
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 06:54:30 PM
Also, while I am pretty defeatist about the Republicans (they'll probably actually get things done—it's just that all the things they want to do are utter crap) that will probably change to popcorn again if Trump picks Lewandowski for RNC chair


That's hard to see happening, but it's not impossible.  Ronna Romney McDaniel would be a great choice, fusing Trump supporters and an establishment pedigree.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 15, 2016, 07:05:10 PM
She's the most likely choice I think, for sure. But think of THE DRAMA.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 15, 2016, 07:14:43 PM
But think of THE DRAMA.



There would be plenty, to be sure.  But I want to see the drama focused on the Senate and the SCOTUS choice and the coming tax cuts.  I remember a photo of Bill Clinton meeting with Congress, and George Mitchell glaring at Clinton.  I want to see the McConnell glare.

(http://i3.cpcache.com/product/1125752688/i_heart_mitch_square_sticker_3_x_3.jpg?color=White&height=250&width=250&qv=90)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Pat B on November 15, 2016, 09:47:45 PM
John Kasich is one of the names that surfaced (to me, at least) this election cycle that I'd like to see stick around for awhile, along with Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, and Bernie Sanders. I voted Johnson/Weld (who I actually really liked, despite some shortcomings -- come at me, bros) and although I disagree with Bernie on the role of the federal government, I think he is a legit good guy.

I like Johnson, but he ran a bad campaign. I think he's done. Weld, at 71 and out of office, is also done. Their 3% showing against the worst (and mutually big-government) major-party choice in decades does not bode well for the future of the Libertarian Party, either.

Kasich is still Governor of Ohio, but it's hard to see him having much sway in the national GOP going forward.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 16, 2016, 12:36:57 AM

Bloomberg's net worth went up from around $5 billion in 2001 to over $20 billion while still mayor.  He's now worth over $40 billion. 

Looks like a false equivalence to me.

Literally everone who was rich in 2001 has multiplied his or her wealth since then. That's how today's system works.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 16, 2016, 04:09:39 AM
Politics ain't bad business:

http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth/
The Hillary Clinton net worth total of $31.3 million comes from analyzing her Public Financial Disclosure Reports. Bill Clinton has an estimated net worth of $80 million. That gives a combined Bill and Hillary Clinton net worth of $111 million dollars. U.S. presidential candidates aren’t required to reveal their exact net worth, so Hillary Clinton’s is only available within a range. Clinton has reported net worth assets of at least $10,830,007 and at most $51.7 million. Mrs. Clinton did not report any real estate or debts. If the Clintons do own property or debts, it’s all in Bill Clinton’s name. Placing assets and liabilities in Bill’s name would mean they wouldn’t be reported as part of Hillary Clinton’s net worth.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jo498 on November 16, 2016, 04:24:36 AM
These are mere peanuts compared to the likes of Bloomberg and Trump. But it clearly shows that we are a plutocracy and Plato or Aristotle would have considered this not much better than a kakistocracy whereas we follow the civil religion that greed is good and the richest man is the most capable and the central virtue is to use smarts to get rich.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2016, 06:45:01 AM
Literally everone who was rich in 2001 has multiplied his or her wealth since then. That's how today's system works.


Looks like contrafactual assertion to me. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 16, 2016, 07:02:08 AM
These are mere peanuts compared to the likes of Bloomberg and Trump. But it clearly shows that we are a plutocracy and Plato or Aristotle would have considered this not much better than a kakistocracy whereas we follow the civil religion that greed is good and the richest man is the most capable and the central virtue is to use smarts to get rich.


Trump's cabinet looks like it may have one other billionaire in it - Wilbur Ross, potentially at Commerce - and presumably millionaires aplenty.  The Senate was first called a Millionaire's Club back in the 19th Century, when a million dollars was really a lot of money.  Just more than half of Congresspersons today are millionaires, though a net worth of a million, while hardly penury, is not necessarily indicative of notable liquid wealth, at least in the US.  In any event, the fact that elected leaders in their 50s on average are worth more than the average American doesn't really bother me.  One person can utter Plutocracy, another can say Meritocracy.  For instance, Congress as a whole is better educated than during the supposed halcyon days of the 1950s and 1960s, and before.  On the flip side, despite party affiliation, most members of Congress end up having similar educational backgrounds, and draw from a similar set of outlooks and policy ideas.  The US has had a few presidents born into wealth, and a good number not born into wealth.  I don't necessarily see a correlation between wealth and quality of leadership, either good or bad.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 16, 2016, 11:38:21 PM
Probably a dumb question, but I've never been quite sure: if a member of the Senate or House agrees to take on a cabinet position, do they also hold onto their seat (and whatever position within their caucus that they hold), or do they have to be replaced? Same with e.g. a governor or state legislator.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 17, 2016, 12:08:56 AM
Clinton majority: clearly most urban areas.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?_r=0

I think threads here mentioned a total nationwide lead of 400,000 votes, but the revised number is now 1 million votes.


Viral Fake Election News Outperformed Real News On Facebook In Final Months Of The US Election:

".......... During these critical months of the campaign, 20 top-performing false election stories from hoax sites and hyperpartisan blogs generated 8,711,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook. Within the same time period, the 20 best-performing election stories from 19 major news websites generated a total of 7,367,000 shares."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.huDbYBDRM#.pvRyDOo2N
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Wendell_E on November 17, 2016, 12:59:39 AM
Probably a dumb question, but I've never been quite sure: if a member of the Senate or House agrees to take on a cabinet position, do they also hold onto their seat (and whatever position within their caucus that they hold), or do they have to be replaced? Same with e.g. a governor or state legislator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ineligibility_Clause

So, yeah, they'd need to be replaced. Remember, Hillary was a Senator when Obama chose her for Secretary of State.  David Paterson, New York Governor at the time, chose Kirsten Gillibrand to replace her, and she later won a special election for the seat.

There's already talk of who would replace Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions if he gets a cabinet position. Alabama Governor Robert Bentley (currently facing impeachment, it'd be interesting if he chose himself for the Senate seat  ;D) would appoint Sessions's interim successor in the Senate, followed by a special election.





Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 17, 2016, 07:13:07 AM
Yesterday or the day before, incoming mayor of Portland Ted Wheeler, with his eye obviously on statewide office, proclaimed that Portland will remain a sanctuary city.  (To be clear: I love it when politicians obviously have their sights set on something higher; that means they are motivated to do things.)  He joins a chorus of other mayors in big cities (New York, San Francisco, etc.), as well as some state leaders in various states.  Trump hasn't even been sworn in yet, but other levels of government are already mobilizing to oppose unknown potential acts he may take.  The Feds could, in theory, push back via a variety of measures, the most potent of which is funding, but Trump will obviously run into resistance on a variety of issues.  It's gonna be fun.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 17, 2016, 02:10:20 PM
Will Trump drain the swamp only so that it can be gilded? (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-wall-street-bankers-231524)  (Eric Cantor's name pops up in the article.  There's an outsider for you.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 17, 2016, 07:25:36 PM
In like Flynn. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-pick-for-national-security-adviser-brings-experience-and-controversy/2016/11/17/0962eb88-ad08-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 17, 2016, 10:31:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/v/VOTpuF0TMzk&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 18, 2016, 05:35:18 AM
I thought our new Attorney General was ok until learning he smoked marijuana (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/306712-report-trump-taps-sessions-for-ag)

(also yeah, +1 to the irish guy, but at this point it's kind of like a train wreck, you don't wanna look away)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 10:00:57 AM
Overall, looking at Donald Trump´s recent picks of advisors and various media stories, the general European interpretation is that the Trump of the election campaign is quite "for real", that he is to a large degree ignorant about aspects of foreign policy, including the procedures and works of diplomacy. And that his picks seem to counterbalance more compromise-seeking Republican political views, rather than accommodate them - but with Priebus for example serving as a mediator to the established party.

Also, concerning his many talks with foreign politicians, these talks didn´t contain much about actual policy, and he probably hasn´t received detailed intelligence briefings yet. They could maybe influence his decision-making a bit in the future, though he is clearly critical about the intelligence agencies in general, at times even preferring news reports from very dubious sources.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 10:40:47 AM
and he probably hasn´t received detailed intelligence briefings yet.


Trump started getting the same daily briefings as Obama the day after the election.  He has not received lengthier briefings on all subjects yet (eg, Japanese security strategy, per the State Department).  I would guess that his recent discussions with foreign leaders have been pro forma, and indeed, they would have to be since Trump is not President yet and cannot take any actions or change any policies.

His big policy making appointments so far have been relatively standard in terms of credentials - former DIA chief to NSC, House Intelligence Committee member to CIA, Senator to AG - though one can certainly object to the views of the men selected.  Flynn and Pompeo are generally more hawkish than Trump, and Pompeo is an ally of Pence.  It is only their hawkishness that gives me any concern, but they are not out of step with a fair number of foreign policy types, even on threatening to roll back the Iran deal.  Priebus is about as good a choice for working with a Republican Congress that can be made right now.  Only Bannon is potentially irksome, but it is worth noting that Mr Bannon's background includes a stint at Goldman before starting his own boutique investment firm, so I'm not convinced he's really anti-establishment. 

Trump's choices for the big three have not been announced yet, and those will help set the tone for overall foreign policy and diplomacy.  (The Treasury is bigger here than is usually mentioned, and it is difficult to think of any choices Trump may make that will be any more active in using OFAC than either Geithner or Lew - it will probably go the other way.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on November 18, 2016, 10:46:02 AM
With the Flynn, Sessions and Pompeo appointments Trump's transition is far from in chaos and is in fact focused on getting the people who share his vision and possess solid credentials and experience for the positions.

I don't see any surprises, he seems to be naming the establishment conservatives that supported him in his campaign. I see his status as an "outsider" and champion of the blue collar American not evident. It appears to be heading towards more tax cuts mainly benefiting the very wealthy, deregulation of the financial sector, dismantling of consumer and environmental protections, and perhaps a ramping up of military spending. This is the standard right-wing policy that has led to an America dominated by big global business and where the majority see erosion of their financial and social security. The threat of disrupting trade with protective tariffs to keep jobs in the U.S. seems like a red herring. As I understand it, revision of tariffs would require Congressional action and it is hard to imaging the incoming Congress going along with it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 11:04:03 AM
Concerning the intelligence briefings, this must be one of the best newspaper article sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/president-elect-donald-trump-is-about-to-learn-the-nations-deep-secrets/2016/11/12/8bf9bc40-a847-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html?tid=ss_fb

As a side remark on that subject, Trump asking for Top Secret information access for his own children & son-in-law, most likely in order to give them jobs in the administration, is unprecedented.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 11:11:03 AM
The threat of disrupting trade with protective tariffs to keep jobs in the U.S. seems like a red herring. As I understand it, revision of tariffs would require Congressional action and it is hard to imaging the incoming Congress going along with it.



My understanding is that if the federal government determines that a nation is violating trade agreement terms, the US can, in some instances, impose narrow tariffs.  Such actions are generally short-lived, or at least intended to be short-lived.  Such actions may then be able to be heard by the WTO.  Wilbur Ross, the possible incoming Commerce Secretary, parsed Trump's stance on tariffs, saying that Trump never stated he would slap tariffs on all Chinese goods.  I would guess Ross and whoever the USTR ends up being might end up working together on this. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 11:21:02 AM
As a side remark on that subject, Trump asking for Top Secret information access for his own children & son-in-law, most likely in order to give them jobs in the administration, is unprecedented.


Looks like it is dead now.  It may have been a trial balloon.

Of more interest is what role, formal or informal, Jared Kushner, the apparent slayer of Chris Christie's career, may have in the White House.  While it might be technically illegal to have family members in a formal role, both the Clintons and Bushes figured out a way to have family members take on informal roles. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Sef on November 18, 2016, 11:22:48 AM
I don't see any surprises, he seems to be naming the establishment conservatives that supported him in his campaign. I see his status as an "outsider" and champion of the blue collar American not evident. It appears to be heading towards more tax cuts mainly benefiting the very wealthy, deregulation of the financial sector, dismantling of consumer and environmental protections, and perhaps a ramping up of military spending. This is the standard right-wing policy that has led to an America dominated by big global business and where the majority see erosion of their financial and social security. The threat of disrupting trade with protective tariffs to keep jobs in the U.S. seems like a red herring. As I understand it, revision of tariffs would require Congressional action and it is hard to imaging the incoming Congress going along with it.
So much for draining the swamp then.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 11:27:25 AM
The pro forma talks apparently also included Trump calling Alex Jones and thanking him for his support
(According to Jones here, (3:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9S7bWeE5Fs)

Flynn is considered a controversial figure by many, concerning his Russia/RT.com connections, and his views on Islam, and the CIA - some of the aspects can be read here (he seems very good at whataboutism too, btw):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?outputType=accessibility&nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader
and here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/11/flynn-s?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/trump_has_offered_michael_flynn_the_national_security_adviser_job

As for Bannon, now praised also by the KKK and American Nazi Party,
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/305912-kkk-american-nazi-party-praise-trumps-hiring-of-bannon
some quotes here that are rather extreme:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/stephen-bannon-breitbart-words.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 )

I´m not going to overload the forum with links of course, but I think these are useful for knowing some aspects of the transition at least.



 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 11:41:34 AM
Flynn is considered a controversial figure by many...

As for Bannon...


The rap sheets on Flynn and Bannon are pretty well known by people who follow politics in the US, whether for fun or other reasons, and Trump at least figured out that for as long as he needs them, he can use them in roles not requiring Senate approval. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 11:47:20 AM
Bannon has worked closely with Trump during his campaign. One aspect is of course that it is unlikely Trump would like a bitter public fight with him.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 11:52:23 AM
Bannon has worked closely with Trump during his campaign. One aspect is of course that it is unlikely Trump would like a bitter public fight with him - that´s correct.


Bannon helped coordinate a victorious campaign.  Such people always get plum jobs, sometimes in the White House (eg, David Axelrod), sometimes the party (eg, Lee Atwater).  It is not at all surprising that Bannon got such a role.  However, after the administration starts, he may become expendable. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 11:54:32 AM

Bannon helped coordinate a victorious campaign.  Such people always get plum jobs, sometimes in the White House (eg, David Axelrod), sometimes the party (eg, Lee Atwater).  It is not at all surprising that Bannon got such a role.  However, after the administration starts, he may become expendable.

My point was that he has a lot of inside information about the campaign, of course. Whether there are personal contracts/agreements not to disclose anything is another story.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 12:39:02 PM
My point was that he has a lot of inside information about the campaign, of course. Whether there are personal contracts/agreements not to disclose anything is another story.


Why is this significant?  There are always lots of dirty little secrets in these campaigns. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 12:50:07 PM

Why is this significant?  There are always lots of dirty little secrets in these campaigns.

A campaign that was conducted dirtier involves dirtier secrets.

In the case of increased public pressure on Trump due to problems - may it be poor administration, various court cases, health problems, or an impeachment due to pressure from the core of the Republican party (cf. Allan Lichtman´s predictions; Trump is too "colourful" and unpredictable for them), such negative stories could add to the harm.

Also if he tried to run for a second term.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 01:23:10 PM
A campaign that was conducted dirtier involves dirtier secrets.


Maybe, maybe not.  Trump confounded every critic and said and did things that most experts thought would lead to defeat, and he spent less money doing it.  There has been a good amount of digging around the Trump campaign and bad press already, and nothing really hurt him.  I would think potential conflicts of interest going forward will provide more fertile ground for attacking Trump.  That's not to say there's nothing to find in his election campaign, just that it may prove Benghazi levels of fruitless.  As to impeachment, it's always possible that Trump could be impeached, of course, but it is very hard to see a Republican Congress impeaching a Republican President.  The three times presidential impeachment occurred or was about to occur before, the opposition party held Congress.  The Dems would have to take back both houses in 2018 for this to happen, or Trump would have to commit a major, obvious crime while President for Republicans to consider it.  This seems like wishful thinking.

All administrations have scandals, though usually more often in the second term, and even allowing for the possibility of a couple doozies in the first term for Trump, I'm not sold on the idea of Bannon and the 2016 election having a major impact on 2020, except in that Democrats may formulate better attacks on what Trump said this year.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 01:38:35 PM
People looking for behind the scenes intrigue or hoping for scandals to develop appear to be grasping at straws.

My worries are of course influenced by European worries. And worries are in majority over here, due to the political implications in US foreign policy generally, security-, climate- & trade-policies, and the aspect of the political scene being increasingly influenced by post-factual propaganda Russian-style, plus leadership by autocrats. 

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 01:39:09 PM
For the most part since winning the election Trump has gotten more serious about assembling his staff and in general taken a more sober tone.



Of course he has. 

And he hasn't really blabbed about state secrets yet, either.  I remember when that was a hot topic.  Would Trump spill the beans on the security briefings?  Trump has been involved in plenty of lawsuits, so I am sure that he knows all about keeping his trap shut for legal reasons.  Still, when he described generals' attitudes in broad terms, some in the press tried to say he spilled the beans.  And then later, the press gleefully reported that someone with knowledge of the briefings confirmed that Russia was accused of hacking which Trump denied, yet this person who did spill the beans was not called out for doing so.  Gotta get just the right angle on a story, you see.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 01:44:58 PM
My worries are of course influenced by European worries. And worries are in majority over here, due to the political implications in US foreign policy generally, security-, climate- & trade-policies, and the aspect of the political scene being increasingly influenced by post-factual propaganda Russian-style and leadership by autocrats.


Europe is the richest political entity on earth, richer even than the US.  Europe can take a bigger role in solving problems, starting with its own collective security.  Trade has been on ice for a while, and TTIP is probably going to have to wait until after 2020 or 2024.  Climate change action can be taken without treaties.

As to post-factual propaganda, exaggerated coverage, etc, there's plenty of that, and the mainstream press here in the US engaged in plenty of it, too, mostly against Trump.  The post-election atmosphere has cooled a lot, but there are still remnants of it, depending on outlets.  The Graun is still publishing alarmist pieces almost daily, for instance.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 01:48:25 PM
As to post-factual propaganda, etc, there's plenty of that, and the mainstream press here in the US engaged in plenty of it, too, mostly against Trump.  The post-election atmosphere has cooled a lot, but there are still remnants of it, depending on outlets.  The Graun is still publishing alarmist pieces almost daily, for instance.

This is an interesting view - however everyone agrees that Trump as a political contender and protagonist used post-factual means to a much larger extent in the debates and the campaign than Clinton.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 18, 2016, 01:52:12 PM

 The Graun is still publishing alarmist pieces almost daily, for instance.

What is "The Graun"?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 01:57:17 PM
This is an interesting view - however everyone agrees that Trump as a political contender and protagonist used post-factual means to a much larger extent in the debates and the campaign than Clinton.


I'm not denying that Trump just outright lied all the time, and did so more than Clinton, but rather I'm commenting on the tenor of press coverage.  (I added an extra qualifier to my post.)  It was borderline hysterical at times.  And it's not just me who commented on it.  Glenn Greenwald commented on it in July, and he also pointed out that the apparently now sacrosanct status of NATO represented something of a shift for the left.  Willie Geist called out reporters, who are supposed to be hard-news only, for offering their opinions on social media.  Clinton and her surrogates used terms like "catastrophe", "apocalypse" and so on, and not just once or twice, but all the time.  The press regurgitated it.  That people would not consider this type of campaigning and coverage to be biased, exaggerated, and "post-truth" is quite astonishing.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 01:57:38 PM
What is "The Graun"?


The Guardian.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 18, 2016, 02:11:05 PM

Europe is the richest political entity on earth, richer even than the US.  Europe can take a bigger role in solving problems, starting with its own collective security. Trade has been on ice for a while, and TTIP is probably going to have to wait until after 2020 or 2024.  Climate change action can be taken without treaties.

As said in a previous post, I agree that the European military has been reduced too much. But Obama said the same thing. The Ukraine situation in particular has resulted in a gradual change here, though it´s still evolving, but Merkel announced strengthenings back in June at least, before people saw Trump as a winner.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/world/europe/european-union-germany-army.html?_r=0)

TTIP being out is mostly seen as the result of Trump here, I think (without being an expert, of course).

Now, time to go to sleep, but a good night to everyone, when it comes.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 02:32:05 PM
TTIP being out is mostly seen as the result of Trump here, I think (without being an expert, of course).


It was facing challenges even with Clinton, who had to change course on trade to placate populists left and right.  It would not, could not be a top priority for a person who changed her mind, for public consumption at any rate, on TPP   A Trump administration simply causes a longer delay.  I doubt it's dead.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 03:29:45 PM

I'm not denying that Trump just outright lied all the time, and did so more than Clinton, but rather I'm commenting on the tenor of press coverage.  (I added an extra qualifier to my post.)  It was borderline hysterical at times.  And it's not just me who commented on it.  Glenn Greenwald commented on it in July, and he also pointed out that the apparently now sacrosanct status of NATO represented something of a shift for the left.  Willie Geist called out reporters, who are supposed to be hard-news only, for offering their opinions on social media.  Clinton and her surrogates used terms like "catastrophe", "apocalypse" and so on, and not just once or twice, but all the time.  The press regurgitated it.  That people would not consider this type of campaigning and coverage to be biased, exaggerated, and "post-truth" is quite astonishing.

That's stretching the meaning of truth.  The term post-truth has come to be so important in this election cycle specifically because of the outright factual distortions taken up by Trump, members of his campaign, and Trump's supporters, repeated far past the point at which they had been disproven or called into question.

Trump has shown himself to be manifestly unqualified for this office.  You will forgive me for thinking that an unfettered Trump administration could indeed be a catastrophe.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on November 18, 2016, 03:59:26 PM
As to post-factual propaganda, exaggerated coverage, etc, there's plenty of that, and the mainstream press here in the US engaged in plenty of it, too, mostly against Trump.  The post-election atmosphere has cooled a lot, but there are still remnants of it, depending on outlets.  The Graun is still publishing alarmist pieces almost daily, for instance.

It is clear that the Clinton Campaign against Trump and the press coverage was very badly conceived. It was mainly of the form "Trump is a clown, it would be an apocalypse if he won, only an idiot can't see that," which only serves to insult and harden the opinion of anyone inclined to support him. It is a great shame that the Democrats could not find a candidate that could better enunciate a coherent progressive political philosophy.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 04:02:04 PM
That's stretching the meaning of truth.


Yes, but the press did it.  More than normal.  That's at least as important as Trump's lies.

An unfettered Trump administration is not now, and never was, a possibility.  That anyone would think that is a byproduct of what you call "stretching the truth" and what can also be called "post-truth politics".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 04:05:37 PM
Yes, but the press did it.  More than normal.  That's at least as important as Trump's lies.

The press did what, exactly?  Tell people what Trump was saying?  Express horror at how racist, sexist, mean-spirited, and petty his remarks were?  Point out his frequent lies as lies?

If they reacted more strongly than normal, most of the blame likely lies with Trump defying all normal rules of decency in his campaign.

An unfettered Trump administration is not now, and never was, a possibility.  That anyone would think that is a byproduct of what you call "stretching the truth" and what can also be called "post-truth politics".

I didn't call anything "stretching the truth."  I said that you personally were stretching the meaning of the word truth so as to make expressions of opinion into matters of fact.

If Trump surrounds himself with yes-men and those who are ready and willing to carry out his expressed policy positions, then his administration will be able to do quite a bit even without the sanction of the legislative or judicial branches.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 18, 2016, 04:35:45 PM
An unfettered Trump administration is not now, and never was, a possibility. 
To be fair, that is the conventional wisdom: Trump will not be able to fulfill his campaign promises, the Republicans will end up infighting and disunited, Trump will "pivot" to being a more normal president, American government will function as it always has etc.

Conventional wisdom seems to go out of the window where Trump is concerned. Conventional wisdom had it he would lose the election after all, or that he would lose support after doing [insert thing here]....
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 04:44:42 PM
The press did what, exactly?


They ran exaggerated op-eds continuously (some outlets still do), used hyperbolic language constantly (some outlets still do), and some members of the press shed any hints of objectivity by writing their opinions.  If your question is meant seriously, then you are seeing only what you want to see.  Trust in the press itself dropped to 32% in Gallup polls, though obviously polls were shown to be inaccurate this cycle.  Press coverage and trust in the press are related.  The reaction of the press is itself questionable. 

Much of the press is biased.  Some outlets are biased to the right (WSJ, Fox, Economist, National Review, others), more are biased to the left (where to start?).  The outlets tended to skew coverage in favor of their institutional biases.  The more left-leaning the outlet, the more hyperbolic the coverage on Trump.  That's not stretching the truth at all.



If Trump surrounds himself with yes-men and those who are ready and willing to carry out his expressed policy positions, then his administration will be able to do quite a bit even without the sanction of the legislative or judicial branches.


True, but that's not what the word "unfettered" means.  You are engaging in the exact same type of hyperbole some in the press, and democrats running races and campaigns engaged in.  That is, you are engaging in your own post-truth politics.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 04:50:35 PM
Conventional wisdom seems to go out of the window where Trump is concerned.


True, but that's an election.  Now Trump must deal with existing institutions with actual, practical power.  He will have to contend with federal courts that rule against him.  He will have to deal with cities and states that defy his policies.  He will have to deal with a Congress that will go along with some legislation and not other legislation.  He will have to deal with federal bureaucracies that have decades of practice already established and that will not change.  (He will also have to deal with unmodernized agencies and antiquated systems and understaffed agencies due to funding cuts.)  He will have to deal with other countries.  The President's power is overstated, though the Presidency is still very powerful.  This is where principled conservatives (a rare breed, to be sure) have it right: the power of the executive branch is excessive and needs to be reduced, and Congress needs to reassert itself.  I doubt that happens between now and November 2018.  Governing is not the same as campaigning.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 05:25:54 PM

They ran exaggerated op-eds continuously (some outlets still do), used hyperbolic language constantly (some outlets still do), and some members of the press shed any hints of objectivity by writing their opinions.  If your question is meant seriously, then you are seeing only what you want to see.  Trust in the press itself dropped to 32% in Gallup polls, though obviously polls were shown to be inaccurate this cycle.  Press coverage and trust in the press are related.  The reaction of the press is itself questionable. 

Much of the press is biased.  Some outlets are biased to the right (WSJ, Fox, Economist, National Review, others), more are biased to the left (where to start?).  The outlets tended to skew coverage in favor of their institutional biases.  The more left-leaning the outlet, the more hyperbolic the coverage on Trump.  That's not stretching the truth at all.

True, but that's not what the word "unfettered" means.  You are engaging in the exact same type of hyperbole some in the press, and democrats running races and campaigns engaged in.  That is, you are engaging in your own post-truth politics.

Never mind.  You seem not to have any understanding of the term "truth" to begin with.  You are not distinguishing statements of opinion from statements of fact.

The fact that the majority of people think that the press lacks credibility does not in and of itself imply that the press therefore lacks credibility.  People can be and often are wrong.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 06:22:59 PM
Never mind.  You seem not to have any understanding of the term "truth" to begin with.  You are not distinguishing statements of opinion from statements of fact.

The fact that the majority of people think that the press lacks credibility does not in and of itself imply that the press therefore lacks credibility.  People can be and often are wrong.


Ah, yes, I see: what you write is truth, what others write is not; words are not hyperbolic if they conform to your opinion; etc.  If you cannot see that what much of the more left-leaning press engaged was biased and hyperbolic, then your understanding of "truth" is stunted.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 06:38:38 PM

Ah, yes, I see: what you write is truth, what others write is not; words are not hyperbolic if they conform to your opinion; etc.  If you cannot see that what much of the more left-leaning press engaged was biased and hyperbolic, then your understanding of "truth" is stunted.

This is so tangential to what I wrote as to make me wonder whether or not you read it at all.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 18, 2016, 06:42:59 PM
Never mind.  You seem not to have any understanding of the term "truth" to begin with.  You are not distinguishing statements of opinion from statements of fact.

The fact that the majority of people think that the press lacks credibility does not in and of itself imply that the press therefore lacks credibility.  People can be and often are wrong.

If people do not believe something is credible, than by definition it is not credible.

The press may be reporting accurately.  But that does not imply they are credible.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 07:06:06 PM
This is so tangential to what I wrote as to make me wonder whether or not you read it at all.


Incorrect.  I read it.  Assuming you are referring to two of your posts back, you claimed I have no understanding of truth, I don't distinguish between facts and opinion, and polls about the press don't, in your view, mean that the press lacks credibility.  I also understood your prior posts.

Surely, though, you can understand that the inclusion of a poll is not to impugn the entire press (eg, the Gray Lady was generally more serious and diligent in its duties than others), but rather to point out that there are perceived shortcomings in much of the press, and that is borne out by the biased nature of much of the press.  You are clearly fine with press biases that match your opinions.  Your post that implicitly supports members of the press expressing "horror" (more hyperbole) at what Trump said is a dead giveaway to your fundamentally biased outlook.  I would not be surprised if you are not so fine with press outlets that do not share your biases.  Perhaps you like the WSJ, perhaps not.  Were I to wager based on what I've seen you write, I know how I'd wager. 

The press generally is not objective, its authors and presenters have biases, and the US press was, and remains in some outlets, in biased election reporting mode.  The BBC news on PBS tended to do a better job of reporting facts without color than most US outlets I gather(ed) news from, which was around a couple dozen.  I'd like to see more evenhanded press coverage like the BBC was able to produce from US sources.  In the meantime, I rely on more biased sources.  I recognize those biases.  Indeed, that's why I use specific outlets - and I tend to spend more time on/with/at, to American sensibilities, left-leaning outlets.  Hell, I read the World Socialist Web Site from time to time, but not because it is objective. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 07:07:18 PM
If people do not believe something is credible, than by definition it is not credible.

The press may be reporting accurately.  But that does not imply they are credible.

Dictionary.com gives "the quality of being believable or worthy of trust" as a definition, but also "the quality of being believed or trusted," so I'll grant that my usage was ambiguous.  I meant trustworthy, of course.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 18, 2016, 07:11:07 PM

Ah, yes, I see: what you write is truth, what others write is not; words are not hyperbolic if they conform to your opinion; etc.  If you cannot see that what much of the more left-leaning press engaged was biased and hyperbolic, then your understanding of "truth" is stunted.

Perhaps you'd be better dealing in specific examples, rather than sweeping generalizations. Because most of what I saw the "left leaning" press bewailing was stuff he really had done, said, contradicted himself about, hid, lied about or showed ignorance about. No "hyperbole" for much of this was required - it was as jaw-droppingly bad as they said.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 07:15:31 PM
Perhaps you'd be better dealing in specific examples, rather than sweeping generalizations. Because most of what I saw the "left leaning" press bewailing was stuff he really had done, said, contradicted himself about, hid, lied about or showed ignorance about. No "hyperbole" for much of this was required - it was as jaw-droppingly bad as they said.

HYPERBOLE!#  YOU SAID SOMETHING!  You're obviously too biased, and clearly to you nothing is truth that doesn't concur with your opinions.*  Do you actually believe that the press is always honest?^  Well, let me tell you something: in the 19th century, they said that ETHER existed.  ETHER!@

# Exclamation without argumentative weight or content
* Pre-emptive rationalization
^ Leading question with straw man implications
@ Irrelevant example
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 07:20:40 PM
Perhaps you'd be better dealing in specific examples, rather than sweeping generalizations.


I don't have the free time for that.  It was pervasive. 

When I was gone here, I spent time posting on some of those sites.  Bigger crowd, more opinions, more brawling.  Good times.  The more vigorous posters generally didn't pretend they were unbiased, fortunately.


HYPERBOLE!  YOU SAID SOMETHING!  You're obviously too biased, and clearly to you nothing is truth that doesn't concur with your opinions.


"Jaw-droppingly" is indeed a hyperbolic phrase.  However, he's not a member of the press, or at least is not functioning as one here.  I mean, how many people actually had there jaws drop during the campaign?  It's a colorful figure of speech, but surely one should have higher expectations from the press.  Then again, maybe some people don't have higher expectations.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 07:31:01 PM
"Jaw-droppingly" is indeed a hyperbolic phrase.  However, he's not a member of the press, or at least is not functioning as one here.  I mean, how many people actually had there jaws drop during the campaign?  It's a colorful figure of speech, but surely one should have higher expectations from the press.  Then again, maybe some people don't have higher expectations.

Just as you're not distinguishing between matters of fact and matters of opinion, you're failing to distinguish between hyperbole and figures of speech.  I know personally I stood stunned more than once at the brain-dead and offensive pronouncements coming out of Trump's mouth over the course of this campaign.

But SimonNZ's call stands.  Can you come up with an example of a member of the mainstream press writing something biased (however you might define that) outside of an Op-ed (they're marked off as opinion; why should it matter that they express one)?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 07:43:31 PM
I know personally I stood stunned more than once...


Stunned, huh?  OK.  That explains a few things.

(Oh, and from Dictionary.com, apparently one of your trusted sources:

Hyperbole:

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”. )



But SimonNZ's call stands.


Check The Guardian about every 30 minutes for the latest headlines.  Shouldn't take long.  That's one of the funner outlets.  Now, there is every chance that you might not find anything biased because of your own biases. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 18, 2016, 07:45:44 PM

I don't have the free time for that. 

You clearly do have time. And you're the one trying to persuade us to your position, so asking for specifics isn't unreasonable.

fwiw: I'd be accusing the "left-wing media", if I must, of joining in playing the False Equivalence game and for feeding the energy creature.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 07:51:52 PM
And you're the one trying to persuade us to your position


Or not.  This came up on this forum before: Do people actually come here to be persuaded on political matters? 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 18, 2016, 07:57:50 PM

Or not.  This came up on this forum before: Do people actually come here to be persuaded on political matters? 

I'd like to understand various points of view, and to see the logical development of them, even if I disagree.

I don't want to believe that many are just emotional reactions born of fear, misinformation, knee-jerk reactions and insular tribalism...with intellectual rationalizations after the fact.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 08:05:24 PM
I'd like to understand various points of view, and to see the logical development of them, even if I disagree.


Fair enough, but that's not the same as persuasion.  In any event, try the Guardian from time to time to see if they have biased or hyperbolic headlines or sub-headers.  Then try Fox or any other right-wing outlet of your choice and see if you can spot bias or hyperbole there.  It's generally pretty easy to spot.  Headlines are meant to grab attention, and sub-headers to reel in the reader, and it is not uncommon for editors to tailor them to the prevailing readership.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 08:08:44 PM
(Oh, and from Dictionary.com, apparently one of your trusted sources:

Hyperbole:

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”. )

Umm...yes...I understand that.  The problem is that you haven't shown that these statements you're calling hyperbolic are "extravagant."  Trump really is a horrifying candidate to those of us who think that the things he says are offensive when they aren't merely ignorant or idiotic.

It's hyperbole to say that an above-average day is "boiling hot," while it's not hyperbole to say that water that's been heated to 100 degrees Celsius is "boiling hot."  The fact that someone says something is horrific is not itself indicative of hyperbole.  It's certainly hyperbolic to say that it's horrific when McDonald's raises the price of their goods by a cent.  On the other hand, to many people, flagrant lies in the support of racist remarks from someone wanting to become a world leader are in fact horrific.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 08:17:36 PM
Trump really is a horrifying candidate to those of us who think that the things he says are offensive when they aren't merely ignorant or idiotic.


I suppose the operative phrase here is "those of us".  Because you feel he is horrifying doesn't make it so.  I find the term an exaggeration.  An extravagant one. 

To reiterate a prior post, I did not vote for him, nor do I like him.  But the emotional overreaction to him has apparently obliterated some people's ability to discuss or write about him in non-exaggerated fashion.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 08:32:02 PM
I suppose the operative phrase here is "those of us".  Because you feel he is horrifying doesn't make it so.  I find the term an exaggeration.  An extravagant one. 

And likewise, your personal opinion does not make it hyperbole.  You are failing to distinguish once again between expressions of personal opinion and expressions of fact.  As with "truth," you treat "hyperbole" as a term to be defined at your personal whims, depending on how factual or hyperbolic something seems to you.

To reiterate a prior post, I did not vote for him, nor do I like him.  But the emotional overreaction to him has apparently obliterated some people's ability to discuss or write about him in non-exaggerated fashion.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that he has run a campaign based on lies, fueled by racist rhetoric, one which has encouraged blatant anti-Semitism and excused flagrant sexism.  That's all in the public record.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 18, 2016, 08:39:44 PM
You are failing to distinguish once again between expressions of personal opinion and expressions of fact.


On the other hand, to many people, flagrant lies in the support of racist remarks from someone wanting to become a world leader are in fact horrific.


Hmm.

You obviously fail to see the exaggeration, the hyperbole, in what you write.  That's fine, but it simply reveals your bias, and your tendency to believe your opinion is based on some type of objective truth.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on November 18, 2016, 08:46:54 PM


Hmm.

You obviously fail to see the exaggeration, the hyperbole, in what you write.  That's fine, but it simply reveals your bias, and your tendency to believe your opinion is based on some type of objective truth.

You either lack basic reading comprehension ability or are unable because of your desire to read my statements as partisan to accurately suss out their meaning.  I'm done with you here.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 18, 2016, 08:55:40 PM

Fair enough, but that's not the same as persuasion.  In any event, try the Guardian from time to time to see if they have biased or hyperbolic headlines or sub-headers.  Then try Fox or any other right-wing outlet of your choice and see if you can spot bias or hyperbole there.  It's generally pretty easy to spot.  Headlines are meant to grab attention, and sub-headers to reel in the reader, and it is not uncommon for editors to tailor them to the prevailing readership.

Um, yeah, thanks for that useful lesson on how to spot bias. I'm actually already familiar with both, and they're nothing alike. The Guardian is one of the very few sources remaining of professional independent journalism. Whereas Fox News is Rupert Murdoch's sock-puppet / alternate-reality.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 18, 2016, 09:12:42 PM
Check The Guardian about every 30 minutes for the latest headlines.  Shouldn't take long.  That's one of the funner outlets.  Now, there is every chance that you might not find anything biased because of your own biases. 
Vox is also still in full on panic and/or clickbait mode, which is somewhat frustrating for an outlet that published some good pieces (http://www.vox.com/2016/9/19/12933072/far-right-white-riot-trump-brexit) during the campaign.

Regarding Trump being "horrifying": Some of his campaign promises, such as legitimising torture, making police officers less accountable to accusations of abuse or brutality, killing the families of suspected terrorists, establishing a "deportation force" that would act primarily via racial profiling, etc, are horrifying from a perspective of civil liberties and human rights. (i.e. someone who believes that these things should be expanded rather than restricted would experience feelings of fear and revulsion from such policies being implemented.) It's obviously unclear if he is actually going to do most of these things. Others, such as his proposed trade war with China, might be more horrifying from an economic perspective, but again we have no idea if he will do that either. Finally, one can also say the man's conduct towards women is horrifying if one thinks women are human beings (for instance one could read the details of the child rape case filed against him, which the plaintiff ended up dropping due to harassment and threats from Trump supporters), or that his racist views are horrifying, as above.

I think the truth is that in recent years these things have become a little bit too ordinary to be horrifying. They are merely depressing and unsurprising. Obama made drone killings commonplace, has taken minimal steps to keep the police and military in check, deported 2-3 million people (about as many as Trump now says he's going to deport), and in general has done little better than Bush on the human rights front. Too much about the expansion of executive power and the surveillance state became normalised over the past sixteen years. Women have always known that a lot of men are mini-Trumps, that it's best to stay silent about their behaviour to avoid calling attention to yourself, and you simply have to keep your eyes open and not put too much trust in anyone who has a penis. Racism is not horrifying to people of colour—it's simply the reality they live in, and at least now white people are being open about it, so you know who's a racist right off the bat instead of waiting for the other shoe to drop. (Some even prefer Trump's overt racism to what they see as fumbling, patronising attempts to prove they're "down with minorities" from the likes of Clinton.)

Maybe we should be horrified? I don't know. I feel like it's easy to get cynical when you look at US politics combined with the hard right turn of the entire Western world since 1989, and conclude that things are just going to get worse so long as governments are still allowed to do things, and wave your anarchist flag or vote for Gary Johnson (who, if he is elected president of the United States, will immediately resign, in order to make the government smaller and more efficient). I'm not horrified though, just kind of pissed, lol.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 19, 2016, 12:39:46 AM
I don't see any surprises, he seems to be naming the establishment conservatives that supported him in his campaign. I see his status as an "outsider" and champion of the blue collar American not evident. It appears to be heading towards more tax cuts mainly benefiting the very wealthy, deregulation of the financial sector, dismantling of consumer and environmental protections, and perhaps a ramping up of military spending. This is the standard right-wing policy that has led to an America dominated by big global business and where the majority see erosion of their financial and social security. The threat of disrupting trade with protective tariffs to keep jobs in the U.S. seems like a red herring. As I understand it, revision of tariffs would require Congressional action and it is hard to imaging the incoming Congress going along with it.

You forgot one or two other things this administration is heading for: turning back civil rights issues, curtail voting rights (so as to facilitate the GOP in elections) and women's rights. Roe v Wade is going to be in peril. By the end of these four years tens of million people will again be uninsured for health care.

These are not your standard conservative establishment republicans, but rather guys, just like Trump, from a generation ago, who in the Eighties were trying to go back to the Fifties.

And then there's the certainty that nothing will go as planned. One police shooting of a black guy and lord knows what's going to happen when Trump will fan the flames.

All it will take is one terrorist attack that can be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to radical Islam, and all hell will break loose. And you better believe that it's going to happen.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 19, 2016, 12:46:08 AM
Governing is not the same as campaigning.

But this may be a different case. Most likely Trump is going to do what he does best, and that is marketing himself i.e. campaigning. There is already talk of a kind of victory tour with big rallies in fly over country.

Pence will have a lot of work on his hands, and Trump will, like Dubya, be the Decider, i.e. the guy who signs papers.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 19, 2016, 01:04:33 AM
You forgot one or two other things this administration is heading for: turning back civil rights issues, curtail voting rights (so as to facilitate the GOP in elections) and women's rights. Roe v Wade is going to be in peril. By the end of these four years tens of million people will again be uninsured for health care.

These are not your standard conservative establishment republicans
I'm not sure how much attention you've been paying since January 20, 2011. >_> Those are all standard conservative establishment ploys that have been put into action at the state level, which have been very successful due mostly to aggressive gerrymandering and voter suppression, combined with appeals to populism. That is the Republican party these days, minus some traditional Reaganite conservatives whom the alt-right likes to refer to as "cucks" for some reason.

Quote
One police shooting of a black guy and lord knows what's going to happen when Trump will fan the flames.
I mean, the amount that's done by the Obama administration about police shootings of unarmed black people (and latinos and indigenous people) is already next to nothing. Miscarriages of justice simply don't bother the majority of Americans unless the victim is a pretty white girl. (What happened when someone or other called black men super-predators?)

Quote
All it will take is one terrorist attack that can be (rightly or wrongly) attributed to radical Islam, and all hell will break loose.
We had one of those about fifteen years ago (some towers, in New York or something, idk). I think it's safe to say that we're already in the part where hell is breaking loose.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: EigenUser on November 19, 2016, 03:17:15 AM
[...] or vote for Gary Johnson (who, if he is elected president of the United States, will immediately resign, in order to make the government smaller and more efficient). [...]
:laugh:

I love Gary Johnson and this statement made me laugh. That almost sounds like something he would do, considering how obsessive he is about small government (so am I, generally).
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 19, 2016, 10:46:49 AM
Per CNN:  "The ex-Breitbart executive, who serves as Trump's chief strategist for the new administration, told The Hollywood Reporter that 'darkness is good.  Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they (liberals) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing,' he said in an interview published Friday, his first outside of Breitbart since the election."

That ringing endorsement of Lucifer has just got to make the religious right cringe and wonder if perhaps they made the wrong choice.  Or maybe they're just oblivious.  In any case, Todd may be right: this could be fun, though I people don't get hurt - emotions are running high out there.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jo498 on November 19, 2016, 10:53:52 AM
So you hope that when Pence and Bannon meet they might annihilate each other in a flash of pure energy? One can hope...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2016, 11:20:05 AM
Per CNN:  "The ex-Breitbart executive, who serves as Trump's chief strategist for the new administration, told The Hollywood Reporter that 'darkness is good.  Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they (liberals) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing,' he said in an interview published Friday, his first outside of Breitbart since the election."

That ringing endorsement of Lucifer has just got to make the religious right cringe and wonder if perhaps they made the wrong choice.  Or maybe they're just oblivious.  In any case, Todd may be right: this could be fun, though I people don't get hurt - emotions are running high out there.

I presume he was being rhetorical, hoping to get a knee jerk reaction from the media.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 19, 2016, 12:19:03 PM
I'm not horrified though, just kind of pissed, lol.


That's a more sensible reaction, and if Dems involved in organized politics are likewise pissed, they can get more done.  Anger can focus the mind.  Horror leads to blubbering.



But this may be a different case.


Maybe.  I don't know what goes on in Trump's mind, but I would guess he's very interested in a few policies - perhaps primarily those that will directly benefit him - and then there are probably a lot of policies he doesn't care much about.  If he delegates a lot, that won't be uncommon. 

As to a self-serving agenda, WAPO ran a good op-ed yesterday going over some of the issues with Trump's businesses, and the risk he faces if he doesn't watch what he does. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/18/how-president-trump-could-use-the-white-house-to-enrich-himself-and-his-family/?utm_term=.d705fd475cb7)  I have to think he has a phalanx of lawyers reviewing the issues involved, but I also have to think that Dems have people reviewing the same thing, and they will be ready to pounce if anything even hinting at untoward behavior occurs.  Yesterday, WAPO also ran a story about how the Trump International Hotel in DC has apparently become more popular in the last week.



Per CNN:  "The ex-Breitbart executive, who serves as Trump's chief strategist for the new administration, told The Hollywood Reporter that 'darkness is good.  Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when they (liberals) get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing,' he said in an interview published Friday, his first outside of Breitbart since the election."

That ringing endorsement of Lucifer has just got to make the religious right cringe and wonder if perhaps they made the wrong choice.  Or maybe they're just oblivious.  In any case, Todd may be right: this could be fun, though I people don't get hurt - emotions are running high out there.


Not Satan.  Now that dude is scary for reals.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 19, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
So you hope that when Pence and Bannon meet they might annihilate each other in a flash of pure energy? One can hope...

 8) I'm so looking forward to that! 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Tritone on November 19, 2016, 01:22:47 PM
Just as you're not distinguishing between matters of fact and matters of opinion, you're failing to distinguish between hyperbole and figures of speech.  I know personally I stood stunned more than once at the brain-dead and offensive pronouncements coming out of Trump's mouth over the course of this campaign.

But SimonNZ's call stands.  Can you come up with an example of a member of the mainstream press writing something biased (however you might define that) outside of an Op-ed (they're marked off as opinion; why should it matter that they express one)?

Reading through many of these posts, you seem to have set yourself up as arbiter of all that is correct and right.  Now, where have I heard that before?

There is a visceral contempt for anyone not conforming to the ideal citizen of our brand new world i.e. slim, fit, intellectualised, relativist and mild mannered. The working class fail on most counts. They eat the wrong foods, express opinions forcefully, admire symbols like flags or queens instead of abstracts ideas like equality and are generally closer to the idea of a beast than a man (from the elite’s perspective of course). They are an anachronism and for anyone who believes in history as continual progress, this is intolerable. Poor ethnic minorities are equally repugnant to the elites, but they are spared because they are used as tools for moral gratification. In our morally illiterate society, pity has supplanted proper charity and some groups are stripped of their humanity and used merely as means to the ends. They are not loved for who they are but for what role they play in the elite’s PC theoretical construct (much like the proletariat was the plaything of Marx)

This backlash will not stop. Despite the equality rhetoric, some groups see themselves as natural rulers and in possession of higher authority over the rest. Democracy is only adhered to as long as they lead intellectually and politically. Their support for diversity was always phoney. Under the guise of equality they demonise dissent and have turned the media and schools into indoctrination machines. Now they are forced to live in a world not of their own creation and their authoritarian and megalomaniacal instincts are there for all to see. No emperor left his throne without a dirty fight and these people are no different.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 19, 2016, 01:34:27 PM
...which brings us back to the topic of "hyperbole".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 20, 2016, 01:18:47 AM
...which brings us back to the topic of "hyperbole".

Hyperbole it is, indeed: Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and King of Spain, abdicated voluntarily.  ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 20, 2016, 08:13:28 AM
these pampered liberals cannot help but go bat shit crazy.


Yeah, the actor who gave that brief speech was clearly bat shit crazy, foaming at mouth and jumping up and down.

In your mind.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 20, 2016, 08:21:13 AM
For urban elites (especially those who can afford the astronomical ticket prices to a show like Hamilton) to lose to working class Americans who live in "fly-over country" is so galling, these pampered liberals cannot help but go bat shit crazy.


No doubt you have checked each and every patron in the house that night and asked for their zip code and political affiliation, but may I add that these hateful comments about people who are irresponsible enough to go to an arts event  -  liberal city dwellers spending money on a concert rather than on their nth gun  -  are just a little odd on a forum dedicated to classical music?

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on November 20, 2016, 08:25:55 AM
these pampered liberals cannot help but go bat shit crazy.
Most of the craziness seemed to go the other way, with talks of marching to Washington etc.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 20, 2016, 12:58:16 PM
Even the Trump supporter / winners are bat-shit crazed, "protesting" the oh so whiny liberal Starbucks corporation BY PURCHASING THEIR BEVERAGES and having the name put on the cup that the baristas call out "Trump."  (Of course, people with other affiliations could insist the name put on the cup to be called out by the baristas is, say, "A. Hole Trump.")

Fundamentally, a protest that has the protesters funneling their money into the business they are protesting by purchasing their products vs. boycotting said business is at least one definition of "Bat-shit crazy."

It is a nation not only of sore losers, from the politicians to the lowliest of citizens, but it seems, sore winners as well.  Of course, once again we have the 'winner' and 'winners' in what is the definition of a minority, with Clinton getting 1.5 million or so more votes than Trump :-)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 20, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
About the infantile call to boycott the Broadway show, "Hamilton."

This is too delicious to not share....

https://www.instagram.com/p/BNAYT_Qj_Gf/
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 20, 2016, 01:43:48 PM
The urban elites (especially those who can afford the astronomical ticket prices to a show like Hamilton) to lose to working class Americans who live in "fly-over country" is so galling, these pampered liberals cannot help but go bat shit crazy.

It is actually fun to watch.

The majority of "Urban Elites" in a Broadway theater are the professionals on the stage.  It is a simple fact that most of the 'bums filling the seats' of Broadway shows with 'astronomical prices' are tourists from "fly-over country," i.e. corn-belt / bible-belt 'folk.' Your construct is made up of that which you do not know enough to speak.

[ADD:] As a retired professional performer, I am continually affronted by any performer who, in their workplace, having performed for their audience who has paid them to perform, then decides they have a license to lecture that paying audience -- on or about any subject.  I find that about as unprofessional as it can get!  Part of this phenomenon, long in place now, is a public and press disproportionately interested in the opinions of 'glamorous' actors and musicians and other performers.  You have to blame, first, a public for being so utterly gobsmacked with performers, and second, a press that plays to that public interest. :-) [EndAdd]

It is also not a matter of one partisan demographic being sore losers (all you have to do is look to the behavior of republican politicians and republican supporters when Bill Clinton won the presidency, especially his second term -- that at least is when I began to notice the "Severe Sore Loser Syndrome" in action among the politicians as well as the general public.) 

Whining and sore losers is the inclination of a good deal of the citizenry of the nation, as pointed out and named in a plethora of books and articles, the phrase / title coined for the syndrome,
"A Nation Of Whiners."


Best regards.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 20, 2016, 05:40:51 PM
No doubt you have checked each and every patron in the house that night and asked for their zip code and political affiliation, but may I add that these hateful comments about people who are irresponsible enough to go to an arts event  -  liberal city dwellers spending money on a concert rather than on their nth gun  -  are just a little odd on a forum dedicated to classical music?

In fact, Pence was greeted by the audience when he arrived with some cheers and sone very loud boos.  Trump would have been better off criticizing the audience, not the cast. And the cast statement amounted to a polite request that Trump/Pence prove the cast's negative expectations wrong, and included a sideswipe at the people booing. And next day the cast spokesman complimented Pence for listening.

Was the cast statement appropriate? Perhaps not.  But compared to all the verbal flamethrowing of the last few months, the statement was like Grandma tut-tutting the children for running around in the living room.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 20, 2016, 06:14:48 PM
References to Clinton's popular vote "victory" are tedious; neither candidate got a majority. To assume she would have won if only the election were decided by the popular vote is specious. 

Take that up with the AP
"Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead over Donald Trump now exceeds 1.5 million votes, The Associated Press reported Saturday: 63,390,669 vs. 61,820,845."

Not, as we know, that the popular vote always wins the presidency....
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 20, 2016, 06:20:27 PM
Take that up with the AP
"Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead over Donald Trump now exceeds 1.5 million votes, The Associated Press reported Saturday: 63,390,669 vs. 61,820,845."

Not, as we know, that the popular vote always wins the presidency....

Per CNN, Clinton has received 48% and Trump 47% of the popular vote. 5% of voters, me among them, voted for other candidates.

This means that 52% of the votes cast were not for Clinton, and 53% of the votes cast were not for Trump.  So neither got 50% or better of the votes cast, and therefore neither received a majority.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 20, 2016, 11:16:53 PM
I didn't know that "protection" was the function of government. Surely Alexander Hamilton would be rolling with consternation in his grave:

“We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights,’ Dixon said as Pence exited the building."

Surprisingly enough, Piers Morgan delivered a whopping counter punch:

Cheer up, American millennials!
I mean, seriously, CHEER THE **** UP!
Oh, I know you’ve had a rough week ever since Donald Trump won the election.
But it’s time to get a grip.
STOP crying. STOP taking personal days off work to ‘process’ what happened.
Millenials need to get a grip.
Stop whinging and crying and complaining how unfair life is because Hillary Clinton lost the electoral vote to Donald Trump
STOP huddling with your equally distraught buddies in Starbucks over your Venti Iced White Chocolate Mocha.
STOP howling away on social media about how unfair life is and how it’s the end of the planet as we know it.
STOP updating the exact number Hillary won the popular vote by, because it doesn’t bloody matter.
STOP marching around screaming your fury at the result when many of you couldn’t even bothered to vote.
STOP retweeting all your favourite celebrities’ own outbursts of pique, rage and anguish.
STOP demanding the Electoral College reverse the decision in December.
In short, STOP being such a faux-tormented bunch of absolutely deluded cretins.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3942278/PIERS-MORGAN-Memo-millennials-awful-feeling-ve-got-called-losing-happens-want-know-win-stop-whinging-bit-learn-lessons-Trump.html#ixzz4QcoZWhkO
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 20, 2016, 11:58:09 PM
Was that meant to read like bad poetry? Wouldn't you prefer journalism to sound like, well, journalism?

A former game show host and Rupert Murdoch pet (and unrepentant phone-hacker) is who you turn to for nuanced political insight? A "whopping counter punch", indeed.

More seriously, though: how's the weather in Macedonia?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 21, 2016, 12:16:12 AM
More seriously, though: how's the weather in Macedonia?

Skopje, Macedonia  November 21, 2016
High 13°  Low 1°   Precipitation  0%   Sunrise 6:31 am    Sunset 4:08 pm   
Areas of fog early, becoming sunny this afternoon. Winds light and variable.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on November 21, 2016, 04:00:52 PM
Can you imagine the conservative uproar if Hillary made a 25 million fraud settlement? Called world leaders over unsecured lines? Or won, while losing the popular vote by 1,5 million?

Yeah, those whiny liberals. Anyway, here's just another brick in the wall:

'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President Elect (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 21, 2016, 10:29:49 PM
"The Cash-In Begins" - oligarchical personal business promotion via presidency?

Uses own Washington DC Hotel for president´s meetings;
announces own Philippines trade advisor as national advisor on the Philippines;
in post-election meetings, possibly works for expanding own business in India.
And in post-election call possibly asks Argentina president to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires (both denied it).

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-cash-in-begins)
(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina)


The buddy Farage
- Trump assisting UK policy and staff considerations:


latest Trump tweet:
"Many people would like to see @Nigel_Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!"

(https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800887087780294656)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 22, 2016, 12:20:59 AM
I didn't know that "protection" was the function of government.

Yeah, it is, and has been so since the formation of western city states in the Middle Ages.

It's one of the core tasks and reasons why citizens pay their dues.

Also, you hero and saviour, Trump had pretty much one consistent message and that was: without borders there is no country. So it looks like he feels the same way.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 22, 2016, 01:11:38 AM
"A Handy List of Donald Trump’s Biggest Conflicts of Interest":

http://time.com/4578431/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-list/
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 22, 2016, 01:32:21 AM
I have nothing against Bernie Sanders personally—he's a bit too moderate for my tastes, and his platform is pretty single-issue, and I have no idea how he'd actually manage to do any of the things he promises to do, but the only things that really let him down in the campaign were that he was a doofy old guy without much appeal to anyone except white boys, and he was up against the Clinton fundraising machine. And his supporters. They are... kind of ridiculous (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-campaign-staffer-sanders-can-be-the-lincoln_us_583205b0e4b08c963e344124?section=us_politics). I'm honestly tempted to vote against whoever this guy endorses in 2020 just out of spite. >_____>
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 22, 2016, 05:23:50 AM
I didn't know that "protection" was the function of government.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So inconvenient.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: zamyrabyrd on November 22, 2016, 09:35:08 AM
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So inconvenient.

What's inconvenient? In fact, where is the word "protection" in the sense of a nanny state which the members of the cast of Hamilton were obviously referring to? "Common defense" is just that, made up of adults who "promote the general welfare" by consensus. This is different from expecting an elected leader to "protect" minorities or certain special interest groups up to the planet itself.
Gosh, what else? It shows not only immaturity but a lack of understanding of the function of government. As a representative that person carries out the will of the majority, as an executive is subject to checks and balances. He is not a Big Brother or Big Sister who will wipe away their tears and solve all their problems.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 22, 2016, 11:25:37 AM
Ladies and gentlemen, the man who will make all our dreams come true:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 22, 2016, 11:29:19 AM
A good deal of details in Trump NYT interview just being published. But not that provocative statements, also for instance on climate.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/trump-at-the-new-york-times-the-tweets/?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on November 22, 2016, 11:55:39 AM
In fact, where is the word "protection" in the sense of a nanny state which the members of the cast of Hamilton were obviously referring to?

Obviously ::)

“Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you, and we truly thank you for joining us here at ‘Hamilton: An American Musical.’ We really do. We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us. Again, we truly thank you truly for seeing this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men and women of different colors, creeds and orientations.”
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on November 22, 2016, 12:07:48 PM
Obviously ::)

“Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you, and we truly thank you for joining us here at ‘Hamilton: An American Musical.’ We really do. We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us. Again, we truly thank you truly for seeing this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men and women of different colors, creeds and orientations.”

My sister-in-law was offended by these remarks.

I have lost my patience with the "Trumpsters".  They are all sick puppies   >:(
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 22, 2016, 12:09:48 PM
Can you imagine the conservative uproar if Hillary made a 25 million fraud settlement? Called world leaders over unsecured lines? Or won, while losing the popular vote by 1,5 million?


Sure can.  That doesn't in any way mean that the response from the American left isn't humorous.

Anyway, it ain't even 1/20 yet, and here's the first documented, on official government documents, evidence of some questionable activity. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-foundation-apparently-admits-to-violating-ban-on-self-dealing-new-filing-to-irs-shows/2016/11/22/893f6508-b0a9-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_foundation-945a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)  Let's see if it's impeachable.  I'm thinking not, but surely McConnell or Ryan will see fit to push the appropriate committees to hold hearings.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 23, 2016, 02:33:18 AM
Trump´s advisor on immigration Kobach greeting him today, unfortunately at the same time unwittingly showing photographers among the press some of the papers with the planning:









Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 07:45:49 AM
Trump goes for Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-nominates-nikki-haley-to-be-un-ambassador/2016/11/23/401f4a7a-b183-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_transitionweb-135am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)  Two protected class boxes checked with one pick.  Trump does appear to have a very good brain.  Had he selected someone with foreign policy experience, it would have been better yet.  (Condi Rice, maybe, if she would have worked with Trump.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 07:54:19 AM
Trump goes for Nikki Haley for UN Ambassador. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-nominates-nikki-haley-to-be-un-ambassador/2016/11/23/401f4a7a-b183-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_transitionweb-135am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)  Two protected class boxes checked with one pick.  Trump does appear to have a very good brain.  Had he selected someone with foreign policy experience, it would have been better yet.  (Condi Rice, maybe, if she would have worked with Trump.)
Given Trump's reputation for not paying for pianos, would he ever trust someone who plays the instrument as C. Rice does?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 23, 2016, 08:05:23 AM
Given Trump's reputation for not paying for pianos, would he ever trust someone who plays the instrument as C. Rice does?

BTW, she loves Brahms (as she should...)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 23, 2016, 08:12:31 AM
Crooked Donald!  Lock him up!  http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/11/23/trump-foundation-violations-washington-post-newday-sot.cnn
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 08:13:12 AM
BTW, she loves Brahms (as she should...)
But does Trump? Indeed, has he even heard of him?

It would not surprise me were he to ban all performances and broadcasts of Sorabji in US on the grounds of the composer having been a Muslim and thus a terrorist threat to national security (which of course he wasn't, but I somehow imagine that this wouldn't stop him!)...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on November 23, 2016, 08:23:47 AM
From the Washington Post:

Hey Democrats, want help to rally the country around Donald Trump? Here’s a great idea: Have a crowd of wealthy, out-of-touch Manhattan liberals (who can afford $849 tickets to “Hamilton”) boo Vice President-elect Mike Pence while the cast of the Broadway show lectures him on diversity.

The Democratic Party’s alienation from the rest of America was on full display at the Richard Rodgers Theatre on Friday night. And the left seems completely oblivious to how ridiculous it looks to the rest of the United States.



Yet another person who doesn't seem to know, or pretends so, that Broadway shows are usually visited by out of towners, who aren't necessarily wealthy, out of touch or librul.

Like Mike Pence and his family.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 08:27:49 AM
Conscientious defenders of democracy, or sore losers? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 08:34:28 AM
It would not surprise me were he to ban all performances and broadcasts of Sorabji



There are legitimate reasons to ban performances of Sorabji's music unrelated to personal attributes of the composer.  Sorabji's 27 devoted fans in the US would be hurt and angered, to be sure.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on November 23, 2016, 08:40:59 AM
Quote
SINCE Donald Trump’s surprising victory in America’s presidential election on November 8th, polling enthusiasts have been poring over the data to try to understand precisely how he won. The single factor that best predicted the amount of votes that Republican’s gained compared to 2012 is the share of voting-age citizens who are both white and do not have a college degree. This variable alone can explain 41% of the county-level swing to Mr Trump. For many that statistic might provide closure on what was a bitter and forgettable election. But Patrick Ruffini, a pollster, called on "data nerds" to find another variable that matches the explanatory power of this pale pedagogic predictor.

Fighting fit for such a challenge, The Economist has crunched the numbers and discovered a coherent set of variables that beat it: an index of health metrics. Together these variables can explain 43% of the Republican party’s gains over the Democrats. Even when controlling for a battery of other indicators—race, education, age, gender, income, marital status, immigration and employment—these health metrics remain significant and predictive.

The data suggest that the ill may have been particularly susceptible to Mr Trump’s message. According to our model, if diabetes were just 7% less prevalent in Michigan, Mr Trump would have gained 0.3 fewer percentage points there, enough to swing the state back to the Democrats. Similarly, if an additional 8% of people in Pennsylvania had engaged in regular physical activity, and the rate of heavy drinking in Wisconsin were 5% lower, Hillary Clinton would have won the electoral college vote and be set to enter the White House. But such counter-factual predictions are always impossible to test. Unfortunately, there is no way to re-run the election with healthier voters and compare the results. But the evidence suggests that Mr Trump performed well in communities that are literally dying.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-13
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 23, 2016, 08:42:37 AM
Lower heavy-drinking in Wisconsin?  Dream on!

8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 23, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
Sorabji´s time will come.
Trump´s will run out.   
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 08:48:27 AM
only bodes well for more electoral successes for the Right.


Beware triumphalism.  A fair number of Dems are already starting to talk about real politics vs identity politics. 

To the extent the Hollywood Reporter interview with Steve Bannon accurately reflects his thinking, there's already a sense of triumphalism in his thinking.  Rejigger infrastructure spending and gain a fifty year lock on national politics.  Bosh, I say.


Sorabji´s time will come.
Trump´s will run out.


50% of these statements are correct.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 08:48:57 AM
There are legitimate reasons to ban performances of Sorabji's music unrelated to personal attributes of the composer.
Could you therefore do members here the courtesy of enlightening them as to what you believe these to be?

And, while you're at it, what might you propose to do or advocate doing about the forthcoming performance of his 8-hour-+ Second Organ Symphony on 10 February next to launch the new Klais organ in Iowa University? Send in the Trumps?

Sorabji's 27 devoted fans in the US would be hurt and angered, to be sure.
Do you have hard evidence of this number from bona fide research? Do you know these people? Whether or not you do in either case, how might you account nevertheless for some 200 performances and broadcasts of his work in US?

I had in any case been joking, of course, since I do not imagine that even Trump in his most hair-brained moments would seek - or indeed even be able - to impose legally binding vetoes on musical performances in his country.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Marc on November 23, 2016, 08:49:05 AM
From the Wall Street Journal

[...]
The reality is that Mr. Trump didn’t prevail on Election Day because of fake news stories or voter suppression or ascendant bigotry in America. He won because a lot of people who voted for Barack Obama in previous elections cast ballots for Mr. Trump this time. [...]

Which might prove Trump's point: the election was rigged.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 08:50:17 AM
Sorabji´s time will come.
Trump´s will run out.
The former's already has. The latter's might already be running out.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 08:52:53 AM
Every president's time runs out ('Bye, Obama).  However not all composers have their day in the sun.
No, indeed they don't, but far more composers can disappear from sunlight and return than is the case with US Presidents; one has only to remember not only that many composers have come into fashion, gone out of it and then returned to it but also that far more composers are coming to the fore today than ever before, partly as a consequence of technological developments that aid the dissemination of their work.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on November 23, 2016, 08:54:10 AM
(slightly redacted for improved impartiality)


0:)

Every president's time runs out.  However not all composers have their day in the sun.

Etch that baby in stone.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 08:58:04 AM
Could you therefore do members here the courtesy of enlightening them as to what you believe these to be?

And, while you're at it, what might you propose to do or advocate doing about the forthcoming performance of his 8-hour-+ Second Organ Symphony on 10 February next to launch the new Klais organ in Iowa University? Send in the Trumps?
Do you have hard evidence of this number from bona fide research? Do you know these people? Whether or not you do in either case, how might you account nevertheless for some 200 performances and broadcasts of his work in US?

I had in any case been joking, of course, since I do not imagine that even Trump in his most hair-brained moments would seek - or indeed even be able - to impose legally binding vetoes on musical performances in his country.



(http://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 09:01:37 AM
That's one guy.  We'll see.


It's more than one guy.  It will be hard for some to shake the approach, and in some places Dems won't have to, but any political party that has been around for a couple hundred years - which is basically a population of one - has survived and prospered by adapting.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 09:03:24 AM
50% of these statements are correct.
That's correct; the former's time has already come and the latter's already has the clock ticking towards its end. For evidence of the former, you have only to consider that, by 1980, public performances of Sorabji's music were scarce, there were no commercially available recordings of his work, almost all of his scores were unobtainable and no substantial literature about him was accessible whereas, since then, two books on him have been published (the more recent of which is available online for free download), 40 CDs of or including of his work have been released, all of his known scores and literary writings have become available both on paper and as .pdf files including more than 60 editions of his scores (many of which are typeset) and many hundreds of performances and broadcasts of his music have been given in almost 30 countries, not least US. If all of that interests a mere 0.00000008466% of the US population, as implied by your reference to 27 admirers in that country, there is clearly something gravely suspect about your unreferenced statistic.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 23, 2016, 09:04:12 AM
Concerning Sorabji, his time - and a general appreciation of the "100 Transcendental Etudes", so little known, for example - will probably come when 1) the general classical music taste has absorbed early-mid-20th century developments better, 2) people´s mental abilities possibly increase due to technological development, and 3) better living standards leave more space for spiritual and advanced music.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 09:07:59 AM
Concerning Sorabji, his time - and a general appreciation of the "100 Transcendental Etudes", so little known, for example - will probably come when 1) the general classical music taste has absorbed early-mid-20th century developments better, 2) people´s mental abilities possibly increase due to technological development, and 3) better living standards leave more space for spiritual and advanced music.
Fair points, but see #419 for evidence of progress to date. Those 100 Transcendental Studies are one example of a work that has been fully edited/typeset and of which a recording is in progress; the first five of seven CDs covering the entire cycle have already been released to widespread critical acclaim and the remaining two are due out within the next year or so - the pianist is Fredrik Ullén and the record label BIS - both Swedish.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 09:43:06 AM
David Stockman: Mr Sunshine. (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/22/david-stockman-doubles-down-on-his-sell-everything-call.html)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 23, 2016, 09:47:26 AM
But does Trump? Indeed, has he even heard of him?


OMG, I never even thought of such a thing...what if he has a HUGE Brahms collection?  the HUGEST and is a big fan.  Probably he's built a monster wall around them to prevent Sorabji CDs from sneaking in.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 23, 2016, 10:01:04 AM
OMG, I never even thought of such a thing...what if he has a HUGE Brahms collection?  the HUGEST and is a big fan.  Probably he's built a monster wall around them to prevent Sorabji CDs from sneaking in.
Well, if he has indeed done that, at least he's not sought to charge The Sorabji Archive (see www.sorabji-archive.co.uk ) for erecting that "monster wall" as he threatened the Mexicans that he would do with his proposed wall between US and Mexico!

In what I imagine to be the highly unlikely event that he is indeed a Brahms fan, I have little doubt that his favourite among the composer's works would be Schicksalslied; after all, Brahms never wrote Ein Mexicalishes Requiem...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 23, 2016, 12:44:15 PM

Beware triumphalism.  A fair number of Dems are already starting to talk about real politics vs identity politics. 

Not that they seem to have any idea what that means quite yet (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13715164/bernie-sanders-identity-politics-democrats-progressives), of course. I guess a certain amount of adjustment will be needed before Democrats figure out how to live in the actual real world.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 23, 2016, 12:55:58 PM
Well, if he has indeed done that, at least he's not sought to charge The Sorabji Archive (see www.sorabji-archive.co.uk ) for erecting that "monster wall" as he threatened the Mexicans that he would do with his proposed wall between US and Mexico!

In what I imagine to be the highly unlikely event that he is indeed a Brahms fan, I have little doubt that his favourite among the composer's works would be Schicksalslied; after all, Brahms never wrote Ein Mexicalishes Requiem...

I wonder what music he likes?  Something with Trumpets, probably, or Trumpettes?  His taste in movies turns out to be predictable, for the most part, but music?: Stones, Queen, Neil Young, et al.  http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-favorite-pop-culture-movies-tv-books-music-2016-8?op=0#
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 02:22:25 PM
NATO head heeds clarion call of incoming Caesar, implores European deadbeats to spend more. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/23/nato-chief-urges-higher-european-defence-spending-after-trump-comments) 


(On what, I wonder?  Perhaps gear from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Honeywell, et al.  Nah, too cynical.  At least US defense spending will drop as a result . . .)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 23, 2016, 03:26:46 PM
Conscientious defenders of democracy, or sore losers? (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin)

NATO head heeds clarion call of incoming Caesar, implores European deadbeats to spend more. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/23/nato-chief-urges-higher-european-defence-spending-after-trump-comments) 


(On what, I wonder?  Perhaps gear from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Honeywell, et al.  Nah, too cynical.  At least US defense spending will drop as a result . . .)

I thought you hated the Guardian?

If you're now going to link to them could you use their actual headlines or an actual quote instead of your own misrepresenting snarky spin? I mean...you were the one complaining about shock headlines and hyperbole, weren't you? So here are the actual headlines for those two:

"Hillary Clinton urged to call for election vote recount in battleground states"

"Nato chief tells EU: spend more to secure Trump's support"



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 07:31:06 PM
I thought you hated the Guardian?


That's because you read what you wanted to read.  I read The Graun every day, along with other news sources.  What I wrote was that The Guardian is biased.  I recognize the bias, just as I recognize the bias of every news source I use.



If you're now going to link to them could you use their actual headlines or an actual quote instead of your own misrepresenting snarky spin?


No.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 23, 2016, 07:41:53 PM
Despite most people agreeing that the idea of the election being hacked somehow is a conspiracy theory, one presidential candidate known for floating conspiracy theories—ok, the presidential candidate known for floating conspiracy theories who's not Donald Trump (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/jill-stein-recount-three-states-election-hacks-231814)—now seems to be calling for a recount in three decisive states. I doubt she'll raise the money to do so before the deadlines, but I guess, may as well do something with all that increased attention on third party candidates this year.

Also I gotta say I kind of prefer Tim Ryan to Nancy "the party of capitalism" Pelosi from everything I've read about them, but honestly, his chances of unseating her are approximately 0.5%. I suspect he is (or his backers are) just hoping to lay the groundwork for someone else to run against her in 2018, maybe Keith Ellison if his DNC chairship goes well, or someone like that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
Despite most people agreeing that the idea of the election being hacked somehow is a conspiracy theory, one presidential candidate known for floating conspiracy theories—ok, the presidential candidate known for floating conspiracy theories who's not Donald Trump (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/jill-stein-recount-three-states-election-hacks-231814)—now seems to be calling for a recount in three decisive states. I doubt she'll raise the money to do so before the deadlines, but I guess, may as well do something with all that increased attention on third party candidates this year.


There are 44 days until the electoral college votes are tallied, unless Congress changes the date.  That may not be sufficient time to prove a conspiracy.  Jill and crew had better get cracking.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 23, 2016, 07:56:52 PM
Since this is the year conventional wisdom goes out of the window, maybe the Greens are banking on the conventional "the election wasn't hacked" wisdom also being wrong. Whoooo knows.

I'm definitely looking forward to the 2016 election being drawn out even longer by recounts because god knows we loved it so much we never wanted it to end.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 23, 2016, 08:01:20 PM
I'm definitely looking forward to the 2016 election being drawn out even longer by recounts because god knows we loved it so much we never wanted it to end.


North Carolina is the state to watch for recount fun.

Me, I want to see the confirmation hearings for Trump's appointments get under way.  I really want to see his SCOTUS pick.  Wouldn't it be a hoot if he picked his older sister?  (He won't, of course, but the howls of outrage from both parties would be freakin' sweet.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 23, 2016, 08:31:29 PM

North Carolina is the state to watch for recount fun.

Me, I want to see the confirmation hearings for Trump's appointments get under way.  I really want to see his SCOTUS pick.  Wouldn't it be a hoot if he picked his older sister?  (He won't, of course, but the howls of outrage from both parties would be freakin' sweet.)

Right. Now I'm sorry I was treating your posts as serious and sincere.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Marc on November 23, 2016, 10:13:14 PM
The fact that Obama's blue states turned red this time must mean the election was hacked.

;D

Yeah.
But The Donald won't complain this time.

:P
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on November 23, 2016, 10:40:57 PM
Trump has taken very few intelligence briefings, Pence has had them almost daily
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

Donald Trump Jr. already working as a diplomat in Paris, regarding Syria
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-jr-held-talks-on-syria-with-russia-supporters-1479920753?mod=e2tw

Flynn´s lobbying firm in dubious deal?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaragahi/new-details-show-flynn-contract-may-have-broken-foreign-agen








Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Monsieur Croche on November 23, 2016, 11:44:58 PM


There are legitimate reasons to ban performances of Sorabji's music unrelated to personal attributes of the composer.  Sorabji's 27 devoted fans in the US would be hurt and angered, to be sure.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on November 24, 2016, 03:55:51 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
See #411, #413, #414 & #419.

Been at the nitrous oxide, have we?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 24, 2016, 07:53:09 AM
Right. Now I'm sorry I was treating your posts as serious and sincere.


You do know his sister is a federal appeals court judge, yes?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Spineur on November 25, 2016, 03:27:04 AM
Wilbur Ross, Trump new secretary of commerce is an 80 year old billionnaire who made his fortune buying bankrupt companies, firing most of their employees and selling them back to somebody else.  Kind of an old vultur, of modern times.

On the more positive side, he has a phenomenal art collection (some 25 Magritte,..)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jo498 on November 25, 2016, 05:32:08 AM
Wilbur Ross, Trump new secretary of commerce is an 80 year old billionnaire who made his fortune buying bankrupt companies, firing most of their employees and selling them back to somebody else.  Kind of an old vultur, of modern times.
Wasn't this basically the business model of Romney's company as well? You just have to understand that this is just in a meritocracy. Its SMART to come up with business models like that and get away with it, so they really deserve what they reap.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 25, 2016, 08:39:06 AM
Wasn't this basically the business model of Romney's company as well? You just have to understand that this is just in a meritocracy. Its SMART to come up with business models like that and get away with it, so they really deserve what they reap.



Ross is a preeminent vulture investor, though he dislikes the word.  I know it is intellectually fashionable to decry such an approach, but when a company files bankruptcy, if no one (or group of people) steps in to reorganize and either sell the company, or significantly downsize operations, the assets are usually just liquidated and few, if any, jobs are salvaged.  In the case of Mr Ross, some of his investments have been in US companies in industries that have basically fled the US to much lower cost areas (eg, steel).  Ross does what good investors do: he buys low and sells high. 

I often wonder what people who offer complaints about such people and approaches would do to salvage a distressed company.  Would the preferred solution be to impose tariffs to protect such a firm?  Heavy state subsidies?  A ban on capital investment that leads to greater automation and reduced labor requirements, which is a larger driver of deindustrialization than "free" trade?  Should government policy be focused on export led economic activity?  (This can only work for half of all trade related activity at any one time, remember.)  What are the workable business alternatives, and just what government policies should be implemented in tandem with those solutions?

Whatever the case, at least Commerce will probably not have much of a culture adjustment, going from one billionaire running it today to another in January.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 25, 2016, 05:40:23 PM


Ross is a preeminent vulture investor, though he dislikes the word.  I know it is intellectually fashionable to decry such an approach, but when a company files bankruptcy, if no one (or group of people) steps in to reorganize and either sell the company, or significantly downsize operations, the assets are usually just liquidated and few, if any, jobs are salvaged.  In the case of Mr Ross, some of his investments have been in US companies in industries that have basically fled the US to much lower cost areas (eg, steel).  Ross does what good investors do: he buys low and sells high. 

I often wonder what people who offer complaints about such people and approaches would do to salvage a distressed company.  Would the preferred solution be to impose tariffs to protect such a firm?  Heavy state subsidies?  A ban on capital investment that leads to greater automation and reduced labor requirements, which is a larger driver of deindustrialization than "free" trade?  Should government policy be focused on export led economic activity?  (This can only work for half of all trade related activity at any one time, remember.)  What are the workable business alternatives, and just what government policies should be implemented in tandem with those solutions?

Whatever the case, at least Commerce will probably not have much of a culture adjustment, going from one billionaire running it today to another in January.

Now I'm curious to know who currently holds the job.
Which is a measure of how high profile and influential the job actually is.  The last SoC I recall is Ron Brown, and I remember him only because the Clintons killed him in a plane crash   :P
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on November 25, 2016, 06:14:25 PM
Now I'm curious to know who currently holds the job.
Which is a measure of how high profile and influential the job actually is.  The last SoC I recall is Ron Brown, and I remember him only because the Clintons killed him in a plane crash   :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Pritzker
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 26, 2016, 10:09:45 AM
Clinton campaign joins recount effort in Wisconsin! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/26/clinton-campaign-will-participate-in-wisconsin-recount-with-an-eye-on-outside-interference-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.81ffb0f9d001#comments)

Even if the Badger State flips, Clinton wouldn't have 270 electoral votes.  If the three supposedly contested states all undertake recounts, and in particular the manual ones that are apparently being requested, that would mean that the deadline of December 13th for final decision as to the validity of electors might not be met in all three states.  (This seems a remote possibility.)  Is the end game here to force a vote for President in the House, or merely to bolster a case for a Constitutional Amendment to abolish or change the Electoral College?  Since the latter cannot make it out of the next Congress, that leaves the only practicable path forward changing state election laws pertaining to the Electoral College (eg, The National Popular Vote initiative).
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 29, 2016, 11:24:38 AM
Mrs McConnell gets Transportation. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-chooses-elaine-chao-to-be-transportation-secretary/2016/11/29/807e758a-b649-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_transition-1150am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory)  Talk about an outsider.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 29, 2016, 11:43:31 AM
No one, including Stein, believes the recount will alter the results in any state.



It is extremely unlikely, which raises the obvious question: what's the real motive?  (Incidentally, I was merely relying on the same type of language as WAPO, though I took the liberty of adding an exclamation mark.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 29, 2016, 12:02:31 PM
Did Hillary not know that the only way to win the presidency is by winning the Electoral College, and that winning the popular vote is not enough?

Is she so mistrustful of the US democratic and transparent voting procedures and process that she needs a recounting of votes?


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on November 29, 2016, 12:41:40 PM
Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, is pushing the recount.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign wants to make one thing very clear: They don’t want a recount. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/hillary-clintons-campaign-didnt-want-this-recount-and-doesnt-think-it-will-change-anything/)

Thanks, I misjudged Mrs. Clinton. Now, who is Jill Stein? Never heard 'bout her.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 29, 2016, 12:57:08 PM
It is extremely unlikely, which raises the obvious question: what's the real motive?
raising the profile of the Green Party among disaffected liberals in the hope that they'll vote for Stein (or whoever) in 2020 instead of the Democratic nominee, I'm guessing....
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on November 29, 2016, 12:59:58 PM
raising the profile of the Green Party among disaffected liberals in the hope that they'll vote for Stein (or whoever) in 2020 instead of the Democratic nominee, I'm guessing....


Possibly.  But will today's actions result in a statistically significant boost in Green Party votes in 2018 and 2020 and beyond?  I have my doubts.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on November 30, 2016, 08:29:41 AM
I am sixty-nine years old and I was a Christian conservative Goldwater Republican.  Prior to my fiftieth birthday I only voted twice for a Democrat for anything.  Since then the Republican party has changed to the point that I now consider myself an agnostic socialist.  If twenty years ago someone told me that I would twice vote for a black socialist from Mars to be president I would have wacked them over their head with a baseball bat.

One of the problems I have with the current situation is that any observation a democrat tries to make about the election is wrong.

For example Billy Graham's son, Franklin, is currently the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.  He is a supporter of Trump and actively campaigned for him.  Franklin stated that God’s Hand” Influenced Election Result: https://wethevigilant.com/2016/11/18/franklin-graham-gods-hand-influenced-election-result/ (https://wethevigilant.com/2016/11/18/franklin-graham-gods-hand-influenced-election-result/).  I do not see how one can carry on a rational discussion concerning this election with a person who believes that God supported Trump over Clinton.  If Trump was endorsed by God, and I have some relatives who believe this, what can I say? I guess I am going to Hell.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on November 30, 2016, 04:01:57 PM
I am sixty-nine years old and I was a Christian conservative Goldwater Republican.  Prior to my fiftieth birthday I only voted twice for a Democrat for anything.  Since then the Republican party has changed to the point that I now consider myself an agnostic socialist.  If twenty years ago someone told me that I would twice vote for a black socialist from Mars to be president I would have wacked them over their head with a baseball bat.

One of the problems I have with the current situation is that any observation a democrat tries to make about the election is wrong.

For example Billy Graham's son, Franklin, is currently the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.  He is a supporter of Trump and actively campaigned for him.  Franklin stated that God’s Hand” Influenced Election Result: https://wethevigilant.com/2016/11/18/franklin-graham-gods-hand-influenced-election-result/ (https://wethevigilant.com/2016/11/18/franklin-graham-gods-hand-influenced-election-result/).  I do not see how one can carry on a rational discussion concerning this election with a person who believes that God supported Trump over Clinton.  If Trump was endorsed by God, and I have some relatives who believe this, what can I say? I guess I am going to Hell.
All us interesting people will be there.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on November 30, 2016, 06:55:09 PM
All us interesting people will be there.

"Because hell, Señora, is a place for the wicked. The wicked are quite comfortable in it: it was made for them."

- Shaw, Man and Superman
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on November 30, 2016, 07:03:47 PM
I am sixty-nine years old and I was a Christian conservative Goldwater Republican.  Prior to my fiftieth birthday I only voted twice for a Democrat for anything.  Since then the Republican party has changed to the point that I now consider myself an agnostic socialist.  If twenty years ago someone told me that I would twice vote for a black socialist from Mars to be president I would have wacked them over their head with a baseball bat.

One of the problems I have with the current situation is that any observation a democrat tries to make about the election is wrong.

For example Billy Graham's son, Franklin, is currently the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.  He is a supporter of Trump and actively campaigned for him.  Franklin stated that God’s Hand” Influenced Election Result: https://wethevigilant.com/2016/11/18/franklin-graham-gods-hand-influenced-election-result/ (https://wethevigilant.com/2016/11/18/franklin-graham-gods-hand-influenced-election-result/).  I do not see how one can carry on a rational discussion concerning this election with a person who believes that God supported Trump over Clinton.  If Trump was endorsed by God, and I have some relatives who believe this, what can I say? I guess I am going to Hell.

An evangelical I know thinks God picked Trump because He wants to punish us.  Others would simply say that God picked Trump because He wanted certain things to happen, and Trump's moral qualities, or lack thereof, were not a factor in His decision.

I suspect Franklin G., however, meant it in the way you think he meant it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on November 30, 2016, 07:29:21 PM
Pelosi lost more Democrats than any other house party leader in history I think. Maybe not a great sign for 2018. She is a Teflon Dem though, so we'll see I guess
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on November 30, 2016, 07:40:10 PM
I'm starting to be concerned for the future of the U.S.  It is assumed that advanced democracies are inherently stable, but a recent article in the The Times questioned this. At one point it seemed unthinkable that the Soviet Union could dissolve, then...

Maybe Obama was our Gorbachev, Trump is our Yeltsin and the next president will be our Putin.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on November 30, 2016, 08:03:23 PM
An evangelical I know thinks God picked Trump because He wants to punish us.  Others would simply say that God picked Trump because He wanted certain things to happen, and Trump's moral qualities, or lack thereof, were not a factor in His decision.

I suspect Franklin G., however, meant it in the way you think he meant it.

He's a god, he's a man
He's a ghost, he's a guru
They're whispering his name
Through this disappearing land
But hidden in his coat
Is a red right hand

 Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 01, 2016, 12:54:01 PM
This thread has generated 464 replies (including mine) in 22 days, which suggests that - given the time left until inauguration, and then the four years which will follow - the thread, left unslowed or unchecked, will sprawl to 31,889 posts before election day 2020, or (in default view) 1,595 pages.

Of course, "What Are You Listening To?" is currently at 3,982 pages.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 01, 2016, 01:30:53 PM
This thread has generated 464 replies (including mine) in 22 days, which suggests that - given the time left until inauguration, and then the four years which will follow - the thread, left unslowed or unchecked, will sprawl to 31,889 posts before election day 2020, or (in default view) 1,595 pages.


Imagine the potential with the SCOTUS pick.

In more immediate news, Trump has settled on Mattis for Defense, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-chosen-retired-marine-gen-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/2016/12/01/6c6b3b74-aff9-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.f4b7c581379a) which means that not only will the Senate have to approve the appointment, Congress will have to pass legislation allowing him to serve.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 01, 2016, 06:46:41 PM
This thread has generated 464 replies (including mine) in 22 days, which suggests that - given the time left until inauguration, and then the four years which will follow - the thread, left unslowed or unchecked, will sprawl to 31,889 posts before election day 2020, or (in default view) 1,595 pages.

Of course, "What Are You Listening To?" is currently at 3,982 pages.

Perhaps a new thread can be started with every State of the Union address.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on December 01, 2016, 06:50:18 PM
On November 7, a day before Donald Trump pulled off a stunning victory, Hillary Clinton signed a copy of Newsweek's "Madam President" issue for a supporter in Pennsylvania.

(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/58407aa4ba6eb605688b60b1-2400/gettyimages-621965298%201.jpg)

 ;D
And what is your point?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 01, 2016, 07:33:54 PM
And what is your point?

Anything to gratuitously ridicule liberals, Clinton, Clinton supporters. It's no more than another Dewey Beats Truman headline. Don't know for such, but wouldn't be surprised if magazines do this kind of thing each election, to have an issue ready in the event either candidate wins.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 02, 2016, 06:20:51 AM
The fact that Clinton autographed the cover the day before the election was of special interest to me.  It summed up the arrogance Democrats in general and Clinton in particular displayed throughout the campaign.  That photograph struck me as apt metaphor. 

Also, since I and others had referred to the press mistake of Dewey and Truman, it was funny to see it actually happen.  Although back in the 40s print technology was such that it was more necessary for advance preparation to occur than today, what with computerized publication making this all the more an example of the arrogance of the Left.

Mitt Romney and his followers were also certain he was going to win in 2012. But of course there was no arrogance here, arrogance being only an attribute of the Left.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 06:35:54 AM
Anything to gratuitously ridicule liberals, Clinton, Clinton supporters.


Never has there been a more deserving bunch.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 07:11:09 AM
Never has there been a more deserving bunch.
A bit of irony that this comes from a connoisseur of historic hyperbole.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 07:59:36 AM
A bit of irony that this comes from a connoisseur of historic hyperbole.


I can see how it could be interpreted that way, but for me, the use of the word "never" rests upon the fact that Hillary Clinton actually used the word "apocalypse" during her campaign.  In 2016.  And she represents, supposedly, the party of science, the party of education.  (And the word showed up at least twice in David Remnick's recent interview with Obama.)  The post-election flailing of Dems merely reinforces their need to be ridiculed some more.  People have given millions to Jill Stein for an inane recount.  There are articles and talking heads talking up the possibility of faithless electors having an impact on December 19th.  There has been an intellectual dusting off of the 25th Amendment in hopes of using it for something other than how it was intended.  The rhetoric employed by the candidate and her surrogates, the desperate and anti-factual personal attacks on Trump (remember the whole psychopath/sociopath thing, among others), the supposed sense of doom, it has been over the top.  It has been downright hilarious to watch.  By this time, everyone should know better.  The vicious, over the top campaigns throughout the 19th Century in the US occurred when the republic was still young and science and communications were comparatively crude.  To see something approaching, and in some ways exceeding, those campaigns today shows that we have not made as much "progress" as is often advertised. 

Now, of course, Trump was a vulgar, thoroughly dishonest, erratic candidate, and will almost certainly not go down in history as a great President (and there's actually a good chance he won't be the worst, either), but the Dems didn't exactly offer up an FDR or Wilson.  Or even a Carter.

Yes, never has there been a more deserving bunch.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mirror Image on December 02, 2016, 08:02:06 AM
I saw the reports of the Harvard get together (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shouting-match-erupts-between-clinton-and-trump-aides/2016/12/01/7ac4398e-b7ea-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?utm_term=.b3ef6831c5a4) where the whining sore loser Clinton campaign staff soiled their pants in frustration.

Loved it.

(http://rlv.zcache.com/democrat_tears_republican_color_scheme_flask-rc719f703c4a545428b65f3afdd18ad8d_i9rmb_8byvr_630.jpg?view_padding=%5B285%2C0%2C285%2C0%5D)

 ;)

Okay, so now your mission, or so it appears on this thread, is to rub Trump's victory in everyone's face who voted for Clinton (or someone else)? If I recall, your party gave Obama nothing but hell before he even took office. He was accused of being a Muslim, a terrorist, not a US citizen, etc. Both parties aren't free of hypocrisy of course, but you spoke negatively of the arrogance of the Democratic Party, but, yet, you, a firm representative of the Republican Party, are acting like a complete and utter child. I do wish people would get over Trump winning and just accept the outcome of the race no matter whether they disagree with it or not --- they can't change who won, so just accept it and move on. I certainly have. I expected you to take the higher road, but, no, you're no better than anyone who chooses to act like a complete ass and strut around thinking you're completely invincible. I hope the Trump administration does a great job and does "make America great again" (whatever this means) by focusing on what's important in our country: the people. Let's see what a Republican led government can actually do for all of us. I'm getting my popcorn ready (if I can still afford popcorn after Trump's policies take full effect) and watch the show.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 08:10:54 AM
Yes, never has there been a more deserving bunch.
Some better examples, not only of people deserving ridicule, but of that ridicule being skillful:

http://www.youtube.com/v/kHmYIo7bcUw

http://www.youtube.com/v/493pL_Vbtnc

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/VoltaireCandidFrontis%2BChap01-1762.jpg)

And, limiting ourselves strictly to Americans ridiculing their political opponents, the finest and most deserving bit of ridicule must be Petroleum V. Nasby.

EDIT: Oh! And this ridicule may be a wee bit affectionate - which I think you'll agree is a welcome change - but what about Ring Lardner's incredible novel You Know Me Al!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 08:23:06 AM
Some better examples, not only of people deserving ridicule, but of that ridicule being skillful:


I was obviously referring to American politics.  It's good to see someone reaching for the Klan in response - I concede that it may be more morally and intellectually offensive than today's Dems.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 08:25:48 AM

I was obviously referring to American politics.  It's good to see someone reaching for the Klan in response - I concede that it may be more morally and intellectually offensive than today's Dems.
I covered American politics too, at the end. :)

BTW last night a friend told me that Trump is choosing not to receive daily briefings - there's no way that's true, right??
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 08:27:04 AM
BTW last night a friend told me that Trump is choosing not to receive daily briefings - there's no way that's true, right??

...oh

President-elect Donald Trump has received two classified intelligence briefings since his surprise election victory earlier this month, a frequency that is notably lower — at least so far — than that of his predecessors, current and former U.S. officials said.

A team of intelligence analysts has been prepared to deliver daily briefings on global developments and security threats to Trump in the two weeks since he won. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.bcae2e5875eb
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 08:38:25 AM
BTW last night a friend told me that Trump is choosing not to receive daily briefings - there's no way that's true, right??


Looks like he's not.  It is not unprecedented.  Nixon declined daily briefings during his transition.  I think most people would agree that Nixon and Trump are not at the same level when it comes to security matters, though.  Bill Clinton apparently deprioritized security briefings and missed some even as President.  Apparently, so has Obama, at least in person, though he is said to have read all his briefings.  It is up to the person holding the position.  I think the expectation is that the senior leaders of the national security team receive the briefings with very few exceptions, and advise the President.  I don't know what will happen when Trump becomes President, but I'm at least hoping he takes a greater direct interest in his Constitutionally primary job.  We'll find out, sort of, starting in January.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 08:42:27 AM

Looks like he's not.  It is not unprecedented.  Nixon declined daily briefings during his transition.  I think most people would agree that Nixon and Trump are not at the same level when it comes to security matters, though.  Bill Clinton apparently deprioritized security briefings and missed some even as President.  Apparently, so has Obama, at least in person, though he is said to have read all his briefings.  It is up to the person holding the position.  I think the expectation is that the senior leaders of the national security team receive the briefings with very few exceptions, and advise the President.  I don't know what will happen when Trump becomes President, but I'm at least hoping he takes a greater direct interest in his Constitutionally primary job.  We'll find out, sort of, starting in January.

This news reminds me of that leaked report from when Kasich (or was it someone else) was offered VP - that the VP would do all the actual executive legwork with Trump as a sort of public figurehead. Of course, it can't always work like that in practice. Maybe if Pence had been the one calling Pakistan and Kazakhstan he wouldn't have praised them to the skies...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 08:47:01 AM
This news reminds me of that leaked report from when Kasich (or was it someone else) was offered VP - that the VP would do all the actual executive legwork with Trump as a sort of public figurehead. Of course, it can't always work like that in practice. Maybe if Pence had been the one calling Pakistan and Kazakhstan he wouldn't have praised them to the skies...


The VP has come a long way since John Adams' lament.  It is certainly possible that Trump will rely extensively on Pence, though the signatures and ultimate responsibility will all be Trump's.  It's not a bad gig for Pence.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 09:14:32 AM
The VP has come a long way since John Adams' lament.  It is certainly possible that Trump will rely extensively on Pence, though the signatures and ultimate responsibility will all be Trump's.  It's not a bad gig for Pence.
By the way, Pence and I share a hometown. The general opinion among '90s Columbus folks was that he was a sanctimonious little asswipe, but who likes their ambitious local politicians?

I was prejudiced against him at the time - but only because a relative of his, Dr. Ben Pence, was my orthodontist and introduced me to the uncomfortable world of braces.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on December 02, 2016, 10:39:47 AM
Hard to catch up with all the recent dubious statements, tweets, style and apparent decisions from the President-Elect.
Personally, I´m mostly taking a break from the course of events.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 11:19:41 AM
I have finally came to see the light regarding the wisdom of, and the need for, establishing the Electoral College.

The very name of POTUS says it all: it's not the President of the Americans, but the President of the United States.

USA is not a unitary nation state but a federation of 52 independent states which agreed to delegate some --- but by no means all --- of their powers to a federal government on the condition that all 52 of them have a say in who is to be their federal president, ie the person who must represent and advance the interest of the States  which United. Therefore, the POTUS is elected not by the people, but by the States through their respective Grand Electors. In order to be POTUS, a candidate must win a majority of the States' votes (because he is precisely POTUS), not of the people's votes (because he is not President of the Americans).

It makes a lot of sense and I must confess that my Romanian / European bias, grounded in the notion of nation state, made me think of the EC as an obsolete relic of the past, when in reality it is one of the backbones of the very concept of "United States of America". Mea culpa.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 11:23:29 AM
USA is not a unitary nation state but a federation of 52 independent states


?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 11:29:55 AM

?

Okay, 50, mea culpa again. And okay, not quite independent in the sense that Germany or Chile are, but you certainly got the gist of my confession, didn't you? Or am I damned if I do, damned if I don't?  ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 11:34:17 AM
The Founding Fathers were wise in establishing the Electoral College since they wanted to insure that the election for President would include all states in as representative fashion as possible.

We don't want a president elected by California one single State or a minority of States, but elected by [the majority of] the United States.

This is my latest understanding of the issue as well.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 11:38:39 AM
This is my latest understanding of the issue as well.
Florestan's logic is better than SA's. By SA's logic, the USA could kick out Texas and be a (more) liberal country, for instance.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 11:42:09 AM
but you certainly got the gist of my confession, didn't you?


Yes, though I take exception with the grandiose language ("Grand Electors") and the incompleteness of the analysis.  Senators used to be viewed as representing states, as well, not the people, and as such they used to be selected by state legislatures.  The founders had no great love for direct democracy.  They fancied a republic.  The system they created is purposely slow moving.  To borrow from observers left and right, gridlock is a feature of the system, not a bug.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 11:48:51 AM

Yes, though I take exception with the grandiose language ("Grand Electors")

Jesus Christ, man, you're such a pain in the ass. It was my obviously mistaken knowledge of them being officially named Grand Electors. Okay, they are mere Electors. How does this change what I said?

Quote
and the incompleteness of the analysis.

Good God! I really am damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Quote
The founders had no great love for direct democracy.  They fancied a republic.  The system they created is purposely slow moving.  To borrow from observers left and right, gridlock is a feature of the system, not a bug.

I am even afraid of agreeing with that, lest you come out pointing my agreement is incomplete and grandiose...



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 11:53:45 AM
My point was that Clinton's larger popular vote is based on a huge margin in one state and is not evidence that she won a national victory.  Which is why the Electoral College is a more representational manner of choosing a president.
This would only be true if that state were not part of the nation or the representation. If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the Electoral College is "more representational" because it makes certain regions of people more valuable than certain other regions.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 11:53:56 AM
Hillary Clinton's popular advantage was entirely the result of California's vote count: Clinton 8,581,312; Trump 4,393,409. 

If California were to be removed, Trump wins the popular vote.  The Founding Fathers were wise in establishing the Electoral College since they wanted to insure that the election for President would include all states in as representative fashion as possible.

We don't want a president elected by California, but elected by the United States.

The fact that Clinton's margin in California exceeds the overall popular vote margin does not mean her advantage is "entirely the result of California's vote count." She only received 12% of her popular vote total from California. The other 88% of the votes she received came from other states (including states where she did not prevail in the popular vote).

In the end the electoral college gave us Trump, even though Clinton has 2.3 million more supporters. I don't see why the wishes of California voters should be depreciated just because they live in the same (very large) geographical area.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 12:00:54 PM
Now I'm digging through Wikipedia and learning some interesting things.

Rhode Island: 1,056,298 residents, 2 House seats
Montana: 1,032,949 residents, 1 House seat

In Montana and Delaware, each congressman represents about a million people. In Rhode Island and Wyoming, each congressman represents under 600,000 people.

"For example, on average a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College as an average American, or 318%." [2008]

-

The system was set up to favor rural voters over urban voters, because in the 1700s rural residents were afraid cities would dictate the agenda. The same thing is true in 2016: the system favors rural voters, because they are afraid city-dwellers will dictate the agenda. Thus the blatant inequities which sanantonio celebrates, which make Californians' vote worth vastly less than Wyomingites'.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 12:07:22 PM
In a state like California, Republicans know that no matter how many more popular votes Clinton would get, she will still only wins 55 electoral votes - hence many stay home.  Those voting patterns would change if we actually did elect by popular vote, since California Replubicans would know that every vote counted and would make the effort.
And you don't see the possibility that this would be canceled out by Democrats in almost the entire central/mountain time zones?
And I don't see evidence for your claim in the first place?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 12:18:40 PM
In a state like California, Republicans know that no matter how many more popular votes Clinton would get, she will still only wins 55 electoral votes - hence many stay home.  Those voting patterns would change if we actually did elect by popular vote, since California Replubicans would know that every vote counted and would make the effort.

The same reasoning would apply to Democrats in California, who know that the state is a lock no matter how high the Democrat turnout.

I agree that turnout would be different in a popular vote scenario, since there would be no swing state vs locked state distinction. You have presented no evidence that the popular vote would change one way or the other if the popular vote scenario was used.

The main result of the electoral college is that voters in low population states get disproportionate representation. California has 55 votes for 39 million people, one electoral vote represents 710,000 people. Wyoming has 3 votes for 582,000 people,  one electoral vote represents 194,000 people. People in Wyoming get more than 3 times the statistical representation in the electoral college compared to Californians. I see no reasoning for why this is a good thing.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
You prefer disenfranchising Wyoming and other small population states.  Which is exactly what the Founders were against.

Wyoming only has 3 electoral votes - hardly decisive.  And you want to deprive them even more.

Shame on you.
hahaahahaahahahahaha
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 12:28:01 PM
California has 55 votes for 39 million people, one electoral vote represents 710,000 people. Wyoming has 3 votes for 582,000 people,  one electoral vote represents 194,000 people. People in Wyoming get more than 3 times the statistical representation in the electoral college compared to Californians. I see no reasoning for why this is a good thing.

It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers feared and abhorred the tyranny of many (or a majority) over one (or a minority) just as much as they feared and abhorred the tyranny of one (or a minority) over many (or a majority).

And I think they were right.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 12:28:24 PM
You prefer disenfranchising Wyoming and other small population states.  Which is exactly what the Founders were against.

Wyoming only has 3 electoral votes - hardly decisive.  And you want to deprive them even more.

Shame on you.

I don't propose to "disenfranchise" Wyoming. I propose that each qualified citizen of Wyoming gets one vote as each qualified citizen of California gets one vote. I don't see why the fact that a state line has been drawn around a small number of people in Wyoming entitles a citizen of Wyoming to more influence over the presidential election than a citizen of California.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 12:30:46 PM
The system was set up to favor rural voters over urban voters, because in the 1700s rural residents were afraid cities would dictate the agenda. The same thing is true in 2016: the system favors rural voters, because they are afraid city-dwellers will dictate the agenda. Thus the blatant inequities which sanantonio celebrates, which make Californians' vote worth vastly less than Wyomingites'.


The system that was established was a compromise created to ensure that a new national government could be formed, replacing the feeble confederation created before it, and thus save the nascent republic.  That was a great thing.  Beyond that, it is also one of the most beautiful features of the US national system.  Majoritarian tyranny is the type to be most dreaded.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that coastal progressives/elites/liberals/whatever label(s) you choose would govern in the interest of everyone. 



People in Wyoming get more than 3 times the statistical representation in the electoral college compared to Californians. I see no reasoning for why this is a good thing.


If you support the primacy of the popular vote, nothing can persuade you that the current system is fair or reasonable.  All that is needed is to either amend the Constitution, or change state voting laws.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 12:34:19 PM
The system that was established was a compromise created to ensure that a new national government could be formed, replacing the feeble confederation created before it, and thus save the nascent republic.  That was a great thing.  Beyond that, it is also one of the most beautiful features of the US national system. 
I didn't mean to deny any of this - just that there's only so much typing you can do.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 12:43:52 PM
The way I see and understand it, a purely popular vote is perfectly compatible with, and actually the fairest, in a unitary nation state such as France or Romania, whereas in a federal state such as USA an Electoral College makes a lot of sense in that it precludes states with very large population from imposing their candidates on states less populated. Questioning the wisdom of the EC amounts to questioning the very idea of a federation of states --- which is a very legitimate stance in itself, of course.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 12:45:08 PM
Majoritarian tyranny is the type to be most dreaded.

Amen!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on December 02, 2016, 12:48:19 PM
It is all speculative since we don't elect presidents by popular votes and people act accordingly.

A more interesting question is why do rural/small town people prefer Republicans over Democrats?  Democratic support almost exclusively comes from large urban centers. 

Also, Republican hold majorities in 68% of state legislatures and also a significant majority of governorships.  It is clear that the Republican message is more popular across the nation except in urban areas.

Again, I salute the Founding Fathers for the wisdom in designing a system that spreads the power around the country.

A concerted effort to control redistricting aka gerrymandering is responsible for much of that.

And, ironically, it is the need to have majority-minority districts  which give legal cover to that.  Create safe seats for Democrats, then make sure their voting power is diluted everywhere else.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 12:51:12 PM
There is absolutely no reason to believe that coastal progressives/elites/liberals/whatever label(s) you choose would govern in the interest of everyone. 

Nobody --- and I really mean nobody, as in not me, not you, mot Brian, not Sanantonio, not Scarpia, nobody at all --- would and could govern in the interest of everybody. That someone, whoever s/he might be, would and could govern in the interest of everybody else is a fiction, which is an euphemism for a lie.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on December 02, 2016, 12:51:53 PM

The system that was established was a compromise created to ensure that a new national government could be formed, replacing the feeble confederation created before it, and thus save the nascent republic.  That was a great thing.  Beyond that, it is also one of the most beautiful features of the US national system.  Majoritarian tyranny is the type to be most dreaded. There is absolutely no reason to believe that coastal progressives/elites/liberals/whatever label(s) you choose would govern in the interest of everyone. 



Nor is there any reason to believe those who represent the rural/traditional will govern in the interest of everyone. So why advantage them over others?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jo498 on December 02, 2016, 12:59:22 PM
Yeah, by all means a system where due to odd 18th century representation features a "tyranny" of 49% is possible is preferable to a proportional one with the possibility of a "tyranny" of the 51%....
And it is also a great thing that the checks and balances of a very different time have made any reform of such an odd election system that leads to the idiotic focus of a few "swing states" all but impossible....
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
A concerted effort to control redistricting aka gerrymandering is responsible for much of that.


True, but gerrymandering did not lead to a Republican majority in the Senate, nor to the election of thirty-one Republican governors.  Gerrymandering is another two hundred year old problem in the US that is certainly an issue, but there are other issues at least as important.



Nor is there any reason to believe those who represent the rural/traditional will govern in the interest of everyone. So why advantage them over others?


The statement is absolutely true.  I'd say that the existing structure gives "rural" states (in reality, smaller population states) the ability to effectively counter the overwhelming electoral weight of larger states.  Current politicians have figured out how to be more effective now than at the founding of the republic, where mighty Virginia still managed to be first among equals.  Ultimately, the goal should be to prevent dominance by state or region in the federal system.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 01:12:01 PM
Yeah, by all means a system where due to odd 18th century representation features a "tyranny" of 49% is possible is preferable to a proportional one with the possibility of a "tyranny" of the 51%....

Well, it might be argued that it is exactly because of this "odd 18th century representation" that for more than two hundred years neither a 49% nor a 51 % tyranny was possible, as opposed to the modern, 20th century representation which made a 37% tyranny possible... and I´m sure you know very well what I mean, and I mean it without any disrespect, just pointing out facts and figures. ;D

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 01:17:57 PM
I don't think the Electoral College is going anywhere, even if Al Gore is against it.


I can't see even anti-flag burning or balanced budget amendments making it out of the 115th Congress, let alone something substantial.  State level action is where it's at for electoral college reform.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 02, 2016, 01:30:22 PM
Do you have a photo of Mitt Romney autographing his victory announcement a day before the election?  No, you don't.

Oh, so what.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 02, 2016, 01:31:47 PM
I saw the reports of the Harvard get together (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/shouting-match-erupts-between-clinton-and-trump-aides/2016/12/01/7ac4398e-b7ea-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?utm_term=.b3ef6831c5a4) where the whining sore loser Clinton campaign staff soiled their pants in frustration.

Loved it.

Sneering at your fellow countrymen is no more than the pot calling the kettle black, and is the antithesis of "unifying" the country.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 01:32:16 PM
I am not sure what you mean.  How can states do an end around the Constitution?


States set the laws for choosing electors and other voting rules.  States can pass legislation mandating that electors choose the winner of the national popular vote, just as some states have passed laws mandating that electors be faithful and vote for the candidate that won the vote in the state.  (There is at least one group devoted to such a course now. (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/))  In the event that a combination of states with a total of more than 270 electoral votes pass such legislation, it will probably give rise to an original jurisdiction SCOTUS case, but it is possible in theory.  It is not an end run.  It is proper state level political action.  It should be resisted fiercely by those opposed to it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 02, 2016, 01:34:27 PM
Okay, so now your mission, or so it appears on this thread, is to rub Trump's victory in everyone's face who voted for Clinton (or someone else)? Both parties aren't free of hypocrisy of course, but you spoke negatively of the arrogance of the Democratic Party, but, yet, you, a firm representative of the Republican Party, are acting like a complete and utter child. I expected you to take the higher road, but, no, you're no better than anyone who chooses to act like a complete ass and strut around thinking you're completely invincible.

Amen. Good going, John.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 02, 2016, 01:42:17 PM
Jesus Christ, man, you're such a pain in the ass. It was my obviously mistaken knowledge of them being officially named Grand Electors. Okay, they are mere Electors. How does this change what I said?

Good God! I really am damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I am even afraid of agreeing with that, lest you come out pointing my agreement is incomplete and grandiose...

Welcome to the club.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 01:43:42 PM
Welcome to the club.


I would have said that I expected something better than passive-aggressive posts from you, but that wouldn't be true.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 02, 2016, 01:45:55 PM

I would have said that I expected something better than passive-aggressive posts from you, but that wouldn't be true.

Such a sweetie.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 02, 2016, 01:48:43 PM
I doubt Democrats will ever accept Trump

Any more than Republicans would ever accept Obama - born in Kenya, Muslim, doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, blah blah blah. And who was it at the heart of the birther movement - Daniel, Dennis, Donald something or other?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 01:48:51 PM
Sneering at your fellow countrymen is no more than the pot calling the kettle black, and is the antithesis of "unifying" the country.

Call me a reactionary and an enemy of the people --- I know you won´t, but I am accustomed to it nevertheless --- but disuniting the country is exactly what "democracy"´s end result is. The winning party rejoices, the losing party whines, and they both recriminate each other. "Urban liberal eliites" and "ignorant low IQ rednecks" become defaming terms denoting "THE ARCHENEMY" --- whereas of course neither label is a priori right or derogatory.





Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 01:49:14 PM
Such a sweetie.


What a pointed riposte!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 01:53:20 PM
Any more than Republicans would ever accept Obama - born in Kenya, Muslim, doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, blah blah blah. And who was it at the heart of the birther movement - Daniel, Dennis, Donald something or other?


Finally, an honest American lefty!  And honesty from someone who attempts to throw around words like "sneering", "condescending", and so forth, as if it is only the other side who is guilty of it.  Refreshing. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on December 02, 2016, 01:53:52 PM
Was the Trump win a coup d’état? I am beginning to think it a possibility. (This was always the hazard of an anything goes campaign like Trump's - politics is uncivil enough, but he will forever be known - amongst other things - as the candidate that lowered the bar and destroyed not just the semblance of civility but any faith one has in the workings of government, both of which he now ironically demands for himself).  The combination of Comey's last minute Clinton "probe" with the legal roadblocks Republicans are putting up to forestall the recount effort does not look reassuring about living in a free and open democracy.  Have we woken to find ourselves in a third world country with Trump as the strong man? Speaking personally, Trump has done the unthinkable - turned me into a conspiracy theorist.   http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/trump-recounts-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 01:56:00 PM
Was the Trump win a coup d’état? I am beginning to think it a possibility. (This was always the hazard of an anything goes campaign like Trump's - politics is uncivil enough, but he will forever be known - amongst other things - as the candidate that lowered the bar and destroyed not just the semblance of civility but any faith one has in the workings of government, both of which he now ironically demands for himself).  The combination of Comey's last minute Clinton "probe" with the legal roadblocks Republicans are putting up to forestall the recount effort does not look reassuring about living in a free and open democracy.  Have we woken to find ourselves in a third world country with Trump as the strong man? Speaking personally, Trump has done the unthinkable - turned me into a conspiracy theorist.   http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/trump-recounts-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


You might want to consider joining the 25th Amendment hopefuls.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on December 02, 2016, 01:58:09 PM
I am in sore need of hope!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 02, 2016, 02:01:58 PM
Well, that was my entire point: that Clinton was so arrogantly sure of victory she was autographing a Newsweek cover before a single vote had been cast.


If some fan asks her to sign a magazine, why wouldn't she just sign it and move on to the next person? And if she stopped and said "its a little premature for that headline, and for me to sign it, so I can't because I might not win", wouldn't that become an immediate story about her lack of faith in her own chances?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 02:09:27 PM
I accepted Obama as president, as did most people.  He won two elections and no one contested the elections.  We have elections every two years - usually most people, Dems and Reps, accept the outcomes.  What is your problem?  Have you no tolerance for people criticizing the Clinton supporters for their very vocal rejection of the outcome of this election?
Nobody is rejecting the legitimate outcome of this election.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 02:11:09 PM
And now, back to our real topic:

Donald Trump risks opening up a major diplomatic dispute with China before he has even been inaugurated after speaking on the phone on Friday with Tsai Ying-wen, the president of Taiwan.

The telephone call, confirmed by three people, is believed to be the first between a US president or president-elect and a leader of Taiwan since diplomatic relations between the two were cut in 1979.

Although it is not clear if the Trump transition team intended the conversation to signal a broader change in US policy towards Taiwan, the call is likely to infuriate Beijing which regards the island as a renegade province.

The US has adopted the so-called “One China” policy since 1972 after the Nixon-Mao meetings and in 1978 President Jimmy Carter formally recognised Beijing as the sole government of China, with the US embassy closing in Taipei the year after.

The Trump team did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 02:12:01 PM
Nobody is rejecting the legitimate outcome of this election.

I´m not that sure. Why this whole kerfuffle about recounting the votes in some states?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on December 02, 2016, 02:14:25 PM
I´m not that sure. Why this whole kerfuffle about recounting the votes in some states?
There might be some silly folks who think that the recount can change the outcome (Jill Stein started it, and she's a loony) but most of the "liberal elite" agree that recounting is mostly for the historical record, not for beating Trump. One benefit could, of course, be proving beyond doubt that nothing "funny" happened.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-i-support-an-election-audit-even-though-its-unlikely-to-change-the-outcome/
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 02:15:32 PM
Nobody is rejecting the legitimate outcome of this election.


Not true. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/13/one-third-of-clinton-supporters-say-trump-election-is-not-legitimate-poll-finds/?utm_term=.6d53a2ccd14f)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 02:17:13 PM
Donald Trump risks opening up a major diplomatic dispute with China before he has even been inaugurated after speaking on the phone on Friday with Tsai Ying-wen, the president of Taiwan.



Man, whoever gets State will have a rough time.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 02:19:49 PM
There might be some silly folks who think that the recount can change the outcome (Jill Stein started it, and she's a loony) but most of the "liberal elite" agree that recounting is mostly for the historical record, not for beating Trump.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-i-support-an-election-audit-even-though-its-unlikely-to-change-the-outcome/

Then this statement:

Nobody is rejecting the legitimate outcome of this election.

is false. At least Jill Stein and a minority of the "liberal elite" are rejecting the legitimate outcome of this election.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 02:22:54 PM
(Hey, I would never let Todd be a greater nitpicker than I am  ;D >:D  :P)


It's on!

Evil smiley should have been first for maximum effectiveness.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 02:24:17 PM

It's on!

Evil smiley should have been first for maximum effectiveness.

 >:D >:D >:D

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 02, 2016, 02:25:33 PM
A lot of the above nonsense I have been reading reminds my of an old cold war joke.

While going for his walk an American dog met a Russian dog that just defected.  The American dog asked the Russian dog what life was like in Russia.

The Russian Dog stated that it was pretty good.  He lived in doghouse that had air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter.  And once a week he was fed a fresh steak.

The American Dog responded it sounds like you had it great, why did you leave?

The Russian Dog responded, "Occasionally I like to bark."

Well for eight years we have been listening to Obama being accuse of being a Black Socialist from Mars to being the mastermind behind the attack on the Pearl Harbor (For those who have the IQ of a turnip, I am being sarcastic.)

Now it is our turn to bark!!!!!!!!!! If you do not like it, YOU GET OVER IT  ;)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 02, 2016, 02:32:17 PM
So, how's that draining of the swamp thing going, guys?

Quote from: Bloomberg
Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson was feeling happy Wednesday morning.

After Donald Trump ridiculed Wall Street on the campaign trail, the President-elect tapped former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive Steven Mnuchin to be his Treasury secretary and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross to lead the Commerce Department. Trump even met with Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn inside Trump Tower.

“I can take glee in that -- I think Donald Trump conned them,” said Tilson, who runs Kase Capital Management. “I worried that he was going to do crazy things that would blow the system up. So the fact that he’s appointing people from within the system is a good thing.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/wall-street-wins-again-as-trump-chooses-bankers-and-billionaires (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/wall-street-wins-again-as-trump-chooses-bankers-and-billionaires)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 02:40:42 PM
Well, it might be argued that it is exactly because of this "odd 18th century representation" that for more than two hundred years neither a 49% nor a 51 % tyranny was possible, as opposed to the modern, 20th century representation which made a 37% tyranny possible... and I´m sure you know very well what I mean, and I mean it without any disrespect, just pointing out facts and figures. ;D

Tyranny of the majority is a danger. The primary protection against this in the U.S. are the various provisions in the constitution which specify that there are some things the government cannot do, even if the majority of voters, senators, representatives, etc vote for it. These include the bill of rights (freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom to bear arms, etc) and various other provisions including the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses.  This is where the serious protection against tyranny of the majority lies. There is a very high barrier to amending the constitution and tampering with any of those protections.

The electoral college protects against domination by a geographic region by requiring a majority of electors from the various states. But who is to say that geographical domination is the most dangerous? What of tyranny of the religious over the secular (or vice versa), tyranny of the educated over the uneducated (or vice versa), tyranny of salaried works over hourly workers (or vice versa). I don't see how the unequal representation in the Electoral College helps this. In the most recent election we have the apparent tyranny of disaffected, resentful white rust-belt sad-sacs, if the media is to believed.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 02:42:14 PM
A lot of the above nonsense I have been reading reminds my of an old cold war joke.

While going for his walk an American dog met a Russian dog that just defected.  The American dog asked the Russian dog what life was like in Russia.

The Russian Dog stated that it was pretty good.  He lived in doghouse that had air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter.  And once a week he was fed a fresh steak.

The American Dog responded it sounds like you had it great, why did you leave?

The Russian Dog responded, "Occasionally I like to bark."

Well, as someone born in 1972 east of the Iron Curtain I side unconditionally with the Russian dog. You dogs born west of the Iron Curtain cannot even imagine --- and may you never find out, although some of you deserve it big time --- what is it like liking to bark in a no-barking regime.

 ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 02:42:49 PM
So, how's that draining of the swamp thing going, guys?


It's not, as you know.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 02:46:29 PM
In the most recent election we have the apparent tyranny of disaffected, resentful white rust-belt sad-sacs, if the media is to believed.

Forget about the media. Please point me to five palpable signs which show that a "tyranny of disaffected, resentful white rust-belt sad-sacs" is established in this USA of yours.



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 02, 2016, 02:54:18 PM

It's not, as you know.

Yup. But despite my tone, I'm genuinely interested in sanantonio's thoughts on this.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 02:54:31 PM
Forget about the media. Please point me to five palpable signs which show that a "tyranny of disaffected, resentful white rust-belt sad-sacs" is established in this USA of yours.

I don't know about 5.

The largely rural-state backed Tea Party Republicans have managed to put in place a ~25% reduction in federal funding for biomedical research in the 8 years Obama has been in office. The National Institutes of Health, the largest biomedical research institution in the world, has been eviscerated. Extramural research in U.S. Universities has been hammered. Here we have the simple folk of the "heartland" showing the "elites" at the major research universities what's what. And all those brilliant students from China and India what would normally have started careers in the U.S. are returning after graduation and starting companies back home.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 03:18:42 PM
The largely rural-state backed Tea Party Republicans have managed to put in place a ~25% reduction in federal funding for biomedical research in the 8 years Obama has been in office. The National Institutes of Health, the largest biomedical research institution in the world, has been eviscerated. Extramural research in U.S. Universities has been hammered. Here we have the simple folk of the "heartland" showing the "elites" at the major research universities what's what.

With all due respect, Sir, all this is far, far, far from being "tyranny". And given that it all happened "in the 8 years Obama has been in office" I fail to see what it has got to do with

the most recent election

Quote
And all those brilliant students from China and India what would normally have started careers in the U.S. are returning after graduation and starting companies back home.

Why you would lament instead of applaud it is beyond me. Is the USA bent on draining all other countries of their most brilliant brains for its own benefit, or bent on being an example to be emulated by all countries?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 03:31:51 PM
With all due respect, Sir, all this is far, far, far from being "tyranny". And given that it all happened "in the 8 years Obama has been in office" I fail to see what it has got to do with

Why you would lament instead of applaud it is beyond me. Is the USA bent on draining all other countries of their most brilliant brains for its own benefit, or bent on being an example to be emulated by all countries?

The current election is a continuation of the trend that started with the 2010 Midterm elections. Calling it tyranny would be hyperbole. But rural voters with marginal participation in the mainstream U.S. economy have chosen to hobble the U.S. I'm sure it is to the benefit of developing economies like China and India to see the U.S. voluntarily relinquish its scientific/technical leadership, but for those of us who live in the U.S., it is not a good thing.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 02, 2016, 03:58:41 PM
The current election is a continuation of the trend that started with the 2010 Midterm elections. Calling it tyranny would be hyperbole.

The hyperbole is yours, then.  ;D

Quote
But rural voters with marginal participation in the mainstream U.S. economy have chosen to hobble the U.S.

Is their "marginal participation in the mainstream U.S. economy" a thing of their own choice, or is it the net result of policies in which they had no say, of which they did not approve, and which were promoted, supported and mostly benefitted of by the "urban liberal elites"?  ;D

Quote
I'm sure it is to the benefit of developing economies like China and India to see the U.S. voluntarily relinquish its scientific/technical leadership, but for those of us who live in the U.S., it is not a good thing.

Welcome to the real world, in which most of the things going on are not good for anyone living in any given country!  ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 04:16:28 PM
Is their "marginal participation in the mainstream U.S. economy" a thing of their own choice, or is it the net result of policies in which they had no say, of which they did not approve, and which were promoted, supported and mostly benefitted of by the "urban liberal elites"?  ;D

It would be in their interest to involve themselves in the tech economy. Pittsburgh is a big success story, former steel town now something of a tech center. Government support of education, training, etc helps there, but is an anathema to the right wing.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 02, 2016, 05:01:26 PM
The current election is a continuation of the trend that started with the 2010 Midterm elections.


Yet House Democrats just reelected the same leader in charge during the last four elections. 



It would be in their interest to involve themselves in the tech economy. Pittsburgh is a big success story, former steel town now something of a tech center. Government support of education, training, etc helps there, but is an anathema to the right wing.


This reminds me of Jeff Greenfield's quip post-election about Democratic pieties of retraining and how it was another failure to recognize reality.  Labor force participation statistics nationwide point to a grimmer reality, even with the U3 rate of 4.6%.  The tale of Pittsburgh shows what one city could do when it changed policies, but not all its lessons can be replicated in other deindustrialized cities (ie, cities with less robust infrastructure, no comparable universities, and higher depopulation rates), and the demographics of the city have also changed.  People in mid and late career face tougher job prospects and their living standards usually decline when they are forced to switch jobs.  I've not yet read any long-term studies on the actual, measurable outcomes of retraining programs.  There is a good chance that at least some of them end up being cost-ineffective like restrictive trade policy.  It would be lower cost to simply expand transfer payment programs.  Ultimately, that may be needed as enhanced automation continues to eliminate manufacturing jobs and also begins to eliminate greater numbers of service jobs.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on December 02, 2016, 05:47:45 PM
North Carolina continues to be a mess. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/durham-county-recount/509423/) If one wants to be cynical, one might think that all this effort and expense is being required of local government for the sole purpose of allowing the state legislature to decide there's too much doubt and uncertainty about the election results and toss the decision to the state judiciary. Which happens to be controlled by Republicans. Wonder who they'll choose.

Yet House Democrats just reelected the same leader in charge during the last four elections. 
Well, another way to look at it is that the Democratic leader lost more caucus members than any party leader in decades (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nancy-pelosi-won-her-leadership-race-by-the-narrowest-margin-in-decades/).

The theory I've seen is that Tim Ryan was more of a "stalking horse" candidate to give public voice to widespread dissatisfaction with Pelosi and lay the groundwork for a more popular candidate to make a power grab in 2018 (or maybe even earlier). It certainly seems that way; he's kind of a nobody within the party, doesn't hold any important positions on committees or whatever, and yet still got 62 people on his side after only a dozen or so were willing to endorse him publicly. If I were Pelosi I would not be nearly as confident as she presents herself as being.

But rural voters with marginal participation in the mainstream U.S. economy have chosen to hobble the U.S.
To be fair, their concern isn't the economy per se; it's that people who aren't white males are starting to get equitable representation, it's no longer quite as socially acceptable to express the social and cultural views they hold, and the global economy doesn't work the way it did in the 1950s anymore. So what they're doing across the US and Europe and Australia (and probably Canada and New Zealand in a few years) is desperately trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube, even though they know it's just going to get everywhere and make a huge mess. But they don't really care if everyone gets fucked over, so long as they know that white men will continue to maintain the privileges they've become accustomed to—to be honest actually a lot of them want everyone to get fucked over for that reason. (Almost all the people I know who are like "we have to burn down, like, the entire system, duuuude" are white guys who put questionable substances in their brownies and own between 10 and 700 firearms.) Puts women/refugees/gays/immigrants/muslims/blacks/whatever the fuck back in their place because even if I'm suffering just as much as them, at least my government represents me and is going to prioritise my well-being over theirs.

Those rural voters might express a wistful longing for the old days when the basket weaving factories were still open and they had reliable jobs they knew how to do, but I think they're well aware on some level that those jobs aren't coming back. When journalists ask them what they're angry about, it's not usually Wall Street and globalisation, it's usually things like Black Lives Matter and transgender people using the wrong bathroom and immigrants not speaking English properly (and "safe spaces and trigger warnings", mostly coming from people who seem to want refugee-free "safe spaces" and get very "triggered" when confronted with a guy kneeling during the national anthem).
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on December 02, 2016, 06:35:11 PM
Piquancy alert
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/308427-russia-is-accusing-ukraine-of-undermining-trump
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 02, 2016, 07:29:58 PM
Well, another way to look at it is that the Democratic leader lost more caucus members than any party leader in decades (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nancy-pelosi-won-her-leadership-race-by-the-narrowest-margin-in-decades/).

The theory I've seen is that Tim Ryan was more of a "stalking horse" candidate to give public voice to widespread dissatisfaction with Pelosi and lay the groundwork for a more popular candidate to make a power grab in 2018 (or maybe even earlier). It certainly seems that way; he's kind of a nobody within the party, doesn't hold any important positions on committees or whatever, and yet still got 62 people on his side after only a dozen or so were willing to endorse him publicly. If I were Pelosi I would not be nearly as confident as she presents herself as being.
To be fair, their concern isn't the economy per se; it's that people who aren't white males are starting to get equitable representation, it's no longer quite as socially acceptable to express the social and cultural views they hold, and the global economy doesn't work the way it did in the 1950s anymore. So what they're doing across the US and Europe and Australia (and probably Canada and New Zealand in a few years) is desperately trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube, even though they know it's just going to get everywhere and make a huge mess. But they don't really care if everyone gets fucked over, so long as they know that white men will continue to maintain the privileges they've become accustomed to—to be honest actually a lot of them want everyone to get fucked over for that reason. (Almost all the people I know who are like "we have to burn down, like, the entire system, duuuude" are white guys who put questionable substances in their brownies and own between 10 and 700 firearms.) Puts women/refugees/gays/immigrants/muslims/blacks/whatever the fuck back in their place because even if I'm suffering just as much as them, at least my government represents me and is going to prioritise my well-being over theirs.

Those rural voters might express a wistful longing for the old days when the basket weaving factories were still open and they had reliable jobs they knew how to do, but I think they're well aware on some level that those jobs aren't coming back. When journalists ask them what they're angry about, it's not usually Wall Street and globalisation, it's usually things like Black Lives Matter and transgender people using the wrong bathroom and immigrants not speaking English properly (and "safe spaces and trigger warnings", mostly coming from people who seem to want refugee-free "safe spaces" and get very "triggered" when confronted with a guy kneeling during the national anthem).

You said it better than I could.  Woof! Woof!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 02, 2016, 08:50:22 PM
This reminds me of Jeff Greenfield's quip post-election about Democratic pieties of retraining and how it was another failure to recognize reality.  Labor force participation statistics nationwide point to a grimmer reality, even with the U3 rate of 4.6%.  The tale of Pittsburgh shows what one city could do when it changed policies, but not all its lessons can be replicated in other deindustrialized cities (ie, cities with less robust infrastructure, no comparable universities, and higher depopulation rates), and the demographics of the city have also changed.  People in mid and late career face tougher job prospects and their living standards usually decline when they are forced to switch jobs.  I've not yet read any long-term studies on the actual, measurable outcomes of retraining programs.  There is a good chance that at least some of them end up being cost-ineffective like restrictive trade policy.  It would be lower cost to simply expand transfer payment programs.  Ultimately, that may be needed as enhanced automation continues to eliminate manufacturing jobs and also begins to eliminate greater numbers of service jobs.

It is not so much that I think laid off factory workers will be retrained to write apps or analyze big data. But at least their children, with good schools, well funded state universities, might be better prepared for the new economy. If cutting taxes is the only value respected, the result will be underfunded state institutions, lousy public schools, unafforadable tuition at state universities, and students ill-prepared for the new reality.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 03, 2016, 03:50:16 AM
Hillary Clinton's popular advantage was entirely the result of California's vote count: Clinton 8,581,312; Trump 4,393,409. 

If California were to be removed, Trump wins the popular vote.  The Founding Fathers were wise in establishing the Electoral College since they wanted to insure that the election for President would include all states in as representative fashion as possible.

We don't want a president elected by California, but elected by the United States.

Hate to tell you, but a great many people living in California are from other parts of the US, having moved West to make a living (and consequently add to the US revenue, rather than receive).
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 03, 2016, 04:03:24 AM
It is not so much that I think laid off factory workers will be retrained to write apps or analyze big data. But at least their children, with good schools, well funded state universities, might be better prepared for the new economy. If cutting taxes is the only value respected, the result will be underfunded state institutions, lousy public schools, unafforadable tuition at state universities, and students ill-prepared for the new reality.

Well, Trump promised West-Virginia coal miners he would reopen their mines (the way he promised Trump U students success in real estate) as a way to indicate we're not going towards the future, but towards the past.

And to make that totally sure he's appointing an Education secretary who's going to gut the system.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2016, 07:45:32 AM
But at least their children, with good schools, well funded state universities, might be better prepared for the new economy.


I agree, up to a point.  There are three main factors mitigating preparation for the so-called new economy. First is increased automation in a broad spectrum of jobs, including white collar jobs.  Second is supply and demand of college graduates, or even people with certificates or other degrees of accomplishment less than a BA/BS.  There's already a mismatch between types of degrees earned by students and degrees sought by employers in some fields and areas, and oversupply of anything leads to reduced price, meaning wages here.  Third, of course, is foreign competition.  I'm making sure my kids go to college, and I'm encouraging them to pursue valuable degrees.  I do not want aspiring sociologists in my house.  Even with that, I know that they face a more competitive job market than I did when I left school not too long ago.

Federal tax policy is only a small part of the equation for building for the future, as your very own example of Pittsburgh shows.  Local policies and state tax policies - which may involve tax incentives - are crucial to enticing new, 'desirable' employers to come to specific areas.  It can and occasionally does set up competition between cities and states.  DC certainly has a role to play, but it's much smaller than in other areas. 



And to make that totally sure he's appointing an Education secretary who's going to gut the system.


This is a fundamentally contrafactual statement.  The overwhelming majority of education funding (ie, 90%+) in the US, for all levels of education, comes from state and local governments.  As every president since Carter has learned, local politicians, even of the liberal variety, resent federal involvement in education and push back against almost every initiative, save for federal money with no strings attached.  States like California and Texas routinely have a larger practical impact on schools by way of certain activities (eg, textbook purchases, which then help determine textbook content) than the federal government does.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 03, 2016, 08:01:06 AM

     What will happen when Red zone Trump voters figure out that the safety net barely holding them together is going to be ripped asunder by their champion and his "outsider" minions? You can't be low information enough to entirely avoid connecting Trump to the consequence of his policies. He is turning over the government and policy direction to the people that his voters condemn, rightly, for increasing their misery, to bankruptcy and foreclosure wizards, to a wingnut anti-vaxxer doctor.

     Privatization would have no advocates if it did not do the harm it was intended to inflict. It's not a better way to achieve a public purpose, it's a denial of the value of public purposes. Now every privatizer in the country that hasn't personally offended Trump will get the chance to inject poison into the system from a vantage point that isn't supposed to exist. Thing is, destroying the concept and reality of public purpose is the most "public purposey" thing I can imagine, like democratically voting in a tyranny.

     Back to the question of what will happen when Trumpists learn how they are betrayed, it may be not so different than the recent past. Trump was elected out of despair and desperation, so he will be only the latest in a long succession of bait and switchers.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2016, 08:13:53 AM
Back to the question of what will happen when Trumpists learn how they are betrayed, it may be not so different than the recent past. Trump was elected out of despair and desperation, so he will be only the latest in a long succession of bait and switchers.


On another forum, I saw a pithy description of what may happen: we are trying right wing populism now.  It will fail.  Next, we will try left-wing populism.  It, too, will fail.  What comes after that may be worse.  (Of course, it may be better.)

It is worth paying attention to the cynical nature of promise fulfillment underway.  Congress will vote on an Obamacare repeal, but the timeline associated with repeal today is set at three years, which means that Republicans can have their political cake and eat it, too; they can say they took action while still attacking it in 2018.  Then the delay could be extended, or actual replacement could occur.  Similarly, one can see cynicism in action with the Carrier deal.  UT wanted to preserve the juicy plum of defense contracts so agreed to keep some jobs in exchange for paltry tax incentives.  I expect more dog and pony show deals like this.  It is possible that Trump and crew could engineer enough such deals to sway future elections.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 03, 2016, 09:23:03 AM
Sarah Palin blasts Carrier deal. (http://www.youngcons.com/sarah-palin-but-wait-the-good-guys-wont-win-with-more-crony-capitalism/) 

Awesome!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 03, 2016, 09:54:12 AM
Hard to catch up with all the recent dubious statements, tweets, style and apparent decisions from the President-Elect.
Personally, I´m mostly taking a break from the course of events.

This must be why he is eschewing more frequent intel briefings.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 03, 2016, 11:48:08 AM

     The North Carolina GOP Has a New Suppression Tactic: Voter Defamation (https://newrepublic.com/article/139111/north-carolina-gop-new-suppression-tactic-voter-defamation)

     This is not an abuse the Repubs are going to grow out of. It's going to get worse everywhere the Repub state parties can get away with it. It has to, because if they don't invalidate as many votes as they can Repubs will never again get close to 2 million votes behind the Dems. Never mind Trump, the base is going away, and the Electoral College is going to go, too. It's only justifiable if anomalies are rare enough to be anomalies. If, as I think is the case, the EC is not only intended to be antidemocratic but is functionally so to the point of tipping elections predictably away from the majority vote getter, it can't survive as it is. Some way must be found to make the majority vote getter the winner. And that is what Repubs are trying to prevent, because they can't win otherwise, and they know it, they really really know it.

     
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: BasilValentine on December 03, 2016, 06:19:06 PM
Trump cannot turn the giant aircraft carrier of entrenched Washington culture on a dime.  It will take some time before he can make a dint in the so-called swamp.

So you think he actually cares about draining a swamp, huh? I'm curious as to why you think that bit of campaign rhetoric meant more to him than the other bits he has already forgotten about.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Tritone on December 03, 2016, 06:47:52 PM
So you think he actually cares about draining a swamp, huh? I'm curious as to why you think that bit of campaign rhetoric meant more to him than the other bits he has already forgotten about.

Of course Trump will pike out on his promises!!  And, yes, the people will be disappointed.  But the rump of middle America voted for him in protest more than anything else.  Is there anybody who seriously believed a wall would be constructed over thousands of km of America?  I didn't.  Not for one minute.

Trump's election was the American people saying they've had a gutful of divisive identity politics, victimhood and grievance, teeny boppers and their safe spaces, Thought Police and a President who has effectively become a 'food stamps' distributors.  Sure, he looks good in his suits and talks well, but that's NOT ENOUGH!!  The middle class have had it with that guy and his party.  And the same thing is happening around many countries.  We await Austria's new President to see if they've moved more to the Right.

I always thought the American people faced a Hobson's Choice and I don't believe it can be 'great again', but the schadenfreude of seeing Clinton return to the bat-cave - and the people facing a 4 year pant-suits-free polity - is worth all the grief!!  I was going to kill somebody if I heard her shriek again, "some little girl....glass ceiling".

America was late to the party anyway;  most other nations have had female leaders long ago.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 04, 2016, 08:00:52 AM


Trump's election was the American people saying they've had a gutful of divisive identity politics, victimhood and grievance, teeny boppers and their safe spaces, Thought Police and a President who has effectively become a 'food stamps' distributors.  Sure, he looks good in his suits and talks well, but that's NOT ENOUGH!!  The middle class have had it with that guy and his party.  And the same thing is happening around many countries. 

     This is wrong. You are adopting the self serving interp of Trump himself. He's a champion bullshitter, and this is champion bullshit.

     I'll give you the real deal. People are not sick of Obama. They are not sick of liberal policies, they are sick of the way it doesn't help them. When people get jobs from liberal policies they don't bother being annoyed by diversity and the penumbra of identity politics, but when economic policy can't reach them everything is intolerable.  It's often been said that liberalism can only be founded on the success of its economic program, because only optimism can sustain social advance of the kind liberals want. The status quo liberalism of the Dems has not broken through to the people who need it most. It's defensive and tends too much to congratulate itself for good intentions.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 04, 2016, 12:59:41 PM
Trump's election was the American people saying they've had a gutful of divisive identity politics, victimhood and grievance,

you've got to be kidding.

Trump's election was about white middle-aged identity politics and the grievance of the country being overrun by non-white rapists and burglars.

 
Quote
I was going to kill somebody if I heard her shriek again, "some little girl....glass ceiling".

Why is that? You'd rather hear Trump scream through his entire convention speech, about an hour of bellowing how "I alone I can fix it".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Tritone on December 04, 2016, 01:05:45 PM
     This is wrong. You are adopting the self serving interp of Trump himself. He's a champion bullshitter, and this is champion bullshit.

     I'll give you the real deal. People are not sick of Obama. They are not sick of liberal policies, they are sick of the way it doesn't help them. When people get jobs from liberal policies they don't bother being annoyed by diversity and the penumbra of identity politics, but when economic policy can't reach them everything is intolerable.  It's often been said that liberalism can only be founded on the success of its economic program, because only optimism can sustain social advance of the kind liberals want. The status quo liberalism of the Dems has not broken through to the people who need it most. It's defensive and tends too much to congratulate itself for good intentions.

And this is precisely the kind of response you expect from people who get their world view from CNN, The New York Times, Huffington Post, Guardian etc.  Living in a bubble and getting your world view from the media is not now and never should be confused with real life experience out there in the 'burbs with ordinary people.  They are the ones fed up with the things I've written about.  You need to wait and see what Rachel Maddow says about that so that you can formulate another response, as time goes on.

We in the real world know there is SO much more to life than urban bubbles and the things which concern folks in universities and other government-funded institutions.  It's called "propaganda".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 04, 2016, 02:26:43 PM
There are still people who say "we in the real world" unironically and with a straight face?

What kind of classical music do you like, btw?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 04, 2016, 04:22:26 PM
There are still people who say "we in the real world" unironically and with a straight face?

What kind of classical music do you like, btw?

Out of 28 posts, the diabolus in musica has posted exactly two tiny ones about music.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on December 04, 2016, 04:29:11 PM
To be fair, their concern isn't the economy per se; it's that people who aren't white males are starting to get equitable representation, it's no longer quite as socially acceptable to express the social and cultural views they hold, and the global economy doesn't work the way it did in the 1950s anymore. So what they're doing across the US and Europe and Australia (and probably Canada and New Zealand in a few years) is desperately trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube, even though they know it's just going to get everywhere and make a huge mess. But they don't really care if everyone gets fucked over, so long as they know that white men will continue to maintain the privileges they've become accustomed to—to be honest actually a lot of them want everyone to get fucked over for that reason. (Almost all the people I know who are like "we have to burn down, like, the entire system, duuuude" are white guys who put questionable substances in their brownies and own between 10 and 700 firearms.) Puts women/refugees/gays/immigrants/muslims/blacks/whatever the fuck back in their place because even if I'm suffering just as much as them, at least my government represents me and is going to prioritise my well-being over theirs.
And we have an example of our very own on this forum now it seems.

What do you prefer in your brownies Tritone, sativa or indica?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Tritone on December 04, 2016, 11:56:31 PM
And we have an example of our very own on this forum now it seems.

What do you prefer in your brownies Tritone, sativa or indica?

Such bullying anger and aggression.  And any deviation from group-think won't be tolerated.  Now that's tolerance for you!!!  From a bunch who wouldn't know real tolerance if they stumbled over it.

Classic storm-trooper behaviour from the Left:  shout at people and threaten them that if they don't comply with YOUR view of the universe there'll be consequences.  Again, this is why you got Trump.  That you just don't get it is neither here nor there.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on December 05, 2016, 01:43:03 AM
You should probably try indica instead. Sounds like the sativa is messing with your head a bit.

I know a guy down on 4th Street who's got some dank shit, I can hook you up.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 05, 2016, 07:50:17 AM
And this is precisely the kind of response you expect from people who get their world view from CNN, The New York Times, Huffington Post, Guardian etc.  Living in a bubble and getting your world view from the media is not now and never should be confused with real life experience out there in the 'burbs with ordinary people.  They are the ones fed up with the things I've written about.  You need to wait and see what Rachel Maddow says about that so that you can formulate another response, as time goes on.

We in the real world know there is SO much more to life than urban bubbles and the things which concern folks in universities and other government-funded institutions.  It's called "propaganda".

     I don't think you are understanding what white identity and grievance politics is if you think it's a reaction to the success of liberalism where it has succeeded. Life in Red America is not bad because life in Blue urban America is full of identity politics and safe spaces, those features are hated as symbols of how the Reds are excluded economically and culturally, how Reds want what Blues have.

     This is an old story, of city and country, of town and gown, and an art form, the novel, has been dedicated in large part to telling it.

     I don't get my views from a particular source. I also have ideas and experiences to base them on.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 08:09:57 AM
and the Electoral College is going to go, too.



When and how?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 05, 2016, 08:47:09 AM


When and how?

    I don't know. It's not just a question of producing minority winners, though that is itself a problem when it happens twice in 16 years. More damaging is the magnitude of the popular vote win for HRC, now about 2.5 million votes. That's a heavy toll to pay to entrench a minority. The EC was supposed to bind the country by making elections national and not regional. It doesn't do that, so there's no reason for it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 05, 2016, 08:59:13 AM
I think proclamations about the demise of the Electoral College are unlikely to come to fruition.  However, even if our method of electing presidents were to change to a popular vote victory - it would not automatically give Democrats an inherent advantage.

I have faith in candidates to campaign effectively and the electorate to adjust to the reality of a popular vote decision and some years a Democrat will win and other years a Republican will win just like today based on those candidates political gifts and message, as well as, how we react to the previous office holder and his record. 

I do not think a popular vote contest for president is as good as the one we have, but I think Liberals are hunting snipe with this latest idea of ditching the EC.
The principal problem with that system as currently constituted comes to light when the Electoral College vote goes one way and the popular one the other, as in the most recent election; I can well understand some Republican, Democrat and Independent supporters harbouring reservations about the seemingly self-contradictory nature of that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 09:00:27 AM
    I don't know. It's not just a question of producing minority winners, though that is itself a problem when it happens twice in 16 years. More damaging is the magnitude of the popular vote win for HRC, now about 2.5 million votes. That's a heavy toll to pay to entrench a minority. The EC was supposed to bind the country by making elections national and not regional. It doesn't do that, so there's no reason for it.


There have been five instances in US history where the candidate with the most votes didn't win the presidency.  It happened twice in twelve years in the 19th Century (1876 and 1888), and Samuel Tilden won an actual majority.  There have been literally hundreds of attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College since the ratification of the 12th Amendment.  Since only thirteen (small and/or Republican) states are needed to block an amendment, change at the national level is a non-starter.  Go-getter Dems had better focus on state laws if they want change.  The Electoral College will not be abolished or fundamentally altered in my statistically probable lifetime.  This time is not different.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 05, 2016, 09:27:58 AM

There have been five instances in US history where the candidate with the most votes didn't win the presidency.  It happened twice in twelve years in the 19th Century (1876 and 1888), and Samuel Tilden won an actual majority.  There have been literally hundreds of attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College since the ratification of the 12th Amendment.  Since only thirteen (small and/or Republican) states are needed to block an amendment, change at the national level is a non-starter.  Go-getter Dems had better focus on state laws if they want change.  The Electoral College will not be abolished or fundamentally altered in my statistically probable lifetime.  This time is not different.
I'm not so sure of that. For one thing, 5 out of 45 is a pretty small proportion, so it's not without its significance, Furthermore, we're most of us probably about to enter more of an "anything goes" - or at least an unprecedentedly uncertain - set of scenarios than ever before where major countries' national elections and their outcomes and consequences are concerned; one has only to consider the last couple of days' events in Italy and Austria following on from the surprise Brexit opinion poll and Trump election, the possible relationships between Trump's US and NATO / China / Russia, the possible threat from the last of these to Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, the impending Court cases surrounding Brexit procedures in UK and next year's elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands whose outcomes might well further destabilise EU (to say nothing of what continues to worsen in parts of the Middle East) to appreciate that the "time" is getting very "different" indeed and what it will likely bring will almost certainly impact fundamentally upon many aspects of life in many countries, including their electoral procedures.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 09:37:32 AM
I'm not so sure of that. For one thing, 5 out of 45 is a pretty small proportion, so it's not without its significance, Furthermore, we're most of us probably about to enter more of an "anything goes" - or at least an unprecedentedly uncertain - set of scenarios than ever before where major countries' national elections and their outcomes and consequences are concerned; one has only to consider the last couple of days' events in Italy and Austria following on from the surprise Brexit opinion poll and Trump election, the possible relationships between Trump's US and NATO / China / Russia, the possible threat from the last of these to Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, the impending Court cases surrounding Brexit procedures in UK and next year's elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands whose outcomes might well further destabilise EU (to say nothing of what continues to worsen in parts of the Middle East) to appreciate that the "time" is getting very "different" indeed and what it will likely bring will almost certainly impact fundamentally upon many aspects of life in many countries, including their electoral procedures.


Literally nothing you wrote changes the established fact that amending the US Constitution is exceptionally difficult.  On purpose.  It has happened only seventeen times since the Bill of Rights was ratified, and the last amendment that was ratified took over 200 years to be ratified.  (Most amendments have a finite timeline and so die relatively quickly.)  It is easy to think of thirteen state legislatures that would not approve an amendment.  It's even easier to see any such an amendment not getting the necessary two-thirds vote in each house in Congress, even with Dems in the majority.  No, anything doesn't go.  Again, it is possible to change state level election laws, but that will be an exceptionally tough slog, too, especially with Republicans in charge of the majority of statehouses. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 09:48:59 AM
Quote
The voter-registration process in almost all states runs on the honor system.


True.  A local radio station had an on-air discussion with an official from the Washington State Secretary of State's office, and he admitted the same thing on-air.  He was asked if anyone had ever been prosecuted for illegal voting, and he could cite one recent case where a citizen voted twice in two jurisdictions after moving residences.  He admitted that there was no way to know for sure how many people may be doing similar things, or how many non-citizens may vote, but he felt - and the state's official position is line with his opinion (as it is in most or all states, I suspect) - that the possible felony charges for engaging in electoral fraud represent a sufficient deterrent to prevent statistically significant voter fraud.  I agree with that assessment.  If evidence arises that shows this to not be the case, then a more thorough revamping of voting requirements may be needed.  We definitely don't want to see a repeat of Lyndon Johnson's first Senate win anywhere else, but preemptive attempts to address a phantom menace strike me as too anti-democratic.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 05, 2016, 09:52:42 AM
I think proclamations about the demise of the Electoral College are unlikely to come to fruition.  However, even if our method of electing presidents were to change to a popular vote victory - it would not automatically give Democrats an inherent advantage.


     Of course it wouldn't give the Dems an inherent advantage. I oppose inherent advantages. Votes should have roughly equal weight. The EC is no longer producing anomalous results, they are now predictable.

     I don't buy any argument that requires you to know who it favors first before you make it. I do not want to "reform" the Dems to victory. Anomalies and inequalities are only tolerable to the extent that they are unpredictable and random, and they no longer can be seen that way. However legit the EC was, it isn't no more.


There have been five instances in US history where the candidate with the most votes didn't win the presidency.  It happened twice in twelve years in the 19th Century (1876 and 1888), and Samuel Tilden won an actual majority.  There have been literally hundreds of attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College since the ratification of the 12th Amendment.  Since only thirteen (small and/or Republican) states are needed to block an amendment, change at the national level is a non-starter.  Go-getter Dems had better focus on state laws if they want change.  The Electoral College will not be abolished or fundamentally altered in my statistically probable lifetime.  This time is not different.

     So the EC can't be abolished. Is that it's biggest problem, that the same forces that benefit most from its undemocratic bias will block efforts to reform away their advantage?

     
As has been pointed out, the fact that it is possible for there to be conflict between the EC and popular vote outcomes it is not evidence of a inherent flaw in the system.  It does not happen often enough for there to be a convincing case for abandoning the method of electing presidents which has served us well for 57 presidental elections.

      I don't know how you arrived at a definition of inherent flaw that excludes the kind of result this election produced, or the Tilden/Hayes result for that matter. The problem is that in order for you to claim no inherent flaw you'd have to show it doesn't matter for democratic governance that voters in densely populated regions should suffer a disability that is nonrandom and frequent. It matters not at all that this is "nothing new under the sun". That does not make it bearable, or provide justification.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 10:01:03 AM
Quote
A 2014 study by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University used extensive survey data to estimate that 6.4% of the nation’s noncitizens voted in 2008 and that 2.2% voted in 2010. This study has been criticized by many academics who claim that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. Yet the Heritage Foundation maintains a list of more than 700 recent convictions for voter fraud.


It would be interesting to examine the methodology used by the three professors mentioned, and then to see if their data squares with existing voting records. 

The 700 convictions, however, simply reinforces the statistical insignificance of voter fraud, unless they are in a geographically isolated area in a short period of time (say, 1-2 election cycles).



So the EC can't be abolished. Is that it's biggest problem, that the same forces that benefit most from its undemocratic bias will block efforts to reform away their advantage?


I don't see a problem with the Electoral College.  If election outcomes are deemed a significant enough issue, and in need of change, and there is sufficient support in the country as a whole for reform or abolition at the national level, then the change can happen, just like when 18 year olds got the right to vote.  If there is not sufficient support, it will die, like the ERA.  That's how the system is designed to work. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 05, 2016, 10:06:30 AM

Literally nothing you wrote changes the established fact that amending the US Constitution is exceptionally difficult.  On purpose.  It has happened only seventeen times since the Bill of Rights was ratified, and the last amendment that was ratified took over 200 years to be ratified.  (Most amendments have a finite timeline and so die relatively quickly.)  It is easy to think of thirteen state legislatures that would not approve an amendment.  It's even easier to see any such an amendment not getting the necessary two-thirds vote in each house in Congress, even with Dems in the majority.  No, anything doesn't go.  Again, it is possible to change state level election laws, but that will be an exceptionally tough slog, too, especially with Republicans in charge of the majority of statehouses.
I think that you may be somewhat over-complacent in terms of what might happen in America (and elsewhere) to electoral process, presumably on the basis of precedent; I would assume no such thing as the kind of stability in which you appear to place such precedent-based faith.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 10:09:44 AM
I think that you may be somewhat over-complacent in terms of what might happen in America (and elsewhere) to electoral process, presumably on the basis of precedent; I would assume no such thing as the kind of stability in which you appear to place such precedent-based faith.


You seem to be relying on ignorance of the US system and irrational fear in formulating your assessment of what might happen.  Can you elaborate as to what might happen in the US that would result in a swift change to the Electoral College, or the electoral system more generally?  Are you hinting at the probability of violent revolution or civil war, perhaps?  If so, we ain't there yet.

I'm less concerned about electoral systems in countries other than the US.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 05, 2016, 10:20:33 AM



I don't see a problem with the Electoral College.  If election outcomes are deemed a significant enough issue, and in need of change, and there is sufficient support in the country as a whole for reform or abolition at the national level, then the change can happen, just like when 18 year olds got the right to vote.  If there is not sufficient support, it will die, like the ERA.  That's how the system is designed to work. 

   That's too Panglossian for me. The system is designed to work for people who think it is not the best of all possible worlds just because we have the system. There must be people who think there should be a way that the system works, not merely be content with how the system is designed. I do have faith in the general outline of a constitutional democracy, because it does offer ways to get desired change, not just as an admirable design but in order for it to be used to create trigger warnings and transgender bathroom privileges and other impositions on the sensibilities of grumpy white people.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 10:33:46 AM
That's too Panglossian for me.


It's not Panglossian at all, just a recognition that first, whatever mechanism that might be designed to utilize the popular vote to elect a President in all 50 states plus DC would have its own practical limitations, and second, the President isn't all that.  True, both parties have expanded the power of the President too much - and in an ideal world the office would be cut down to size - but on domestic matters, the office is limited, whether or not the person wins the largest number of votes.  Again, if enough people deem the Electoral College to be in bad enough shape to warrant a sprucing up or removal, it will happen.  It hasn't happened yet.  It won't happen soon.  It may never happen.

As to grumpy white people, more is coming.  Here's a non-Panglossian prognostication for you: racial politics will become more important as time goes on, and when whites do become the minority, they will still be the largest group by over twenty percentage points, at least if the Census Bureau is to be believed, so divide and conquer politics will become the even more obvious norm.  Or you can look at it this way, Trump is the first, but he may not be the worst.  That's not a good thing, in case you need such reassurance.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 05, 2016, 10:38:08 AM


Alleging that densely populated regions have suffered a disability from a president elected by the EC is not proof of anything untoward with our system, just that states who have a majority population of the party opposing the president's are often unhappy with the policies emanating from Washington.



    I was right, you don't understand what I'm saying. It's not a partisan advantage that I'm seeking, it's the removal of a partisan advantage that can't be justified. I note that people satisfied with the EC offer no support for it. That's different. In the past there were arguments about how the EC nationalized elections and overcame excessive regionalism, and one could see how that might be so. I may have even made such an argument myself. There not a shred of justification for that idealistic view left, so it's no wonder you don't make it. Or perhaps I should say it's no wonder I don't make it.

    If I was advising Dems I'd say they should pursue a "let every vote count" strategy and not narrowly focus on the EC, but I'd allow the EC to be in there with opposition to gerrymandering. I value the latter very highly, not least because the Dems benefit (narrowly) from their own gerrymandering. Taking the high ground on the value of votes in their own regions would do them credit, in the Darwinian "being good in order to seem good" kind of way. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/smiley.gif)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 10:42:45 AM
If I was advising Dems I'd say they should pursue a "let every vote count" strategy and not narrowly focus on the EC, but I'd allow the EC to be in there with opposition to gerrymandering.



How do you reconcile your professed "let every vote count" strategy and/or ideal with the existence of the Senate? 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 05, 2016, 10:43:35 AM
I have / had no time reading the last two pages of this thread.

I have only one question:

Is the President of the United of States different from the President of the American People?

If yes, then the Electoral College should stay.

If no, then the Electoral College should go.

 ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 05, 2016, 11:49:56 AM


I think proclamations about the demise of the Electoral College are unlikely to come to fruition.


So think I.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 05, 2016, 11:51:23 AM


...  Since only thirteen (small and/or Republican) states are needed to block an amendment, change at the national level is a non-starter.  Go-getter Dems had better focus on state laws if they want change.  The Electoral College will not be abolished or fundamentally altered in my statistically probable lifetime.  This time is not different.


Agreed.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 05, 2016, 12:17:30 PM
As I said, your problem with the EC is because you think that Republicans have benefitted at the expense of Democrats.

Yes! This is exactly the problem.  A more accurate observation is that we have a system that benefits rural America over urban America and rural America has told urban American to drop dead.

One of the aspects of the election that really bothers me is that conservatives suffer from the delusion that they are carrying out the will of GOD.

We liberals have been told we are wrong about everything.  Well we have to learn how to fight back in order to protect our rights for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" since you do not think we have any.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2016, 12:24:55 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38167022 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38167022)

"Trump attacks China in Twitter outburst"

Any comment/spin from the Trump fans? He's helping rural whites by arranging for then to be with Jesus?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2016, 12:44:33 PM
The headline is hyperbolic.  Try to get a grip.

Ah. The head-in-sand, La-La-everything's-fine approach. Of course.

This doesn't seem like frighteningly childish sabre-rattling with another nuclear power? Well, I guess that's a relief.

And what's all this "Did China ask us if it was okay...I don't think so!" business? Didn't he campaign as an isolationist?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 12:48:57 PM
Yes! This is exactly the problem.  A more accurate observation is that we have a system that benefits rural America over urban America and rural America has told urban American to drop dead.

One of the aspects of the election that really bothers me is that conservatives suffer from the delusion that they are carrying out the will of GOD.

We liberals have been told we are wrong about everything.  Well we have to learn how to fight back in order to protect our rights for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" since you do not think we have any.


A fairly typical type of response from certain types of American liberals after this election.  Clinton's team ran a losing campaign that did not adjust to the realities on the ground.  The incontrovertible evidence is that Dems lost the Electoral College vote.  I'm guessing people eager to run the 2020 Democratic campaign are adjusting course. 



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38167022 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38167022)

"Trump attacks China in Twitter outburst"

Any comment/spin from the Trump fans? He's helping rural whites by arranging for then to be with Jesus?


Not a Trump fan, but:

Depending on how one looks at it, it was either a foolish blunder - which means one must believe that the coordination necessary between the Taiwanese President and the US President-Elect didn't occur - or this signals a publicly tougher stance against China.  Given that 1.) Trump railed against China during his campaign, and 2.) a fair number of military leaders in the US want to take a harder line against China regarding Taiwan (an aircraft carrier permanently stationed off China's coast in MacArthur's assessment) and Chinese action in the South China Sea, in particular, I lean more toward a purposeful pre-administration provocation/posturing/trial balloon.  Of course, I also don't think Trump or his senior advisors are idiots, so those who do hold such a view will probably opt for the first option.  (Oh, yes, and though it doesn't matter in the least, Mitch McConnell's wife, the next Transportation Secretary, is from Taiwan.)



This doesn't seem like frighteningly childish sabre-rattling with another nuclear power?


No, it doesn't.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 12:54:38 PM
Trump is not as much of a globalist as Obama, but that does not make him an isolationist.


One could even say that Trump is ramping up Obama's vaunted pivot to Asia.  I would have preferred the TPP route, but whatcha gonna do?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2016, 12:58:59 PM

If you think his tweets will cause a nuclear war, you are delusional.

I don't think his tweets will, I'm concerned about a prolonged series of diplomatic blunders to which these will contribute, and about insomnia-fueled statements made without council and senior policy advice.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: knight66 on December 05, 2016, 01:00:44 PM
I have deleted the account of Tritone. The sole reason was his complete disinclination to engage with the main aim of the site, IE discussing music. He had been prompted by a number of you, but showed no signs of spreading his wings. There has long been a consensus here that people earn the right to discuss controversial topics via a track record of posting on the musical threads.

Knight
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 01:01:28 PM
I don't think his tweets will, I'm concerned about a prolonged series of diplomatic blunders to which these will contribute, and about statements made without council and senior policy advice.


How do you know he is not getting senior policy advice from the people he wants advice from?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 05, 2016, 01:04:51 PM

How do you know he is not getting senior policy advice from the people he wants advice from?

From the form and substance of his tweets. (his tweets, ferchrissakes - is this what its come to?)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 05, 2016, 01:06:29 PM
I believe in climate change.

I believe in a women's right to choose.

I believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

If that makes me a liberal, sore loser, crybaby, so be it   >:(

According to the polls I have seen most Americans believe in all of the above.  But apparently we do not have the right to complain that most Trumpsters  do not.  We are supposed to lamely play dead because we now have an administration that denies all of these.  Carson who believes the world is 10,000 years old is nominated to run HUD?  But no liberal democrat has the right to question this because of God and the infallibility of the Electoral College.

WOOF! WOOF!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 05, 2016, 01:11:14 PM
From the form and substance of his tweets. (his tweets, ferchrissakes - is this what its come to?)


Substance and tweets in the same sentence?  I have a sneaking suspicion Chinese leaders may end up paying more attention to other forms of communication.



apparently we do not have the right to complain that most Trumpsters  do not.  We are supposed to lamely play dead because we now have an administration that denies all of these.  Carson who believes the world is 10,000 years old is nominated to run HUD?  But no liberal democrat has the right to question this because of God and the infallibility of the Electoral College.


American liberals can complain - but they should expect counter-complaints; no one expects Dems to play dead - quite the contrary; Carson is an odd-duck - complain away; the Electoral College is fallible (Jackson didn't get in his first try) and god may not exist. 

Any other drama queen proclamations?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on December 05, 2016, 01:36:57 PM
I believe in climate change.But apparently we do not have the right to complain that most Trumpsters  do not.  We are supposed to lamely play dead because we now have an administration that denies all of these.
I mean, or you could talk to these people (https://www.democrats.org/) and see if there's anything you could do to help them. >____>
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 05, 2016, 02:39:17 PM

Substance and tweets in the same sentence?  I have a sneaking suspicion Chinese leaders may end up paying more attention to other forms of communication.




American liberals can complain - but they should expect counter-complaints; no one expects Dems to play dead - quite the contrary; Carson is an odd-duck - complain away; the Electoral College is fallible (Jackson didn't get in his first try) and god may not exist. 

Any other drama queen proclamations?

Woof! Woof!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on December 05, 2016, 07:41:38 PM
As to Trump and AGW
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/05/ivanka-trump-to-meet-with-al-gore-to-discuss-climate-issues/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.b24d1481baa0
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 05, 2016, 10:21:34 PM

You seem to be relying on ignorance of the US system and irrational fear in formulating your assessment of what might happen.  Can you elaborate as to what might happen in the US that would result in a swift change to the Electoral College, or the electoral system more generally?  Are you hinting at the probability of violent revolution or civil war, perhaps?  If so, we ain't there yet.

I'm less concerned about electoral systems in countries other than the US.
You would therefore do well to give some credence to the possibility that, if and when electoral systems and procedures in certain other countries change as a consequence of the outcome of increasing instabilities, some impact on US, whilst not inevitable, is hardly impossible. I was not referring specifically to the abolition of the Electoral College system - more to the fact that events inside and outside US might impact more fundamentally on its electoral systems and procedures; in so saying, I am not necessarily referring to violent revolution or civil war as a probability as such (although neither can sensibly be discounted) - more to the fact that the Trump "victory" and what is happening in parts of Europe are all suggestive of actual or perceive discontent with the status quo - the "establishment" - and who known where the gradual growth and spread of that kind of thing might lead? The assumption that US is and will remain somehow inured to what goes on elsewhere in the world sounds to me like an example of complacent isolationism.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Monsieur Croche on December 05, 2016, 11:56:13 PM
From the form and substance of his tweets. (his tweets, ferchrissakes - is this what its come to?)

A-yep :-/

He's a tweeter/twitterer, and he went on a veritable storm last weekend, covering sundry topics of politics, business, etc, while all those tweets seem to have equal weight and no more substance than his 'critique' of Saturday Night Live and Alec Baldwin's latest installment of Trump parodies.

http://news.groopspeak.com/a-woman-just-stood-up-to-trumps-latest-outburst-on-twitter-and-america-is-cheering-her-on/

Seriously, it seems like he never really wanted the job as much as the attention and the ratings (as if it was all a PR blitz, and him thinking it was about winning an Emmy.)

I mean, Clinton was/is nasty and a complete anathema to me... I've never trusted her for one moment, while for this election it seems the rebubbalicans were willing to prop up just any random piece of sh__ and back it as long as it brought their party to power, discriminating about everything else center and left while not scrutinizing their candidate at all.  (Truth be told, the democrats were not much better and not far behind the reBubbalicans in this regard -- neither the Bubbas or the Emos having much of a shred of integrity or dignity left, lol.)

Well, there is always prayer, for both the United States and the Global Economy....


Always best regards.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 06, 2016, 01:04:56 AM
Quote from: Christopher Suprun
I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2016, 04:29:52 AM
Saw this Op-Ed last night; I kind of feel sorry for the guy.  The Constitution allows for this, but I doubt many will follow his lead.  There is something rather convincing about the results of a democratic election.

I do wonder: is it constitutional, ie theoretically possible, that the EC choose as President someone who has not won one single popular vote because he hasn´t run, like Kasich? Has it ever happened? Actually, has it ever happened that the EC did not finally vote for the winner of their votes?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2016, 04:45:54 AM
The electors are not bound by the result of the election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector), this is how the Constitution is written.  It has never happened that the EC chose someone other than the winner of the election.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on December 06, 2016, 04:46:06 AM
Saw this Op-Ed last night; I kind of feel sorry for the guy.  The Constitution allows for this, but I doubt many will follow his lead.  There is something rather convincing about the results of a democratic election.
Yes, but if it hadn't been for all the lies and deliberate misinformation on the Internett, Russian meddling, defective poll machines, gerrymandering etc etc etc it would have been easier to be convinced.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 06, 2016, 05:37:47 AM


How do you reconcile your professed "let every vote count" strategy and/or ideal with the existence of the Senate? 

      If we get as far as reforming the EC we don't have to tie it to the existence of the Senate. We can both allow the states to be represented through the Senate and use citizen population alone to determine the makeup of the EC. We could use the most recent census to apportion electors from a fixed total, so that Presidents would be popularly elected. No state would have more than a slight advantage, say through a minimum number of electors, and if we wanted to reduce distortion we could have one fractional elector. Say the total number of electors was fixed at 500, with a fractional elector 2 states of roughly equal population could have 12.2 electors and 12.4.

     I watched Al Gore last night on MSNBC. He explained why he didn't oppose the EC after his loss, and to my unsurprise his reasons were the same as mine. He has changed his mind.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 06, 2016, 07:07:34 AM
At a Harvard University postelection conference last week, Trump campaign pollster Tony Fabrizio said the president-elect can’t be viewed through traditional “ideological lenses.”

I'm trying not to view him through the lenses of history but it's hard, man. Really hard.

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/w86kar.jpg)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 07:26:45 AM
The assumption that US is and will remain somehow inured to what goes on elsewhere in the world sounds to me like an example of complacent isolationism.


Ah, both bait and switch and straw man at once.  And not only do you switch from the Electoral College to the unrelated topic of foreign policy, you offer a false dichotomy, as well.  Good job!



If we get as far as reforming the EC we don't have to tie it to the existence of the Senate...


You didn't answer the question. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 06, 2016, 09:43:17 AM
Ah, both bait and switch and straw man at once.
How can "both" refer to three things?

Not that it's obvious (except perhaps to you) how any of them apply here.

My point was and is quite simply to counsel against anyone's complacency that just because this - including the Electoral College - is how things have been done in US for longer than any of us has been alive, that's how they'll almost certainly always be done.

And not only do you switch from the Electoral College to the unrelated topic of foreign policy, you offer a false dichotomy
As I stated, I did not and do not "switch" from the Electoral College issue but place it in the wider context of the changes that might be come to be imposed upon US both from the inside and the outside, not least because railing against what is rightly or wrongly perceived as "the political establishment" is gathering momentum in a number of places.

You didn't answer the question.
Which is hardly surprising since you didn't ask one and what I wrote was not intended to represent an answer to a question even had you done so.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 10:05:55 AM
Which is hardly surprising since you didn't ask one and what I wrote was not intended to represent an answer to a question even had you done so.


I was not commenting on your post.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 06, 2016, 10:06:48 AM
How can "both" refer to three things?

Coleridge has the answer. ;D

Farewell, farewell! but this I tell
To thee, thou Wedding-Guest!
He prayeth well, who loveth well
Both man and bird and beast.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 06, 2016, 10:14:03 AM

I was not commenting on your post.
Indeed you weren't at that point; apologies for the misunderstanding.

The member to whose post you were responding, however, mentions EU and its possible reform which is getting less likely by the minute and will continue to do so if UK does ultimately leave it; that said, if UK dithers around indecisively for much longer over Brexit as it has done so far and hardly looks set to change that particular habit, it might end up subjecting its taxpayers to a bill for squillions to leave an EU that no longer exists...
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 10:14:56 AM
Not that it's obvious (except perhaps to you) how any of them apply here.


Two things, not three:

1.) Bait and switch: the discussion was originally about the Electoral College, and then you switched to some nebulous concept about foreign policy and populism and what not. 

2.) Straw man: you reverted to using the phrase "complacent isolationism" when that was not even mentioned and is a classic straw man setup.  This does also happen to be a false dichotomy since it ignores a far more complicated array of foreign policy outlooks in the US.

In any event, I never wrote that the Electoral College will always exist.  That is a possibility, though.  No, what I wrote is that it will not be changed in my statistically probable lifetime.  The two ways to amend the Constitution do not offer workable paths now and will not given current political trends and observable demographic trends.  The only alternative is to scrap the whole system via violent revolution or civil war.  Or, of course, state level voting law changes.  Developments in Europe or elsewhere have no bearing on this practical reality.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 10:15:37 AM
The member to who post you were responding, however, mentions EU and its possible reform which is getting less likely by the minute and will continue to do so if UK does ultimately leave it; that said, if UK dithers around indecisively for much longer over Brexit as it has done so far and hardly looks set to change that particular habit, it might end up subjecting its taxpayers to a bill for squillions to leave an EU that no longer exists...


So?  That doesn't address my question.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 06, 2016, 10:19:12 AM
I may be a "drama queen", but at least I am a "drama queen" that believes in evolution   :laugh:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 10:20:18 AM
I may be a "drama queen", but at least I am a "drama queen" that believes in evolution   :laugh:


Who on this forum doesn't?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 06, 2016, 10:40:53 AM
I try only to keep abreast of developing reality of his transition and eventually his presidency.  I ignore the speculative hand-wringing by his Liberal critics, especially when Hitler or Nazis are invoked.

I sincerely hope your stance is the right one.

(it's not just Nazis, though.. ;) )

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2r44eo4.jpg)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 06, 2016, 10:42:55 AM
Two things, not three:

1.) Bait and switch: the discussion was originally about the Electoral College, and then you switched to some nebulous concept about foreign policy and populism and what not.
You did not clarify that these two were intended to be as one, any more than I "switched" to any "nebulous", still less non-existent, concept.

2.) Straw man: you reverted to using the phrase "complacent isolationism" when that was not even mentioned
Had it not been mentioned, how could I have "reverted" to it?!

cThis does also happen to be a false dichotomy since it ignores a far more complicated array of foreign policy outlooks in the US.[/quote]
It's nothing of the kind, since it was not intended to take account of any additional " far more complicated array of foreign policy outlooks in the US", however much of that there is and however complicated it may be.

In any event, I never wrote that the Electoral College will always exist.  That is a possibility, though.  No, what I wrote is that it will not be changed in my statistically probable lifetime.  The two ways to amend the Constitution do not offer workable paths now and will not given current political trends and observable demographic trends.  The only alternative is to scrap the whole system via violent revolution or civil war.  Or, of course, state level voting law changes.  Developments in Europe or elsewhere have no bearing on this practical reality.
I didn't suggest that you wrote that it will always exist. As to the rest, the sea-change of public opinion that is increasingly giving rise to anti-establishment voting could bring about all manner of changes in all manner of places and to suggest that what might happen in Europe could have no bearing on what happens in US is about as credible in our interconnected global village as to claim, as the old cliché once had it, that "when US sneezes, Britain catches a cold".

One might say "don't just be careful what you wish for, be careful also not to ignore what you don't".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 06, 2016, 10:44:22 AM
So?  That doesn't address my question.
I thought that you were asking someone else a question, not me; if you have one to ask of me, please ask it now.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 10:50:09 AM
As to the rest, the sea-change of public opinion that is increasingly giving rise to anti-establishment voting could bring about all manner of changes in all manner of places and to suggest that what might happen in Europe could have no bearing on what happens in US is about as credible in our interconnected global village as to claim, as the old cliché once had it, that "when US sneezes, Britain catches a cold".


This is all fine and dandy, I guess, but it offers no explanation for how global events might influence a change to the Electoral College.  Focusing on just that one thing, the Electoral College, can you please elaborate on how current political events outside the US will result in a dramatic speedup of the amendment process or some other alternative?  Keep in mind that it did not change during the two world wars.



I thought that you were asking someone else a question, not me; if you have one to ask of me, please ask it now.


I did.  Then you rambled on about unrelated things.  Feel free to go back and read the question I posed to drogulus and respond as you might.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 06, 2016, 11:00:28 AM


Stop acting like spoiled brats who did not get their way.  It is ineffectual and distracts you from what should be the real work ahead.



you remember, don't you, Trump saying he wasn't sure he was going to respect the election outcome if he did not win?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 11:03:25 AM
These somewhat embarassing threats to continue protests and people like David Brock pledging to mount a sustained attack on Trump with anything he can muster, not to mention the feckless electors trying to upend the results of the election -


Faith in faithless electors changing the outcome is especially delicious.  For a hearty laugh, read some articles about the 25th Amendment and how that can be used to unseat Trump if you have not already. 



you remember, don't you, Trump saying he wasn't sure he was going to respect the election outcome if he did not win?


I remember that.  I also recall a fair number of Democrats and others being appalled at that.  Yet some are now engaging in the very thing they previously decried.  It's all very entertaining.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 06, 2016, 12:25:08 PM

“Donald Trump is postideological,” he said. “His movement transcends ideology in a lot of respects.”

I'd read that as "serves no-ones interest but his own". Others, I think are reading it as "is a flip-flopper".

And you can't be "postidealogical" if most of your campaigning was done appealing to the worst aspects of nationalism.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 12:59:50 PM
And you can't be "postidealogical" if most of your campaigning was done appealing to the worst aspects of nationalism.


Quote from: President Barack Obama
I don't think he is ideological.  I think ultimately he is pragmatic in that way.


November 14, 2016.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 06, 2016, 01:18:44 PM
Isn't that Obama trying to make the best of a bad situation with a diplomatic choice of words, and ensure a smooth transition? Refer to everything he said about Trump during his campaigning for Clinton for the more frank assessment. But you must know that already, surely? You're just responding with that for your personal entertainment, aren't you? Oh, yes...its all so very, very entertaining.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 06, 2016, 01:24:22 PM
Oh, yes...its all so very, very entertaining.


Yes it is.  It is very entertaining to watch posters such as yourself fret and complain about Trump's flip-flopping and such forth, and then in the next post rationalize the exact same behavior by Obama.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: BasilValentine on December 06, 2016, 03:00:16 PM
I'm trying not to view him through the lenses of history but it's hard, man. Really hard.

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/w86kar.jpg)

Linguist Mark Lakoff, in an interview on NPR, made a similar point but goes a little further. He believes the purpose of Trump's extreme and absurd rhetoric is not to make any ideological point or to indicate or justify any particular course of action, but to establish and normalize his right to arbitrarily spew bullshit. Lakoff further asserts that even addressing the bullshit on its own terms plays into the bullshitter's hands. It is primarily and fundamentally an assault on rational discourse itself. Lakoff had some intelligent suggestions for confronting this strategy but, alas, I can't remember what they are. Wish I knew what written source he was elaborating.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 06, 2016, 11:57:47 PM
This is all fine and dandy, I guess, but it offers no explanation for how global events might influence a change to the Electoral College.  Focusing on just that one thing, the Electoral College, can you please elaborate on how current political events outside the US will result in a dramatic speedup of the amendment process or some other alternative?  Keep in mind that it did not change during the two world wars.
If global events - that's to say events within as well as outside US and most especially those arising from popular discontent with what is deemed to be the "political establishment" - continue to expand exponentially, the entire fabric of US as we know and have known it could ultimately collapse, in which case not merely be the Electoral College system but the electoral system in its entirety, along with much else that Americans have long taken for granted, could be at risk, so that Electoral College system could find itself washed away in the overall political/electoral tsunami; again, I'm no more saying that this WILL happen than you are suggesting that it will NEVER happen. What happened during two world wars, grave as it all was, affected US less than many other places partly because of its comparatively limited involvement in them; what we may be facing now is something far more globally involving than anything that occurred during those wars.

I did.  Then you rambled on about unrelated things.  Feel free to go back and read the question I posed to drogulus and respond as you might.
Ah, so you didn't ask me a question then; fine. That's cleared that up. Nothing that I wrote "rambled" about anything and your the apparent complacency of your presumed belief in its being "unrelated" to electoral issues in US, whilst your prerogative, is arguably misplaced.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 09:25:29 AM
If global events - that's to say events within as well as outside US and most especially those arising from popular discontent with what is deemed to be the "political establishment" - continue to expand exponentially, the entire fabric of US as we know and have known it could ultimately collapse, in which case not merely be the Electoral College system but the electoral system in its entirety, along with much else that Americans have long taken for granted, could be at risk, so that Electoral College system could find itself washed away in the overall political/electoral tsunami; again, I'm no more saying that this WILL happen than you are suggesting that it will NEVER happen. What happened during two world wars, grave as it all was, affected US less than many other places partly because of its comparatively limited involvement in them; what we may be facing now is something far more globally involving than anything that occurred during those wars.


Ah, I see, so stuff happens outside the US that will affect the US.  Got it.  You didn't answer the question, though.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 07, 2016, 09:29:39 AM
I think I may have mentioned this in another thread.  I apologize if I am being redundant.

I have been discussing this with my friends and we all acknowledge that based on our system Trump won the election.  Although we like to complain about it, and for some bizarre reason Trumpsters seem to be offended about us complaining about it, we know the electoral college is not going away.

One of the things that concerns us is that the Trumpsters are treating this election as if it is a mandate for their agenda.  According to the lasts results Clinton has won the popular vote by 2,600,000.  48.2% to 46.3% (see: http://www.cnn.com/election (http://www.cnn.com/election).

According to my research I could only find one election where the winner won the popular vote by a lower percentage than Trump.  That was the 1912 election where Wilson won with only 41.8% of the popular vote (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912).

The fact is that most Americans rejected the platform of the Republican party.  I saw on TV a women who voted for Trump who stated most Americans supported Trump  ???

If one studies the election results (see above CNN map) , one finds that the real division is between urban and rural America.  I went and did a check of the fifty most populous cities in the U. S. and found that only seven of them voted for Trump:

Jacksonville, Florida
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Phoenix and Mesa, Arizona (They are in the some county)
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Arlington, Texas.

In spite of the results of the popular vote the Trumpsters have subjected us to all sorts of bogus rationalizations that the above facts are false or irrelevant.

What frightens us is that they are about to launch assaults and so many issues that most Americans support because they are right and the rest of us are wrong.

Most American do not have problems with minorities.  Most Americans who live in urban areas interact with minorities all of the time.  In my neighborhood I live with all sorts of people.  I have neighbors who are white, black, Latino, Muslim, whatever.  I even have a neighbor who is a Muslim who is married to a white American gal.  My daughter-in-law is Korean and I have mixed grandchildren.  In spite of the characterizations these are all good decent people.  There are rural counties that Trump carried over 70% of the vote that are over 95% white.  I checked this out for the states of Ohio, North Carolina and Virginia.  With one exception all of the counties that voted 70% for Trump were over 95% white.  The one exception was Randolph County, North Carolina which is 89.2% white (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_County,_North_Carolina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_County,_North_Carolina)).  Maybe if they actually knew minorities they would discover that many of their biases are unfounded.

I realize that this anecdotal but the majority of the Trumpsters that I know are bigots including my brother.  He recently on Facebook said some really ugly remarks about my grandchildren.  My daughter-in-law on her Facebook page commented about here concerns about Trump's election.  They are in the 4th and 2nd grade and they hear comments all of the time.  My grandson has been subjected to comments that he is a half-breed.  The silliest is the granddaughter heard that if Hillery was elected that the school year would be longer and they would have shorter summer break.  My brothers response to my daughter-in-laws comments: "God Oh mighty.. I don't know you people, however, I've just read your commentary's about how you have had to tell your kids. Are you all collectively insane. Why on earth would you scare your kids over an election. It's every four years and sometime your jersey doesn't win. Let them be kids and don't worry them about it. What are you going to do in 2020? Give them Cyanide and toss them into the Potomac. You all need to get real." 

Even though she is an American citizen, we do not tell him that my youngest sons current girl friend is Mexican.  Of course my son lives in that un-American state of California.  Calling me a "drama queen" is nothing compared some of the remarks I have heard.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 09:44:13 AM
According to my research I could only find one election where the winner won the popular vote by a lower percentage than Trump.  That was the 1912 election where Wilson won with only 41.8% of the popular vote (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1912).


How hard did you try?  Ten seconds of Google searching yielded this: Seven presidents won a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Trump, and only one of them had a smaller percentage than another candidate. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin)  So about 15% of all Commanders in Chief couldn't muster a bigger share of the vote than Trump.

As to the rest of your post, well, I can say I'm not a Trumpster in that I did not vote for him.  I also don't mind when Democrats complain.  I find much of it humorous.  What I find most humorous of all is how you complain that people complain about your complaints.  It's a safe space mentality.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 07, 2016, 10:16:14 AM
There was a a story in today's media about a white-supremacist speaking at Texas A&M University.  I completely support his right to speak.  And I also completely support the hue and cry that arose in opposition to his appearance.

I don't think free speech entitles you to speak on a university. He's perfectly free to spew his BS, people just don't want him to do it there.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 10:17:05 AM
In the past century there's only Nixon (1968) and Clinton (1992) - and on both occasions there were 3 notable candidates instead of 2, which invariably had the effect of skewing the popular vote statistics.


Um, what about Wilson in 1912, which was arpeggio's example?  There were four notable candidates then. 

In any event, arpeggio's sloppy argument was focused on the popular vote percentage and the fact is that seven winning presidential candidates garnered a smaller proportion of the vote than Trump.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 07, 2016, 10:17:34 AM

Ah, I see, so stuff happens outside the US that will affect the US.  Got it.  You didn't answer the question, though.
Might affect, not will affect. As to this "question", as I stated, you didn't ask me one and appear not to be doing so now; as far as I can tell, the only question to which you appear to seek an answer was that which you had addressed to member drogulus, namely
"How do you reconcile your professed "let every vote count" strategy and/or ideal with the existence of the Senate?"
and, since I have professed nothing of the kind and the question was not put to me, it's up to drogulus, not me, to answer it. If in fact you are referring to some other question, please let me know what it is.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 10:19:58 AM
I don't think free speech entitles you to speak on a university. He's perfectly free to spew his BS, people just don't want him to do it there.


This is a fairly typical type of response, and apparently people who use it don't see the irony in saying that limiting speech on a university campus is acceptable practice.  In the US, if the college is private, I can see limiting speakers, but not on a publicly funded campus.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 10:21:18 AM
As to this "question", as I stated, you didn't ask me one and appear not to be doing so now


Focusing on just that one thing, the Electoral College, can you please elaborate on how current political events outside the US will result in a dramatic speedup of the amendment process or some other alternative?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 07, 2016, 10:22:46 AM
I already responded to that question.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 10:24:15 AM
I already responded to that question.


With a nebulous non-answer.  So you got nothing.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 07, 2016, 10:46:30 AM
With a nebulous non-answer.
In your personal opinion.

So you got nothing.
But I wasn't asking for anything, so that's no problem.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 10:53:13 AM
In your personal opinion.


I always love such responses.  Of course it is my opinion.  That written, I asked a specific question, and your response was that something may happen.  Something undefined.  Something nebulous.  But something.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 07, 2016, 10:53:37 AM

This is a fairly typical type of response, and apparently people who use it don't see the irony in saying that limiting speech on a university campus is acceptable practice.  In the US, if the college is private, I can see limiting speakers, but not on a publicly funded campus.

So you think any village idiot who aspires for a speaking spot on a public uni should be given one, lest we trample his rights? Should universities allow holocaust deniers to preach their views? Or, when you rule against creationism being taught at schools, are you 'limiting speech'?

Really?  Universities are supposed to be the place where the diversity of ideas is encouraged.  The fact that you are offended by his ideas is irrelevant.  I find your kneejerk censorship more threatening to an free and open society than anything Spencer can say.

There's diversity of ideas and there's moderation. Yeah, I believe racial prejudice has no place on academic grounds. My 'kneejerk censorship' is actually common law in my country - inciting hate against other races or ethnic groups is a crime over here.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 07, 2016, 11:02:16 AM
I'm a free-speecher myself.  I do not want any legal constraints on speech other than the minimal ones against incitement of violence and false advertising claims, as well as some others I probably am overlooking, that we currently have.

As a Supreme Court Justice wrote, and I paraphrase, "the appropriate response to objectionable speech is not censorship but more speech."

There was a a story in today's media about a white-supremacist speaking at Texas A&M University.  I completely support his right to speak.  And I also completely support the hue and cry that arose in opposition to his appearance.

What I do not support are efforts to protest such that a speaking event is shut down.

Allow speech; react with your own speech.  Don't use coersive methods to curtail anyone's right to express their opinion no matter how objectionable it may be to you or even a majority of people.

Freedom of speech is one thing. It does not imply that every individual has a right to a platform from which to disseminate that speech. Richard Spencer seems to espouse the view that the United States should be "cleansed" of non-white people. Students of Texas A&M can probably claim with justification that such an individual does not deserve the privilege of using the facilities of the University to disseminate his views, since they blatantly contradict the mission of the university.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 11:08:51 AM
So you think any village idiot who aspires for a speaking spot on a public uni should be given one, lest we trample his rights? Should universities allow holocaust deniers to preach their views? Or, when you rule against creationism being taught at schools, are you 'limiting speech'?


Yes, yes, and no.  Your selection of Creationism is a very poor one for three reasons.  First, that is more related to a separation of church and state than a free speech issue.  Second, that is an issue more for primary and secondary school, not university.  Third, on a university campus, the population of students is overwhelmingly adult and in an environment devoted to learning.  Some secular universities offer courses in divinity and related topics, and Creationism is or may be considered in those courses.  To close off entire categories of speech because such speech may offend some or all students is to close off learning and dialog.  The antidote to Holocaust deniers is more speech about what happened and a consideration of the incontrovertible evidence.  The antidote to White Supremacists is to show their ideas as scientifically, ethically, and morally repugnant.  Suppressing speech does not eliminate the ideas.  The ideas must be countered.

As to any village idiot speaking on campus, I attended an urban university, and people from all over the city appeared all the time, carrying signs, giving speeches, and so forth.  It still happens to this day.  Sometimes the protestors and speakers cover popular topics like the environment.  Sometimes they cover less popular topics, such as the perceived need to ban abortion.  It should all be allowed.  Only if there is a legitimate risk to incitement to violence should school administrators consider preventing speech.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 11:20:15 AM
I mentioned "in the past century", so that implies 1916.


I would think you can also understand how it could be interpreted as the 20th Century.

You have revised arpeggio's original argument to suit your needs, including coming up with an arbitrary threshold for what constitutes significant, and that's fine, I get it, but it does not negate the established historical fact that seven other winning Presidents won a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Trump.

But even considering your refined argument, so what?  Trump won under existing rules.  Perhaps the rules should be changed.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 07, 2016, 11:25:36 AM
I am uncertain how the invitation came about for him to speak.  I don't even know where he spoke.  But apparently he was invited and the event was planned by some one at the university.  While his ideas are obnoxious, they are after all just words.  And judging by the response he received, he was not made to feel welcome.

Again, the best response to objectionable speech is more speech of the opoosing view.  If however his words translate into violence, which is a violation of the law, then other measures should be taken.

Apparently a local white supremacist and former student of Texas A&M booked a room on campus without disclosing to the University what would take place. When they found out, the campus authorities said policy did not allow them to cancel the booking based on the views of the speaker.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/28/texas-am-university-richard-spencer-white-nationalist-confirms

The University did stage it's own event, essentially to repudiate Spencer.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 07, 2016, 11:37:51 AM
Yeah, I just found the same info, and edited my post.  Sounds reasonable.

Given the situation, the University made a reasonable decision, since it simply rented out space without making any endorsement of what would take place. If, hypothetically, Spencer had been invited by some organization sanctioned by the University, such as a fraternity or student organization, then I think the University would have a responsibility to block dissemination of views which are antithetical to the mission of the university, and perhaps to cut ties to the organization responsible.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 11:47:49 AM
Interesting that the Dow has gained over 1,000 points (18,332 on 11/8; 19,501 today) since election day.


The Trump trade.  On the flipside, global bond markets are down close to $2 trillion since election day.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 07, 2016, 12:26:22 PM
Interesting that the Dow has gained over 1,000 points (18,332 on 11/8; 19,501 today) since election day.

Yes, up 5%, but Trump is not president yet.

Interesting that the Dow has gained over 13,000 points, and has gone up by 300%, since Barack Obama's stimulus bill passed.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 07, 2016, 12:27:13 PM
According to the lasts results Clinton has won the popular vote by 2,600,000.  48.2% to 46.3% (see: http://www.cnn.com/election (http://www.cnn.com/election).

The fact is that most Americans rejected the platform of the Republican party. 

That is true but the same figures show that most Americans also rejected the platform of the Democratic Party: 51.8% did not vote for Clinton.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Spineur on December 07, 2016, 12:34:53 PM
Yes, up 5%, but Trump is not president yet.

Interesting that the Dow has gained over 13,000 points, and has gone up by 300%, since Barack Obama's stimulus bill passed.
Forget the Dow: Barack Obama leaves office with a 4.6% jobless rate.  What was the jobless rate when he came in office after G.W. Bush tenure ?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 12:45:01 PM
What was the jobless rate when he came in office after G.W. Bush tenure ?


Forget the jobless rate, what about the labor force participation rate?  (Oh, yes, and one reason the rate dropped to 4.6% is that the participation rate also dropped.)

(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2006_2016_all_period_M11_data.gif)

Data is direct from the BLS.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 07, 2016, 12:45:16 PM
Forget the Dow: Barack Obama leaves office with a 4.6% jobless rate.  What was the jobless rate when he came in office after G.W. Bush tenure ?

The first report after Obama took office was February 2009, and it was 8.4%.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Ghost Sonata on December 07, 2016, 12:48:07 PM
Would someone please tell Trump to stop pointing?!  It's rude and about as mindless as heavy metal finger signs.  (I have a finger for him)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 07, 2016, 12:48:51 PM

Forget the jobless rate, what about the labor force participation rate?  (Oh, yes, and one reason the rate dropped to 4.6% is that the participation rate also dropped.)

(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_2006_2016_all_period_M11_data.gif)

Data is direct from the BLS.

Covering a longer time interval

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/56b4a5fb2e526543008b5134-1200-900/labor-force-participation-rate-january-2016.png)

In decline since 1998. An unnerving trend.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 07, 2016, 12:51:15 PM
Covering a longer time interval

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/56b4a5fb2e526543008b5134-1200-900/labor-force-participation-rate-january-2016.png)

An unnerving trend.


It's impossible to disagree with that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 07, 2016, 01:03:15 PM
Forget the Dow: Barack Obama leaves office with a 4.6% jobless rate.  What was the jobless rate when he came in office after G.W. Bush tenure ?

Spineur,

You can not talk reason with Trumpsters.  They are proof that rationalization is more important than sex.

My post may be flawed but at least I tried to provide some documentation to support my observations.  I have reviewed the remarks and I could not find anyone who provided any kind of documentation to support their positions.  Just a lot of hot air.

Like someone tried to invalidate my remark that the majority of the American people rejecting the Republican platform be arguing that the majority of the American people also rejected the Democratic platform.  The were oblivious to the point I was trying to make that only 46% of the voters supported Trumps message.  There is no doubt that we will subjected to all sort of bogus rationalizations over these remarks.  They want to feel they are in the majority when there is no such thing in our society.  We are actually a collection of minorities.  I am agnostic socialist yet I would be stunned if more that 5% of population thought like I did.

One of many issues that concern me is a women's right to choose.  I have checked the Green and Libertarian platforms concerning a women's rights.

The Green Party Platform states: "Reproductive Freedom: People should be free from government interference in making their reproductive choices, including abortion, which should be covered by all publicly funded medical insurance programs." See https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php#8 (https://www.greenparty.org/Platform.php#8)

The Libertarian Party Platform states in section 1.5 Abortion: Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.  See https://www.lp.org/platform/ (https://www.lp.org/platform/)

The bottom line is when one factors in the votes of the two independent parties and the various polls I have seen over the years most Americans are pro-choice.

In spite of this we will subjected to a full scale assault on Roe v Wade.

Yet in response to these remarks we will be subjected to all sorts of rhetoric with any documentation to support their positions.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 07, 2016, 01:50:33 PM
Of course you can talk reason to someone, like me, who voted for Trump.  I don't support everything he says nor everything he has proposed, but I voted for him because I felt he was the better choice instead of Clinton. 

Once he takes office and begins to do things, I will await your reasoned arguments.  Until then, I will not waste time debating your hypothetical actions Trump may or may not take.

Fine, I am tired of doing any leg work.

You provide me with a list of Trump appointees to the government or the courts who are pro-choice.  You can exclude Tom Price, I already know about his position.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: ahinton on December 07, 2016, 09:48:14 PM

I always love such responses.  Of course it is my opinion.  That written, I asked a specific question, and your response was that something may happen.  Something undefined.  Something nebulous.  But something.
Some of it is already happening. Likewise, in UK, "the people have spoken" (and anyone who believes that will believe anything), yet Parliament has so far done nothing material about it in almost six months since they did so. There's no denying the spread and growth of uncertainty, or the rise of nationalism, or discontent with the perceived establishment (and even in the lead up to WWII the greatest problem was German nationalism, not nationalism in increasing numbers of European nations including Germany). I wouldn't call any of that "undefined" or "nebulous".

Anyway, I'm pleased that you love certain kinds of response and that what you write is by your own admission your opinion; that clarifies matters that might not otherwise have seemed quite so clear.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 07, 2016, 11:44:21 PM
in the lead up to WWII the greatest problem was German nationalism

You confuse effect with cause. Hitler´s rise was greatly facilitated, if not directly caused by the financially onerous, economically unsound and politically weak peace treaty (which was actually more like blind vengeance hic et nunc than thoughtful set up for a long-term peace, see the detailed criticism by J. M. Keynes and Jacques Bainville).
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 08, 2016, 02:06:49 AM
someone tried to invalidate my remark that the majority of the American people rejecting the Republican platform be arguing that the majority of the American people also rejected the Democratic platform.

Indeedie, "That is true" is the epitome of invalidation.

Quote
most Americans are pro-choice.

sanantonio is living proof that being pro-choice is different from being pro-Clinton or pro-Dems.

While we´re at it, I find it highly amusing that many of the people who support unrestricted abortion also support unrestricted immigration because of... the shrinking demographics.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 08, 2016, 06:27:36 AM

     There's nothing unusual about the dropping unemployment under Obama. Since the Eisenhower administration UE has dropped under every Dem and risen with Repubs. One can plead Congress, correlation, causation, whatever, it's true.

     (http://politicsthatwork.com/img/x38.gif.pagespeed.ic.CAE3Z9dIaf.png)

     Even with falling government employment under Obama the Repubs couldn't manage to kill enough private sector jobs from their Congressional perch to reverse a trend that's held up since the '50s. I do wonder how this happens because of the wide variety of circumstances each administration faces including unified and divided government.

     How do Repubs manage to be so consistent at killing jobs, so effective it doesn't matter who controls Congress? As I said, Dem job creation appears normal to me, what an economy will do if it's permitted to do so by policy that doesn't thwart it. But the question still is how?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 08, 2016, 06:28:06 AM
that clarifies matters that might not otherwise have seemed quite so clear.


For certain posters, perhaps.

Nationalism, while not necessarily nebulous, is not precisely defined, and it varies by country.  Uncertainty, on the other hand, is a constant throughout time and space.

All that said, you still have not answered my question with anything other than nebulousness.  That's because you don't know the US system, you don't know US politics, and so you must rely on nebulousness.  But I guess the answer is your understanding of US "nationalism".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 08, 2016, 06:36:54 AM
There's nothing unusual about the dropping unemployment under Obama


How do you explain the drop in the labor force participation rate?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on December 08, 2016, 07:03:19 AM

How do you explain the drop in the labor force participation rate?

     It doesn't appear to be determined by policy as much as UE. As the charts have shown at least since the '50s, participation trends seem to operate on a long term basis. There's reason to think the lag between the disappearance of the old economy and the rise of the new is not merely a matter of altering through cycle GDP growth. According to the views I hold to be most empirically sound, you can follow an optimal GDP path without making a big difference in participation. All GDP can be produced by 58% participation or 65%, by paying more or fewer people to stay out of the workforce and keep consumption up and employ the participators. So looking at participation rates means you'll have to look at population and technology uptake primarily, because the current rate or any past rate in isolation won't be informative about whether the economy is doing well. You could include social trends, too, though I'm something of an economic determinist about that as well.

     There's probably a stronger relationship between tax and spending distribution and population growth than is generally recognized, though it looks like Japan might be starting to understand this.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 08, 2016, 07:53:21 AM
While we´re at it, I find it highly amusing that many of the people who support unrestricted abortion also support unrestricted immigration because of... the shrinking demographics.

My social bubble is quite liberal and mostly left-leaning these days, but I've yet to meet someone who is for unrestricted immigration.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 08, 2016, 07:58:13 AM
What do you call a moderate Republican? A Democrat.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 08, 2016, 08:28:50 AM
It doesn't appear to be determined by policy as much as UE. As the charts have shown at least since the '50s, participation trends seem to operate on a long term basis.


That's not what long term BLS data show.  What the data show are the demographic shift of the workplace, namely the influx of women, which grew steadily until leveling off in the late 90s, and a corresponding decrease in labor force participation by men as automation primarily, and offshoring secondarily, along with competition from women, eliminated or significantly reduced the demand for some classes of jobs.  The decrease has been observable for decades, but in the 50s-70s, it was less of an issue.  While the overall decline leveled off a bit in the late 90s, there have been a bevy of studies regarding the drop in labor force participation among so-called prime working age men (25-54) published over the past decade or so.  It is a known issue, and many, and probably most, researchers and policy makers consider this to be a significant economic and social problem. 

The shifts in the labor market are at least in part the long-term results of conscious policy decisions by both public policy makers (eg, international trade and employment policies) and private market participants (eg, capital investment and production facility location).  Yes, employment participation is less responsive to short-term fiscal or monetary policies, but it is very receptive to policies that influence structural aspects of the economy.  Now the policy questions must focus on how to address the observable outcomes.  Is increasing economic nationalism the best available option, or is it even desirable - I say no - or will there have to be significant changes to transfer payment mechanisms - ie, welfare, public assistance, economic redistribution, handouts, or whatever your preferred label - or is some other option or set of options available?

The funnest thing here is that, over the upcoming decades, these difficulties will be compounded by the fact that, despite whatever short-term effects the Trump administration policies may have in the US, additional categories of employment will be eliminated or significantly reduced as environmental policies slowly change (for both mitigation and adaptation) and the labor force changes with it.  It is not entirely clear what proportion of future service sector jobs will generate real wages comparable to what was earned in the golden era of US economic primacy.  The trends from the early 70s to now have been well documented and are not especially promising for a good chunk of the population.



All GDP can be produced by 58% participation or 65%, by paying more or fewer people to stay out of the workforce and keep consumption up and employ the participators.


This has echoes of a planned economy.  It is also not really accurate.  It also appears to rest on the belief that GDP growth is always what should be pursued or valued.  That may change at some point.



So looking at participation rates means you'll have to look at population and technology uptake primarily, because the current rate or any past rate in isolation won't be informative about whether the economy is doing well.


What is "technology uptake"?  Can you point to some economic literature that describes it?



There's probably a stronger relationship between tax and spending distribution and population growth than is generally recognized, though it looks like Japan might be starting to understand this.


What evidence or economic literature can you point to in support of this hypothesis?  At this point, it looks like hokum. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 08, 2016, 08:36:31 AM
My social bubble is quite liberal and mostly left-leaning these days,

I didn´t expect otherwise.  :D

Quote
but I've yet to meet someone who is for unrestricted immigration.

I do not doubt it for a second! But how about unrestricted abortion? How many of the members of your social bubble do oppose unrestricted abortion?  ;D



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on December 08, 2016, 10:07:40 AM
     There's nothing unusual about the dropping unemployment under Obama. Since the Eisenhower administration UE has dropped under every Dem and risen with Repubs. One can plead Congress, correlation, causation, whatever, it's true.

     (http://politicsthatwork.com/img/x38.gif.pagespeed.ic.CAE3Z9dIaf.png)

     Even with falling government employment under Obama the Repubs couldn't manage to kill enough private sector jobs from their Congressional perch to reverse a trend that's held up since the '50s. I do wonder how this happens because of the wide variety of circumstances each administration faces including unified and divided government.

     How do Repubs manage to be so consistent at killing jobs, so effective it doesn't matter who controls Congress? As I said, Dem job creation appears normal to me, what an economy will do if it's permitted to do so by policy that doesn't thwart it. But the question still is how?

I have no clue what this graph is supposed to represent, but it's misleading at best and utter BS at worst.

Google Unemployment US (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=-693687600000&tend=1473307200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)

If that graph purports to represent the unemployment rate, it's meaningless, because there's no such thing as a negative unemployment rate.  What it really purports to measure is the change in unemployment rate, yes?  But even then, you can see that unemployment rates have fallen under Republican presidents at times (look at the massive drop from 1982 to 1989) and risen under Democratic ones.  Thus, if it were measuring the change in unemployment over time, it should be negative in some cases and positive in others for both lines.  So what is it measuring?  I honestly have no idea.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on December 08, 2016, 10:13:23 AM
I have no clue what this graph is supposed to represent, but it's misleading at best and utter BS at worst.

Google Unemployment US (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=-693687600000&tend=1473307200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)

If that graph purports to represent the unemployment rate, it's meaningless, because there's no such thing as a negative unemployment rate.  What it really purports to measure is the change in unemployment rate, yes?  But even then, you can see that unemployment rates have fallen under Republican presidents at times (look at the massive drop from 1982 to 1989) and risen under Democratic ones.  Thus, if it were measuring the change in unemployment over time, it should be negative in some cases and positive in others for both lines.  So what is it measuring?  I honestly have no idea.
It's clear enough that the graph shows how the unemployment has developed during the time of D or R presidencies. And the drops and raises you mention are visible in the curves..
Quote
Description: This chart compares the change in the unemployment rate under Democratic Presidents to the change under Republican Presidents since 1945. The results are cumulative, as if the intervening years did not occur, but are not compounded.
http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/unemployment-rate-by-president
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on December 08, 2016, 10:22:23 AM
It's clear enough that the graph shows how the unemployment has developed during the time of D or R presidencies.http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/unemployment-rate-by-president

Okay, well then their method doesn't make sense.

The biggest two drops in the unemployment rate on Google's chart are 10.8%-5% under Reagan and 10%-4.7% under Obama.  Year on year these should show a similar negative result, but the chart seems to imply that Republicans always raise the unemployment rate higher and higher while Democrats always lower it, though not by the same amounts in either case.

Like I said, it's misleading at best.  It's not as if continued Republican presidencies would necessarily have continued a trend of increasing unemployment, nor that continued Democrat presidencies would necessarily have continued a trend of decreasing unemployment, as both of these respond to other factors.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 08, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
I have no clue what this graph is supposed to represent, but it's misleading at best and utter BS at worst.

Google Unemployment US (https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&tstart=-693687600000&tend=1473307200000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false)

If that graph purports to represent the unemployment rate, it's meaningless, because there's no such thing as a negative unemployment rate.  What it really purports to measure is the change in unemployment rate, yes?  But even then, you can see that unemployment rates have fallen under Republican presidents at times (look at the massive drop from 1982 to 1989) and risen under Democratic ones.  Thus, if it were measuring the change in unemployment over time, it should be negative in some cases and positive in others for both lines.  So what is it measuring?  I honestly have no idea.

It is measuring the average change in unemployment during Republican and Democratic presidencies.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: North Star on December 08, 2016, 10:33:49 AM
Okay, well then their method doesn't make sense.

The biggest two drops in the unemployment rate on Google's chart are 10.8%-5% under Reagan and 10%-4.7% under Obama.  Year on year these should show a similar negative result, but the chart seems to imply that Republicans always raise the unemployment rate higher and higher while Democrats always lower it, though not by the same amounts in either case.
No it doesn't imply that Republicans always raise it and Democrats always lower it, as you can see the curves go in both direction. On average, it is true that under the Democrats unemployment has decreased, and under Republicans, it has increased. And just read the whole article here: http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on December 08, 2016, 10:53:12 AM
No it doesn't imply that Republicans always raise it and Democrats always lower it, as you can see the curves go in both direction. On average, it is true that under the Democrats unemployment has decreased, and under Republicans, it has increased. And just read the whole article here: http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/which-party-is-better-for-the-economy.php

I did read that, and I don't disagree with the conclusion, only the presentation.  I don't think that average rate of change is a good measurement when the scale is constantly changing from one data point to the next.

Look at it this way.  If in the next four years the unemployment rate hit 0.0% under Trump (HA), the top line would go down to around 7%.  If the unemployment rate then rose to 5% under the succeeding Democratic president, the lower line would go up to -2%.  Doesn't that in itself indicate there's something wrong with the presentation?  There's not much point in tracking the cumulative change independently of the actual rate.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 08, 2016, 11:23:12 AM
I did read that, and I don't disagree with the conclusion, only the presentation.  I don't think that average rate of change is a good measurement when the scale is constantly changing from one data point to the next.

Look at it this way.  If in the next four years the unemployment rate hit 0.0% under Trump (HA), the top line would go down to around 7%.  If the unemployment rate then rose to 5% under the succeeding Democratic president, the lower line would go up to -2%.  Doesn't that in itself indicate there's something wrong with the presentation?  There's not much point in tracking the cumulative change independently of the actual rate.

Seems like you are having difficulty with the concept of an average.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 08, 2016, 11:24:18 AM
I didn´t expect otherwise.  :D

Tsk tsk, last weekend, I had a delightful political chat with a bunch of my hardline right-wing friends over glasses of some very fine whiskies! See, I'm trying :) But it's actually interesting to look back at how, through the years, myself and many of my friends and colleagues shifted from the right (libertarian, in my case) to the middle or the left. Maturity, or senility?

Quote
I do not doubt it for a second! But how about unrestricted abortion? How many of the members of your social bubble do oppose unrestricted abortion?  ;D

Not many, if we don't count some sensible requirements as "restrictions". Few of my relatives are religious (I come from a Catholic family), so I guess they might've some objections based on their faith.

But I was just reacting to the thought that there are liberals out there who are against any kinds of checks when it comes to immigrants, which I don't find very likely. Also, maintaining population through tough abortion laws? You know how that went in your country..
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on December 08, 2016, 12:09:45 PM
Seems like you are having difficulty with the concept of an average.

But it's not showing an average, it's showing the absolute change in the unemployment rate, with each change added to the previous one. (My repeating your "average" was in error, and I overthought the graph to try to make it more sophisticated than it is.)

There's a ~6% drop in Reagan's later presidency, and the graph drops by 6.  There's a subsequent 3% raise under Bush Sr. and the graph moves up by 3.  W. Bush's term ends with a rise of 3% and the graph moves by the same amount.  Similar numbers can be tracked on the Democratic side, and if it continued to the present, the Democratic line would be at about -8%.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 08, 2016, 12:25:43 PM
Tsk tsk, last weekend, I had a delightful political chat with a bunch of my hardline right-wing friends over glasses of some very fine whiskies! See, I'm trying :)

Why, of course  I see! I would have taken part with the same delight as well, thanks for invitation! Politics is one thing, drinking with friends quite another! I don´t even try, I do consider my friends as friends, be they right-wing. left-wing or center-wing!!! Friends are just friends...

Quote
But it's actually interesting to look back at how, through the years, myself and many of my friends and colleagues shifted from the right (libertarian, in my case) to the middle or the left.

Since I was 14 (I am now 44) I have not shfted one inch or one iota: I am a 1848 revolutionary, Romanian style, national liberal. Kind of a strange beast, since Romanian-style national did never mean hard-line nationalist, while Romanian-style liberal did never mean hard-line liberal. It´s quite hard to put it in contemporary context, but let´s say my nationalism has nothing to do with NIgel Farage´s whereas my liberalism has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton´s.

Quote
Maturity, or senility?

Undecidable based on available data.  :D

Quote
Not many, if we don't count some sensible requirements as "restrictions". Few of my relatives are religious (I come from a Catholic family), so I guess they might've some objections based on their faith.

My family, although by no means atheist, was not particularly religious --- I have become a convinced Orthodox Christian by reading the New Testament and watching Zefirelli´s Jesus of Nazareth --- not kidding at all! Since then I have come a long way in confirming my faith but those two will ever be my original sources.

Quote
maintaining population through tough abortion laws? You know how that went in your country..

I am pro-choice as long as the mother is fully informed. psychologically and physically, about what abortion means and she makes her choice accordingly. Acts have (mostly unintended) consequences, and everyone must take responsibility for his/her own acts. Sexual acts are so designed by Giod / nature (pick your choice) that a child might ensue. Be responsible!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 08, 2016, 12:44:58 PM
But it's not showing an average, it's showing the absolute change in the unemployment rate, with each change added to the previous one. (My repeating your "average" was in error, and I overthought the graph to try to make it more sophisticated than it is.)

There's a ~6% drop in Reagan's later presidency, and the graph drops by 6.  There's a subsequent 3% raise under Bush Sr. and the graph moves up by 3.  W. Bush's term ends with a rise of 3% and the graph moves by the same amount.  Similar numbers can be tracked on the Democratic side, and if it continued to the present, the Democratic line would be at about -8%.

You are correct, it is not an average, but a tabulation of the cumulative change in unemployment rate (I finally clicked through the image and looked at the spreadsheet). Still, it reflects the observation that unemployment is more likely to rise during Republican administrations and more likely to fall during Democrat administrations. It may not be the most meaningful way the characterize the data statistically, but reflects the correlation between unemployment change and political party controlling the presidency.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Tritone on December 08, 2016, 01:03:16 PM
You are correct, it is not an average, but a tabulation of the cumulative change in unemployment rate (I finally clicked through the image and looked at the spreadsheet). Still, it reflects the observation that unemployment is more likely to rise during Republican administrations and more likely to fall during Democrat administrations. It may not be the most meaningful way the characterize the data statistically, but reflects the correlation between unemployment change and political party controlling the presidency.

I expect you'll only have about 4 years to find out!  In the meantime, the media's continued campaign and contempt for Trump can only backfire with those who voted for him only likely to dig in.  Of course, should there be a disaster in the meantime the landscape will change and a new contender will arrive on the block.

Time magazine has posted him as "Person of the Year" on the front cover and with a departure from tradition has placed his head under the "M" of TIME making it look like he has the devil's horns and written below "The Divided States of America".  When Hitler was named Time magazine "Man of the Year" without any gratuitous comments, I think this tells us a great deal about the contemporary American media.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on December 08, 2016, 01:08:09 PM
You are correct, it is not an average, but a tabulation of the cumulative change in unemployment rate (I finally clicked through the image and looked at the spreadsheet). Still, it reflects the observation that unemployment is more likely to rise during Republican administrations and more likely to fall during Democrat administrations. It may not be the most meaningful way the characterize the data statistically, but reflects the correlation between unemployment change and political party controlling the presidency.

Like I said, I'm not disagreeing with the results or with that interpretation, but the presentation.  If Trump lowered unemployment to nothing, and then a Democrat after him raised it to 10%, the Republican line would still be above the Democratic one.  It's not a particularly meaningful graph, and as shown it's extremely confusing (especially given that it says "Unemployment Rate" rather than "Change in Unemployment Rate" on the graph itself, and leaves a fuller description for the explanation on the page).
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 08, 2016, 01:37:29 PM
My family, although by no means atheist, was not particularly religious --- I have become a convinced Orthodox Christian by reading the New Testament and watching Zefirelli´s Jesus of Nazareth --- not kidding at all! Since then I have come a long way in confirming my faith but those two will ever be my original sources.

Interesting arch! While I gradually became an atheist, I've also learned to appreciate Jesus as a truly inspirational figure and the starting point was also a movie - Scorsese's Last Temptation of the Christ. But that would be for a whole new complicated discussion, not suited for this thread. At least not until Trump kickstarts the Apocalypse, of course >:D

Quote
I am pro-choice as long as the mother is fully informed. psychologically and physically, about what abortion means and she makes her choice accordingly. Acts have (mostly unintended) consequences, and everyone must take responsibility for his/her own acts. Sexual acts are so designed by Giod / nature (pick your choice) that a child might ensue. Be responsible!

While I generally agree, there are some problematic parts - don't know about current Romania, but over here, 'fully informed' often means fringe religious groups terrorizing women with misinformation and outright fabrications. Another complicated discussion..

Time magazine has posted him as "Person of the Year" on the front cover and with a departure from tradition has placed his head under the "M" of TIME making it look like he has the devil's horns and written below "The Divided States of America".

AHEM

35 TIME Magazine Covers That Appeared to Give People Horns (http://time.com/3742509/donald-trump-time-person-of-the-year-horns/)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 08, 2016, 01:38:12 PM
Back on topic:

(http://i67.tinypic.com/nqaa2e.jpg)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 08, 2016, 03:09:53 PM
I don't see the harm in the recount, especially since funds have been raised to pay for it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 08, 2016, 05:04:08 PM
I don't see the harm in the recount, especially since funds have been raised to pay for it.

I agree.  It is highly unlikely it will change the result of the election.  If the recount finds nothing wrong, that is good.  But on the chance that something inappropriate is uncovered then the states can try to rectify the problem in future elections.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Parsifal on December 08, 2016, 08:47:56 PM
I agree.  It is highly unlikely it will change the result of the election.  If the recount finds nothing wrong, that is good.  But on the chance that something inappropriate is uncovered then the states can try to rectify the problem in future elections.

It is important that the public have confidence in the integrity of the election process. The main benefit as I see it isto bolster that confidence and take the wind out of the sails of those who would portray the process as compromised or corrupt. It seems bizarre to me that the federal elections are left to local jurisdictions to manage, and that there is not a uniform voting system with a paper trail that can be audited.

(And it would be nice to know if the Russian hackers managed to infiltrate the system.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 08, 2016, 10:03:31 PM
It is important that the public have confidence in the integrity of the election process. The main benefit as I see it isto bolster that confidence and take the wind out of the sails of those who would portray the process as compromised or corrupt. It seems bizarre to me that the federal elections are left to local jurisdictions to manage, and that there is not a uniform voting system with a paper trail that can be audited.

(And it would be nice to know if the Russian hackers managed to infiltrate the system.)

I agree.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 09, 2016, 06:42:15 AM
Rolling Stone's one-stop shopping mart for anti-Trumpettes:

Trump's Presidency Is Shaping Up to Be an American Tragedy (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trumps-presidency-is-shaping-up-to-be-an-american-tragedy-w454640)

Aside from the hyperbolic and flimsy factoids, RS is horrified that the Trump presidency will be, wait for it .... oh the horrors .... politically incorrect.

Simply tragic.

 ;)

Thanks, great article.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 09, 2016, 06:48:58 AM
Trump's Presidency Is Shaping Up to Be an American Tragedy (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trumps-presidency-is-shaping-up-to-be-an-american-tragedy-w454640)


It appears to be about the same quality as the UVA story.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 09, 2016, 09:00:11 AM
Speaking of PC, I thought this article was very insightful, but it's The Guardian, so take it with a grain of whatever you've got prescribed for liberal media.

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 09, 2016, 10:10:24 AM
Speaking of PC, I thought this article was very insightful, but it's The Guardian, so take it with a grain of whatever you've got prescribed for liberal media.

Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/30/political-correctness-how-the-right-invented-phantom-enemy-donald-trump)


Attempting to counter the effectiveness of the "politically correct" label seems to be a hot, or at least warm, topic right now.  WaPo ran an op-ed using the phrase "patriotic correctness" to describe what the right does. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/07/the-right-has-its-own-version-of-political-correctness-its-just-as-stifling/?utm_term=.fe667d10b5c3)  I doubt that catches on.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 09, 2016, 10:23:00 AM
Public Policy Polling has just released a post election poll and some of the results are frightening, although there are many Trumpsters who will be encouraged by some of the results.

For example one of the questions asked was, "Do you think the unemployment rate has increased or decreased since Barack Obama became President?"
   41% Think the unemployment rate has increased since Barack Obama became President
   48% Think the unemployment rate has decreased since Barack Obama became President
   10% Not sure

The 48% are correct.  It has gone down.  When Obama took office in January, 2009 if was 7.8%.  See: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)  It peaked at 10% in October, 2009.  It is currently down to 4.6%.

When the result are broken down based on who one voted for (Page 10 of report):

                                                                                    Base Hillary Clinton   Donald Trump  Gary Johnson  Jill Stein  Someone else (You can guess who this is.)
Think the unemployment rate has increased                     41%          18%               67%              32%          32%            27%
since Barack Obama became President

Think the unemployment rate has decreased                    48%           74%              20%              52%          48%            57%
since Barack Obama became President

Not sure                                                                        10%           7%                13%              16%          20%            16%

67% of the people who voted for Trump think the unemployment rate went up? These are the geniuses who just elected Trump.

Summary: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/12/trump-remains-unpopular-voters-prefer-obama-on-scotus-pick.html#more (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/12/trump-remains-unpopular-voters-prefer-obama-on-scotus-pick.html#more)

Full report: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_120916.pdf (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_120916.pdf)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 09, 2016, 10:53:38 AM
Public Policy Polling has just released a post election poll and some of the results are frightening, although there are many Trumpsters who will be encouraged by some of the results.


That's only one part of employment related issues.  U3 is at 4.6%, it is true, but U6 stands at 9.3%.

(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS13327709_1994_2016_all_period_M11_data.gif)

(Data is from the BLS, with the longest time series currently available.)

U6 is "[t]otal unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force".  While the U6 rate rises and falls during the business cycle like U3, its trend is a bit different, with troughs not reaching the lows of prior troughs each cycle.  This squares with two other long-term trends: the slowing rate of unemployment decreases observed following recessions since the 1991 recession, and the decrease in the labor market participation rate of prime age males.  The latter is now significant enough that rather well-informed liberals have identified it as a concern.  For instance:

Quote from: www.whitehouse.gov
The prime-age male labor force participation rate has been falling in the United States for more than half a century. This long-term trend is worrisome, since it indicates that American men between the ages of 25 and 54 are increasingly disconnected from the labor market, lowering potential gains in productivity and economic growth. Although many higher-income economies have also experienced long-term declines in prime-age male labor force participation, the decline in the United States has been noticeably steeper, leaving our labor market—a crucial engine of growth—operating below its potential. Absent policy changes, this long-standing decline could continue, as more Baby Boomers move into retirement, and as younger cohorts enter the labor force at lower rates.

No single factor can fully explain this decline, but analysis suggests that a reduction in the demand for less skilled labor has been a key cause of declining participation rates as well as lower wages for less skilled workers. While increasing receipt of SSDI income may have played a very minor role, it has occurred alongside reductions in other public programs. In all cases, however, there is a large, important, but not fully understood role for institutions—including ones that provide “support” for the functioning of labor markets and fluidity to facilitate labor market transitions.

Although we do not fully understand the long-term decline in prime-age male participation, there are some clear policy solutions to raise labor force participation for this group, many of which would not only support more jobs but also higher paying and better quality jobs. These policy solutions include supporting aggregate demand by investing in infrastructure, improving connective tissue in the labor market by creating a wage insurance system and reforming Unemployment Insurance, reforming the tax code to expand work incentives such as the EITC, encouraging workplace flexibility, increasing access to higher education, reforming the criminal justice system and improving reentry into the workforce for the formerly incarcerated, and much more. The Obama Administration is committed to working towards these goals to help stem the decline in participation and improve our economic potential.


Railing against so-called foolish Trump supporters makes for good sport, but it is not addressing bigger concerns, nor is it addressing observable issues with meaningful policies.  The sunny statistics don't mean anything to people who are unemployed or disengaged from the workforce.

We are potentially on the cusp of an interesting macroeconomic experiment with the Trump administration: if his administration pushes through its expansionary neo-Keynesian polices (ie, tax cuts and infrastructure expenditures) in an economy at or near full employment, which a 4.6% U3 suggests, then there will be comparatively little growth and material inflation, but if the economy is not at full employment, as U6 suggests, then the headline unemployment rate could fall further with no significant increase in inflation. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 09, 2016, 01:29:42 PM
Rolling Stone's one-stop shopping mart for anti-Trumpettes:

Trump's Presidency Is Shaping Up to Be an American Tragedy (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trumps-presidency-is-shaping-up-to-be-an-american-tragedy-w454640)

Aside from the hyperbolic and flimsy factoids, RS is horrified that the Trump presidency will be, wait for it .... oh the horrors .... politically incorrect.

Simply tragic.

 ;)

Please highlight the "flimsy factoids", and present counter-argument - because that seems to be a very long (and ever-growing) list of things you ought to be very concerned about, even if Rolling Stone are hardly the best people to articulate them as you must know, and not breezily dismissing with the nonsense term "political correctness".
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 09, 2016, 01:42:08 PM
Please highlight the "flimsy factoids", and present counter-argument - because that seems to be a very long (and ever-growing) list of things you ought to be very concerned about, and not breezily dismissing with the nonsense term "political correctness".


I can't speak for sanantonio, but the lowest hanging fruit is this: "We know he's appointed a Treasury secretary who foreclosed on thousands of homes during the housing crisis."

The comparatively swift foreclosure on millions of houses was one of the reasons why the US housing market recovered as quickly as it did in many, but not all, markets.  There are other reasons, of course, like TARP, which (factoid alert) netted a profit of around $15 billion.

Some of the other items are reliant on a specific political outlook.  Trump's EPA and Education Department picks may be tragic to the left, but that doesn't mean they are tragic picks.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on December 10, 2016, 01:53:18 AM
An analysis of the news references in Trump´s personal tweets (of which there are an unhealthy almost 35,000, and he has presented about 2,700 hyperlinks) tells about his own media diet.

Twitter and Breitbart lead by far:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/trumps-information-universe?utm_term=.njJ1ErjYn#.kd1WPp8qA

"The news stories Trump tweets share several characteristics: 1) They often favor sensationalism over facts and reporting; 2) They frequently echo direct quotes from Trump himself or his closest advisers; and 3) They routinely malign his enemies and vindicate his most controversial opinions."
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 10, 2016, 02:14:18 PM
Will Big Oil ever catch a break? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-expected-to-pick-exxonmobil-chief-executive-rex-tillerson-as-his-secretary-of-state/2016/12/10/6e018e90-bd9e-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.592d83b53d72)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 12, 2016, 12:40:34 PM

Quote
Quote
Quote

    Rolling Stone:  We know Trump named as his national security adviser a man who, days before the election, promulgated a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton and sex crimes with children. (But not "Pizzagate," yet another conspiracy theory involving Clinton and child sex crimes.

There has been much written about Bill Clinton's frequent trips on billionaire donor and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's jet to his private island.  To refer to this as a conspiracy theory is hyperbole.

To imply that it is for child sex crimes is also hyperbole, to use your phrase. Amazingly, people actually do get together for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with sex or crime. I'll say this for you, you remain an equal opportunity slanderer, as long as it isn't your guy. ::)  :P

8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 12, 2016, 12:55:54 PM
I won’t violate the will of the people of Kansas simply because coastal elites think Mr. Trump tweets too much.[/b]


So much for "seeking to understand" and listening to the concerns of the people. Pot calling the kettle black. She (and you) ought to be aware by now that that is ignoring dozens of very real concerns about Trump.

And why is she saying that her voting against the election results would be some kind of betrayal? Isn't this kind of "chacks and ballances" in place exactly for situations like this, to raise concerns over conflicts of interest?



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 12, 2016, 01:03:41 PM
Gurn, I thought your reading comprehesion was better than that.  I've bolded the relevant part of my post.  Nowhere did I imply that Bill Clinton was traveling for the purpose of sex with children.  What I was pointing out is that (and I am not sure what Mike Flynn tweeted since RS did not repoduce any of his tweets) - other media brought up the trips, and given Clinton's rather spotty judgment about sex, others wondered aloud what was he doing hanging out with Epstein.

To use the word "conspiracy", a loaded term, constituted hyperbole, IMO, since the story was already out there from various sources.

I am a little tired of you playing this gotcha game.  Since you usually get my meaning wrong.

 :P

Well, since I haven't addressed you in any way since a couple of weeks before the election, your complaint is actually a bit of a hyperbole. And to be quite honest, I am more than a little tired of your blatant, ceaseless apologetics for an obviously flawed individual.

So far, how well is Mr. Populist stacking up for the purportedly huge number of people who bought into his lies? Every single cabinet appointment so far has been someone who is clearly not going to hit a lick at improving the world for middle America.

And his vow to not let any part of his governmental job affect his business holdings. This will be managed by having his kids run the businesses, even while they are acting as advisors. What?

I'm gearing up for a war of some sort with China, either trade or otherwise. Wonderful idea. We should send our military to make the Chinese play fair with our businesses.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

SO don't expect to get a free pass on all this crap. If you want to keep posting how this is the second coming of god almighty, feel free. And I will feel free to totally disagree with you.

BTW, you don't have to type something out to imply it. That's how implication works.

8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 12, 2016, 01:07:10 PM
She was urged to vote her conscience.  She is.

That didn't answer any of the questions in my post. And she seems to be dismissing the very idea of "vote your conscience"

I'd like to believe there's some understanding to be had from these discussions, but I really should follow the American Democrats on this forum and give up on this thread as a means to that understanding.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 12, 2016, 01:10:03 PM
Well, since I haven't addressed you in any way since a couple of weeks before the election, your complaint is actually a bit of a hyperbole. And to be quite honest, I am more than a little tired of your blatant, ceaseless apologetics for an obviously flawed individual.

So far, how well is Mr. Populist stacking up for the purportedly huge number of people who bought into his lies? Every single cabinet appointment so far has been someone who is clearly not going to hit a lick at improving the world for middle America.

And his vow to not let any part of his governmental job affect his business holdings. This will be managed by having his kids run the businesses, even while they are acting as advisors. What?

I'm gearing up for a war of some sort with China, either trade or otherwise. Wonderful idea. We should send our military to make the Chinese play fair with our businesses.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

SO don't expect to get a free pass on all this crap. If you want to keep posting how this is the second coming of god almighty, feel free. And I will feel free to totally disagree with you.

BTW, you don't have to type something out to imply it. That's how implication works.

8)

Haven't you heard.  Only Trumpsters have the right to bark.  Woof! Woof!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 12, 2016, 01:10:46 PM
And why is she saying that her voting against the election results would be some kind of betrayal? Isn't this kind of "chacks and ballances" in place exactly for situations like this, to raise concerns over conflicts of interest?


It would certainly betray the citizens of Kansas, who gave 56%+ of the vote to Trump.

As to checks and balances, you'd have to point to some legal or political writings (maybe a Federalist Paper) that emphasizes "conflicts of interest" as a legitimate reason to not vote for the majority candidate when serving as an elector.  After all, current federal laws pertaining to conflicts of interest explicitly exclude the President and Vice President, and even the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution proper has a caveat allowing for Congressional oversight of Presidential activities that relate to receiving items of value. 

Combining Electoral College voting procedures and requirements and possible conflicts of interest appears to be just more wishful thinking by the left.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 12, 2016, 01:19:42 PM
I'm gearing up for a war of some sort with China, either trade or otherwise.


Either situation seems unlikely to occur.  Of the two, a so-called trade war seems more likely.  (China, while militarily powerful, cannot match US sea or air power, and its still comparatively small nuclear arsenal doesn't allow for a sufficient second strike capability to act as a MAD deterrent yet.)  And even this seems unlikely to escalate too far.  What are China's options?  Will they dump Treasuries en masse?  That seems unlikely.  They have already taken a hit since the election because of the drop in the bond market, and trying to sell a big chunk of their $1 trillion+ would cause them to realize a loss in the tens of billions - or more - range.  I suspect some tit-for-tat tariffs on some products, some Chinese currency devaluation which can be partly masked by the dollar rally, and some WTO action, along with a fair bit of huffing and puffing on both sides.  But something like Smoot Hawley from the US?  Forget about it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: BasilValentine on December 12, 2016, 01:25:47 PM

I'm gearing up for a war of some sort with China, either trade or otherwise. Wonderful idea. We should send our military to make the Chinese play fair with our businesses.


Incompetents and those who wish to wield arbitrary power always need scapegoats and diversions. Russia is out since Trump has his mouth firmly wrapped around Putin's ______. So, China it is!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 12, 2016, 01:28:21 PM
Of course I await the Democrats in the Senate to make their partisan attempt to block each one.


The only appointment the Senate Dems have any leverage over is Mattis, since 60 votes will be needed to grant him a waiver to serve.  The others can all go through 52-48.  The Dems can thank Harry Reid for that for exercising the so-called nuclear option while he was majority leader.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 12, 2016, 01:35:13 PM
Incompetents and those who wish to wield arbitrary power always need scapegoats and diversions. Russia is out since Trump has his mouth firmly wrapped around Putin's ______. So, China it is!


Ah, yes, the Russian angle.  Even some lefties see whiffs of McCarthyism in today's swirl. (https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/) 

I will say that Obama's order to have a report before he leaves office is one of the best well poisonings I've seen.  Will the Dems really take a page from Old Hickory's playbook and effectively wage a four year presidential campaign?  I sure hope so.  There hasn't been enough hysteria and moral panic yet.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 12, 2016, 01:39:08 PM
I bet most of those emails and phone calls came form some place other than Kansas.  Kansas went, as you said, 56% for Trump.  Not close. 

What part of voting her conscience do you not understand?  Her conscience is telling her to honor the results of her state election, to not betray the people of Kansas (and in all liklihood her own vote) and despite the deluge of emails and phone calls to vote against Trump she will vote her conscience by voting for Trump.

The paragraph that comes from (which you bolded) makes it clear she equates "vote your conscious" with being a "faithless elector".


Others told me to act as a faithless elector and vote my conscience to stop Mr. Trump from taking the presidency. Only 157 electors in history have broken their pledge and voted for an alternate candidate or abstained from voting, according to FairVote. There is a reason this tactic has never been successful: It assumes the worst of Americans. These letter writers are asking me to disavow my own people, because they are supposedly racist and easily fooled. I don’t buy it. I won’t violate the will of the people of Kansas simply because coastal elites think Mr. Trump tweets too much.


And surely doing no more than mirroring the election day results makes the job redundant? Surely the job then is to raise issues of constitutionality and other possibly hitherto hidden concerns, that would stop a solely self-serving demagogue and huckster from gaining control?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 12, 2016, 01:40:53 PM
And surely doing no more than mirroring the election day results makes the job redundant?


Yes, it is basically redundant. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 12, 2016, 01:43:47 PM

Yes, it is basically redundant.

Or more important than ever.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 12, 2016, 01:48:33 PM
Or more important than ever.


No, it's just redundant.  Most electors get the gig as some type of reward.  The desire for some last-ditch effort to stop Trump's assumption of power is feeble wishful thinking.  There's only one week left for people to try to cajole, persuade, or intimidate electors to vote faithlessly or illegally (since it is illegal to not cast a vote for the winner in many states).  After that, the only way to stop Trump is for Obama to declare martial law and suspend the result of the election.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 12, 2016, 02:10:05 PM
What would Trump have to do for you to define it as a "blunder" or "incompetence"?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 12, 2016, 02:12:57 PM

I know it may be hard for you to believe than any person with two brain cells to rub together would choose to vote for Trump.  But, hey, this is 'Murica.

 ;)

We've voted in a couple or three very poor choices in our time here in NZ. It isn't about that.

The Trump phenomenon is unique and concerning for a number of other reasons.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 12, 2016, 06:04:52 PM
Hopefully, we are nearing the end of this election.

Don't hold your breath..

Lindsey Graham's joint statement with Senators McCain, Schumer, and Reed on reports Russia interfered with the 2016 Election (https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/807939042398453760)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 12, 2016, 06:22:40 PM
Don't hold your breath..

Lindsey Graham's joint statement with Senators McCain, Schumer, and Reed on reports Russia interfered with the 2016 Election (https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/807939042398453760)


That's post-election stuff for the next Congress to hold hearings on.  Expect partisan sniping, grandstanding, and showboating.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 05:39:29 AM
Gurn, you sound pretty angry about this election. 

Nice attempt at deflection!  (I feel that you have anger issues here . . . .)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 05:40:58 AM
Myself, I am very excited, because I have El Tupé’s personal promise that he will make all my dreams come true.

[Sure: all politicans lie.  But El Tupé takes public bullshitting to a much higher (or, lower) level.]
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 13, 2016, 07:04:51 AM
Exiit liberal elite, enter business elite. ;D

Seriously now, it´s hard to think of a tougher and more effective way to tackle the bad effects that globalization had on the American working class than to put the CEO of one of the largest multinationals in charge.   :P
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 07:18:28 AM
It's also pretty to see the childlike optimism . . . or, it would be childlike optimism if it were not simply having one's head in the sand . . . given that we have no indication, either from El Tupé’s business record, nor from the year-long-plus presidential campaign, that making anything in the form of a promise holds any moral obligation upon him, but, Oh, yah, we trust him;  he is the candidate who best represents my interests.


 :blank:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 13, 2016, 07:26:07 AM
Looks like what Trump has assembled, especially with his picks from business is a team of pragmatists who will approach international relations in a transactional manner.

This approach would work marvels if nations were businesses: Mr. Trump, Chairman & CEO of USA, Inc. has cut a deal with Mr. Vladimir Putin, Chairman & CEO of Russia, Ltd.

Unfortunately --- or fortunately, depending on how one views it --- nations are not businesses.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 07:29:35 AM
The people who voted for El Tupé hope that he will run the USA just as well as he ran his businesses.

Those who did not vote for him, dread the anticipation that he will do just that.  And more.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 13, 2016, 07:36:59 AM
A picture is worth a thousand words.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/if2wpw.jpg)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 07:37:09 AM
Exit liberal elite, enter business elite.


There's a fair amount of overlap between the two groups.  To be sure, Trump's business picks tend to be more conservative business types.



Those who did not vote for him, dread the anticipation that he will do just that.


I did not vote for him, but I do not dread that.  There will be roadblocks and dysfunction.  I'm hoping the Senate Dems get their groove back and ask themselves "What would Mitch do?"  But, at least early on, the big infrastructure legislation may serve to split the Dems.  So much pork, so little time.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 13, 2016, 07:44:28 AM
There's a fair amount of overlap between the two groups. 

I say give him and his team a chance (file it under elections have consequences).  After a couple of years, let's revisit this.

No argument from me here.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 07:44:57 AM
these are men who are very experienced at that kind of process at the highest levels.


I agree, but it looks like Tillerson, in particular, might run into some problems now that he has been officially announced.  Even some Republicans are raising questions.  There may be hope for Mitt yet.

In other cabinet news, Rick Perry gets DOE (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary/).  That's the agency he forgot he wanted to eliminate.  Now he will shepherd the nuclear weapons stockpile.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 07:45:29 AM
I did not vote for him, but I do not dread that.  There will be roadblocks and dysfunction.  I'm hoping the Senate Dems get their groove back and ask themselves "What would Mitch do?"  But, at least early on, the big infrastructure legislation may serve to split the Dems.  So much pork, so little time.

There will be dysfunction, agreed.

And at the highest level.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 13, 2016, 08:02:04 AM
Quotations prove nothing, of course, yet in the context of this discussion these two might be amusing or alarming, depending on who reads them.  :D

1. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.

2. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

By the way, can you guess the liberal / leftist who wrote that?  :D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 08:08:41 AM
By the way, can you guess the liberal / leftist who wrote that?


Adam Smith.  The second gives it away.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 08:13:41 AM
But let's also keep in mind that this election is over.  The results are in.  Pushing to overturn the results is very divisive and puts the Democrat's political fortunes ahead of the best interests of our country.


Who is seriously pushing to overturn the results?  What entity even could, other than perhaps the sitting President?  Besides, don't worry, Congress adjourns on Friday, and the next Congress convenes on January 3rd.  Official hearings and investigations are next year's entertainment.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 13, 2016, 08:23:07 AM
In other cabinet news, Rick Perry gets DOE (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/13/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary/).  That's the agency he forgot he wanted to eliminate.  Now he will shepherd the nuclear weapons stockpile.

"After a couple of years, let's revisit this."

Quote
The fact that only the Dems were targeted is interesting and suspicious.  But not decisive, IMO.

The US intelligence concluded that RNC was hacked as well, but the Russians are sitting on the data.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 08:30:28 AM
The US intelligence concluded that RNC was hacked as well, but the Russians are sitting on the data.

El Tupé doesn't believe (or, he says he doesn't believe) that there was Russian interference;  and he has again told us all how very smart he is.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 08:52:58 AM
John Podesta really wants the EC to receive an intelligence briefing from the CIA in order to sell them on the idea of voting against Trump in order to "safeguard the integrity of our elections".


That's for a group of ten electors.  It's not a serious effort.



The US intelligence concluded that RNC was hacked as well, but the Russians are sitting on the data.


Yes-ish.  The CIA reported that, and WaPo went all in, but the more circumspect report in the NY Times makes clear that motive and desired outcomes are not known.  The FBI is less certain yet in its conclusions.  This indicates that there may be some internal strife between different intelligence and law enforcement agencies.  The somewhat ambiguous nature of the declassified and reported information does nothing to prevent people from jumping to the immediate conclusions they prefer.  Hell, Paul Krugman opted to rely more on WaPo's report than his own paper's in his latest op-ed. 

Even assuming that the Russians have emails from both parties, what possible motives could there be for Russia releasing only those of the Clinton campaign (assuming they were all released by the Russians)?  Now, there is the possibility that the Russians thought that their actions would actually serve to tilt the election outcome in favor of Trump, and that they prefer him.  It is also possible that the Russians thought that releasing the emails, and other espionage activities, would serve to weaken and embarrass Clinton domestically and globally, and hamper her when she assumed power.  Clinton was, from a Russian perspective, a known quantity, and stability and predictability in international relations are often considered a good thing, and Clinton's comparative hawkishness served useful purposes for Putin.  Now, Putin has an unknown leader to deal with, and one likely to be surrounded by a couple generals in key defense positions, including possibly James Mattis, former Supreme Allied Commander Transformation for NATO.  There is a not negligible chance that the US will not be assuming a particularly pro-Russian stance, though it may be less antagonistic. 

The almost certain Congressional hearings will offer political theater and a puffy report in reasonably short order.  Maybe the conclusions from that will be much more definitive.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 09:02:16 AM
Not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of the Left.


What's the quip: without double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

I like seeing people like Podesta encourage false hope.  It makes for sad, mad Dems. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 09:06:43 AM
Well, it's a bit of luck that all hypocrites are liberals.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 13, 2016, 09:22:43 AM
Now, Putin has an unknown leader to deal with...

You sure about that 'unknown' part? Trump is playing right into Putin's hands.

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2qtalw1.jpg)

What's the quip: without double standards, liberals would have no standards at all.

This is what truly puzzles me: you keep talking about liberal double standards while the great double standard of 2016 is the treatment of Hillary's flaws vs all the current intelligence about Russia's intervention, Trump's unprecedented conflicts of interest, his embrace of the swamp he was supposed to drain. Where's the outrage? Where are the hard hitting articles and enquiries? Compare it to the witch hunt on Hillary, what do you see - liberal double standards?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 09:42:32 AM
You sure about that 'unknown' part? Trump is playing right into Putin's hands.

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2qtalw1.jpg)


Yes, I'm sure.  Tillerson, if confirmed - which is not assured - would be Secretary of State.  Trump consciously chose someone with a good working relationship with Putin, as well as other leaders of oil and finance centers.  He also chose Terry Branstad as ambassador to China, a man with a good direct relationship with Xi Jinping. These are diplomatic positions, and are quite different from national security positions.  Trump will be getting different input from different advisors, and Putin does not know how Trump will act.  That will fade quickly, of course.



This is what truly puzzles me: you keep talking about liberal double standards


Incorrect.  I've mocked the entire notion that Trump would drain the swamp, and I've provided more than one link related to conflicts of interest, though I've also tempered them with mention of legal and Constitutional aspects involved.  I'm not outraged by what Trump did or is doing, nor was I outraged at what Hillary did, or would have done had she run a competent campaign and won.  Hypocrisy and double standards are SOP for both parties, you see.  It's part of the game.  I stated flatly that Trump's cynicism and shamelessness nearly took my breath away, and I marveled at Clinton's policy-level cynicism obvious in her solar policy.  I appreciate the gulf between public pronouncements and policy realities. 

And of course conservatives employ double standards.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 13, 2016, 10:00:39 AM
You sure about that 'unknown' part? Trump is playing right into Putin's hands.

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2qtalw1.jpg)

This is what truly puzzles me: you keep talking about liberal double standards while the great double standard of 2016 is the treatment of Hillary's flaws vs all the current intelligence about Russia's intervention, Trump's unprecedented conflicts of interest, his embrace of the swamp he was supposed to drain. Where's the outrage? Where are the hard hitting articles and enquiries? Compare it to the witch hunt on Hillary, what do you see - liberal double standards?

I agree.

I mentioned this in an earlier post.  I used to be a Christian, conservative Republican.  At one time I would have been agreeing with everything that the conservatives were saying, i.e. the universal solution to all problems is no taxes or government.  One of the many reasons I am a reformed dittohead is because the conservative characterizations of liberals is inaccurate.  Most liberals I have met are much more reasonable and pragmatic as they are made out to be.  The Trumpsters are constantly misrepresenting what liberals are concerned about this election.  Conservatives have a view of the world and they think that liberals think like they do.  But liberals think differently.  They use different methods to address problems.

I had an interesting discussion with a conservative friend.  He stated that all liberals believe in whatever (I can not remember what the whatever was.  This was a few years ago.)  I told him that I did not know of any liberals who believed in "whatever".  He kept arguing that I was wrong and that all liberals believed in "whatever".  I have learned that conservatives have inaccurate views of reality and it is impossible to communicate with them so I try to avoid political discussions.  I even avoid political discussions with my brother even though he is always insulting me in order rile me into fighting with him.  He has recently accused me of being a coward for refusing to engage him is a discussions concerning the election.

One of the things I have done is joined the ACLU.  And Trumpsters calling me all sorts of names is not going to change my mind.  That is what Trump does with anyone who tries to disagree with him.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 10:17:59 AM
That is what Trump does with anyone who tries to disagree with him.

Yup.

Oh, I mean:  get back to me in two years, and we'll discuss it then.


 :blank:
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 13, 2016, 10:24:49 AM
Latest piece of Trumpster insanity:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1610030/-Trump-supporters-and-white-supremacists-demand-a-boycott-of-Star-Wars?detail=email&link_id=2&can_id=7171b3c4facec9af12a15a5cf195f715&source=email-shocker-house-benghazi-committee-is-done&email_referrer=shocker-house-benghazi-committee-is-done&email_subject=shocker-house-benghazi-committee-is-done (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/12/1610030/-Trump-supporters-and-white-supremacists-demand-a-boycott-of-Star-Wars?detail=email&link_id=2&can_id=7171b3c4facec9af12a15a5cf195f715&source=email-shocker-house-benghazi-committee-is-done&email_referrer=shocker-house-benghazi-committee-is-done&email_subject=shocker-house-benghazi-committee-is-done)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 13, 2016, 11:34:01 AM
On the theme of not even those who voted for him believe him, much:  5 things Donald Trump promised he’d do, but hasn’t (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/13/5-things-donald-trump-promised-hed-do-but-hasnt/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_promises-2pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.cd185c2c59c2)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 11:34:18 AM
But liberals think differently.

I have learned that conservatives have inaccurate views of reality


These two snippets are quite telling.  Liberals think differently, and therefore it follows that conservatives have not just different views, but inaccurate views, or something like that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: PotashPie on December 13, 2016, 11:42:21 AM
I think it needs to be looked at in terms of psychology, not politics.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 11:48:30 AM
I think it needs to be looked at in terms of psychology, not politics.


What is "it"?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 13, 2016, 12:02:13 PM
I've mocked the entire notion that Trump would drain the swamp, and I've provided more than one link related to conflicts of interest, though I've also tempered them with mention of legal and Constitutional aspects involved.  I'm not outraged by what Trump did or is doing, nor was I outraged at what Hillary did, or would have done had she run a competent campaign and won.  Hypocrisy and double standards are SOP for both parties, you see.  It's part of the game.  I stated flatly that Trump's cynicism and shamelessness nearly took my breath away, and I marveled at Clinton's policy-level cynicism obvious in her solar policy.  I appreciate the gulf between public pronouncements and policy realities. 

And of course conservatives employ double standards.

Thanks. Just to clarify, I wasn't targeting you specifically but BS like this..

(http://i.imgur.com/FYaybWy.png)

..which is pretty representative of the current situation IMO - and not exclusive to Fox News, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 12:16:58 PM
Thanks. Just to clarify, I wasn't targeting you specifically but BS like this..

(http://i.imgur.com/FYaybWy.png)

..which is pretty representative of the current situation IMO - and not exclusive to Fox News, unfortunately.


I don't rely on Fox, but I went to the website, and the top story in the Politics section is Top intel office not on same page as CIA regarding Russia hack assessment. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics.html)  It then links to a Reuters story.  Perhaps the TV coverage is different, but it appears that Fox as an entity is covering the story.  Of course, the op-eds and analyses will put a certain spin on it, but that's what op-eds and analyses are for.  From this evidence, it appears that Mr Strauss wrote a tweet quality tweet.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 13, 2016, 12:58:51 PM
One of those electors is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter.


No way!  Pelosi's daughter!  I wonder if the assessment will sway her vote. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 13, 2016, 01:00:35 PM
D

I say give him and his team a chance (file it under elections have consequences).  After a couple of years, let's revisit this.

Okay, why don't you do that!

Looking forward to hearing of you in a couple years' time!!!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on December 13, 2016, 11:40:33 PM
Good morning.

https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/status/808938374207864832

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-dccc.html?_r=0&referer=
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 14, 2016, 09:46:14 AM
Stop pretending that Trump voters care about ethics (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/14/ethics-experts-warn-that-trump-is-courting-disaster/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-e%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6f5a9a11e819)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 14, 2016, 11:59:31 PM


Not to worry.  Donald Trump will be President in January 2017.


didn't you say you were goign to let the matter rest and revisit the issue in two years' time  -  before volleying off post after post?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 15, 2016, 12:34:00 AM
Seriously, Clinton has blamed everyone and everything except herself for losing this election.  How mature.  But then again, that has been her M.O. all along: "right wing conspiracy" anyone?

Did she? I haven't heard of her since the selfie-in-the-woods. Bulldozing, really?

Anyway, Let’s get the facts right on foreign involvement in our elections (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/12/10/lets-get-the-facts-right-on-foreign-involvement-in-our-elections/).

Quote from: WaPo
That most people acknowledge Trump’s victory should now free us to have a serious discussion about the role of foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election. During the campaign, mentions of foreign meddling quickly became partisan and polarized, blocking any real examination of the facts, let alone a discussion of prescriptions. Even Obama administration officials seemed to tiptoe around these issues, not wanting to appear to use their privileged access to classified information to help the Democratic Party’s candidate, Hillary Clinton. But now the election is over. Before the next one, we need to know the facts — investigate what did and did not occur — so that we can develop procedures, policies and laws to strengthen the integrity of our electoral process before 2020. This is not a partisan plea; it is a national security issue.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 15, 2016, 02:08:56 AM
What's he going on about Clinton for?  She lost, she's old news.

Oh, right:  because he doesn't want to look at the steaming heap of Trump, either.  I get that.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on December 15, 2016, 05:29:10 AM
Yeah I don't get why people do this so often. Not the first time; this (http://www.snopes.com/transgender-suicides-after-2016-election/) was reported by some media outlets on Nov. 9 & 10 and then quietly walked back as proof continually failed to materialise. Super disrespectful, but social media clickbait culture encourages this kind of thing, tbh.

Anyway Romney McDaniel is going to be RNC chair (good choice on every level, imo, though Trump's conscious choice to leave out the "Romney" suggests Roger Stone was right about his Romney-baiting). DNC seems to be down to Ellison vs. Perez. I would call that a toss-up, maybe slight edge to Perez with the political climate what it is right now. (I suspect Ellison would be a better choice, but the Dems seem pretty keen on their "losing elections" strategy.)

I suspect nothing will actually materialise out of the Oh Noes, Putin!!1 story but I guess the media needs something to talk about now that their ratings are dropping due to people getting bored with Trump's endless transition drama.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 15, 2016, 05:40:37 AM
People getting bored with Trump's endless transition drama? Never:  he is a reality TV star.

No one can take that away from him.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 15, 2016, 01:01:31 PM
Why Rex Tillerson is a great pick for secretary of state (http://theweek.com/articles/667299/why-rex-tillerson-great-pick-secretary-state)

Before being assigned to Russia, Tillerson spent three weeks in the Library of Congress reading books about Russian history and politics.

As member of a nation whose first hand expertise in, and knowledge of, Russian history and politics spans almost three centuries please allow me to be greatly entertained by this factoid.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 15, 2016, 01:22:15 PM
As member of a nation whose first hand expertise in, and knowledge of, Russian history and politics spans almost three centuries please allow me to be greatly entertained by this factoid.  ;D ;D ;D


I suspect his years of working directly with Russian political and business leaders is more valuable than his library homework. 

If the Graun is to be believed, at least some in China are worried that the Trump administration may improve relations with Russia in an attempt to weaken Russia's relationship with China. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/14/best-friends-forever-china-wary-of-rex-tillerson-wooing-away-russia)  And as the WSJ noted, Tillerson has experience in and around China, most importantly the South China Sea. (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2016/12/14/for-tillerson-south-china-sea-storms-arent-new/)  He plays with the big boys, as one would expect the CEO of ExxonMobil to.  That Robert Gates suggested Tillerson to Trump makes me think that maybe the oilman knows a thing or two.  (He certainly knew how to write consulting checks to the firm for which Mr Gates and Ms Rice work.) 

If Tillerson doesn't get the gig, there's a reasonable chance that the nominee for Deputy Secretary of State gets bumped up a level.  Does anyone want that?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 16, 2016, 02:01:16 AM
I was responding to someone's criticism of Trump about something.  I was saying, he hasn't even taken office yet; let's wait (two years) and see if their criticism plays out before I offer my thoughts about something which hasn't even happened yet.


Do as you please. But just for the record, most of your posts aren't responses to other members posting.

Mostly you post media material you have pasted and copied that is either negative on Hillary or adulatory of Trump (the candidate you used to say you didn't specially like). And you post a lot, which is kind of funny for someone who said the matter should rest now.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 16, 2016, 02:32:48 AM
I do not know what is more frustrating.

The fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote (According to the latest her margin of victory is over 2,700,000 with a 2% margin of victory) or listening to Trumpster's insisting that they still have a mandate and that Democrats do not have a right to complain.  All of their bogus rationalizations are nonsense and not worth responding to.
Title: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 16, 2016, 03:13:43 AM
Oh, was the idea that there is no place for criticizing El Tupé while he has not yet been sworn in?  I guess his voters even feel for his famously thin skin.

Ladies and gentlemen: Donald "Snowflake" Trump.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Herman on December 16, 2016, 07:27:12 AM
Oh, was the idea that there is no place for criticizing El Tupé while he has not yet been sworn in?

It seems Santo asks for a two-year safe zone for Trump.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 17, 2016, 12:36:26 AM
I thought someone said the "Tritone" account had been deleted?

Oh well...another twit goes into my twit filter.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: (poco) Sforzando on December 17, 2016, 07:15:45 AM
I thought someone said the "Tritone" account had been deleted?

Oh well...another twit goes into my twit filter.

Surely it would be a shame to miss all the contempt and sneering from someone whose single theme is others' contempt and sneering.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Turner on December 17, 2016, 09:12:55 AM
Our very smart protagonist is also the inventor of new words.

Today: "unpresidented".

Is there a possibility it will be used a lot, also in the future?


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: PerfectWagnerite on December 17, 2016, 10:12:20 AM
Our very smart protagonist is also the inventor of new words.

Today: "unpresidented".

Is there a possibility it will be used a lot, also in the future?
How about learning how to spell for a change Donald?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on December 17, 2016, 11:16:41 AM
Perhaps Trump is suggesting that President Obama will react as forcefully to this as he has acted forcefully on other occasions.
/snark
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: snyprrr on December 18, 2016, 07:30:44 AM
I do not know what is more frustrating.

The fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote (According to the latest her margin of victory is over 2,700,000 with a 2% margin of victory)

apparently, even that little chestnut is evaporating, sorry

"the latest"...

yea, not one dead person voted twice in Chicago,... not one

not one illegale was allowed to vote in any sanctuary city....

Yea, I get it... she was just so popular :laugh:


D :laugh:on't worry... they're working real hard to make her "win" tomorrow... and then, I assume, things will get all rosy like in a jiffy...

"Hillary Won the Popular Vote"

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Just... please... include any of the articles about finding sacks of votes in the dumpster



Bernie Sanders: "Hillary... the most unpopular candidate in history"



Oh, I know... the "Russians" did it :laugh:!!!


NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE... OR EVEN PROOF!!!! Some disgruntled Democrat (oh, could there BE such a thing??) did it, end of story. Liberals hate each other, AND everyone else to boot. A;; they care about is raw, naked power.

FAR RIGHT = Anarchy, NO government

FAR LEFT = Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, TOTAL GOVERNMENT


Hitler was a Democrat. Period

Republicans are just Democrats. Period.


(or do they all just have blackmail videos on them??)






and I didn't even mention pizza!!!! :laugh:


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: snyprrr on December 18, 2016, 07:33:26 AM
Perhaps Trump is suggesting that President Obama will react as forcefully to this as he has acted forcefully on other occasions.
/snark

The terrorist attack that sets up martial law and nullifies the election...5....4....3...2...(c'mon guys, time is running out)

DEC.19

Prestitse,... pajalusta Hillary
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: snyprrr on December 18, 2016, 07:34:13 AM
Hillary 2016
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 19, 2016, 09:03:14 AM
Geo. Will: The electoral college is an excellent system (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-electoral-college-is-an-excellent-system/2016/12/16/30480790-c2ef-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.755ca37d1de6)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 19, 2016, 09:40:13 AM
Quote from: Paul Krugman
Consider what just happened in North Carolina. The voters made a clear choice, electing a Democratic governor. The Republican legislature didn’t openly overturn the result — not this time, anyway — but it effectively stripped the governor’s office of power, ensuring that the will of the voters wouldn’t actually matter.

Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, and you have the potential making of a de facto one-party state: one that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.

The New York Times: How Republics End (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 19, 2016, 10:16:29 AM
Geo. Will: The electoral college is an excellent system (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-electoral-college-is-an-excellent-system/2016/12/16/30480790-c2ef-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.755ca37d1de6)

Some quite interesting facts in the above article.

In 1824, however, before the emergence of the party system, none of the four candidates received a majority of the electoral votes, and the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams even though Andrew Jackson won more popular votes — 38,149 more, although only about 350,000 of the approximately 4 million white males eligible to vote did so.

It turns out that low, nay, extremely low turnout (pun intended) is nothing new under the Sun. Even when voting was a white males´ privilege only 8.75% cared about it. 

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the electoral vote even though Samuel J. Tilden won 254,694 more of the 8,411,618 popular votes cast. (With 51 percent, Tilden is the only presidential loser to win a majority of the popular vote.)

So much for Clinton´s winning "the majority of popular vote".

Those who demand direct popular election of the president should be advised that this is what we have — in 51 jurisdictions (the states and the District). And the electoral vote system quarantines electoral disputes. Imagine the 1960 election under direct popular election: John F. Kennedy’s popular vote margin over Richard M. Nixon was just 118,574. If all 68,838,219 popular votes had been poured into a single national bucket, there would have been powerful incentives to challenge the results in many of the nation’s 170,000 precincts.

Hah!

The 48 elections since 1824 have produced 18 presidents who received less than 50 percent of the popular vote. The greatest of them, Abraham Lincoln, received 39.9 percent in 1860.

By today standards, 39.9 % would be considered low turnout and this would question the genuine democratic legitimacy of the winner.

Do not blame the excellent electoral vote system for the 2016 choice that was the result of other, and seriously defective, aspects of America’s political process.

Amen!





Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 19, 2016, 12:40:09 PM
The New York Times: How Republics End (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html)

The intellectual level of this article is that of a mediocre schoolboy browsing the internet.

Quote from: Paul Krugman
Many people are reacting to the rise of Trumpism and nativist movements in Europe by reading history

Reading history and being familiar with its main events, personalities and trends is --- or should be, or rather was --- one of the results of a well-rounded education, even an autodidact one. If one has to wait for Trump´s being elected POTUS in order to read, and get oneself familiar with, history then one is usually prone to reading it superficially and get a deceptive familiarity with it --- and this is exactly what Krugman displays.

Quote
specifically, the history of the 1930s.

Here it is, exhibit A for the above. Why not history of the 1900s, or the 1870s, or the 1848s, or the 1815s, or the Napoleonic Wars, or the French Revolution, or indeed the history of the intellectual and social ideas and (oftenly unintended) consequences of Renaissance, Reformation or Enlightenment? Anyone who read history long before Trump´s advent and is truly familiar with it knows that the 1930s cannot be properly understood without and outside those historical forces and events that concurred in shaping their own history. Anyone, that is, except Krugman and the "many" he alludes to.

Quote
It takes willful blindness not to see the parallels between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare.

It actually takes more than willful blindness not to see the obvious differences between the rise of fascism and the current political situation in the USA.

Btw, fascism is a specifically Italian phenomenon. Using the term indiscriminately for any other country except United Kingdom (cf. Mosley´s British Union of Fascists) betrays either ignorance or willful distortion of facts.

Quote
But the ’30s isn’t the only era with lessons to teach us.

Precisely. No argument here.

Quote
Lately I’ve been reading a lot about the ancient world. Initially, I have to admit, I was doing it for entertainment and as a refuge from news that gets worse with each passing day.

This is the most self-damning, and frankly downright perplexing, passage of the whole article. Paul Krugman is 63 and has won the Nobel Prize for Economics. One would assume his education, culture and experience in analyzing and interpreting world´s affairs to be extensive and trustworthy. Yet by his own admittance he has been reading about ancient history only lately, and only as entertainment and escapism. This is mindboggling, really. Knowledge of ancient history, especially Greek and Roman, and reading / understanding of ancient historians such as Thucydides, Polybius, Tacitus and Suetonius was, until not that long time ago, mandatory prerequisite for passing the school-leaving examination, at least for any teenager with intellectual aspirations and penchants. That a sexagenary Nobel Prize in Economics openly avows his being ignorant of ancient history and historiography until very recently is a very sad reflection on the intellectual and cultural status of what passes today as a highly accoladed intellectual.

Quote
But I couldn’t help noticing the contemporary resonances of some Roman history — specifically, the tale of how the Roman Republic fell.

Here’s what I learned: Republican institutions don’t protect against tyranny when powerful people start defying political norms. And tyranny, when it comes, can flourish even while maintaining a republican facade etc etc etc.

Breaking news: in 2016 AD Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize in Economics, could not help discovering that most birds have feathers and fly.

Quote
Consider what just happened in North Carolina. The voters made a clear choice, electing a Democratic governor. The Republican legislature didn’t openly overturn the result — not this time, anyway — but it effectively stripped the governor’s office of power, ensuring that the will of the voters wouldn’t actually matter.

This sounds as if (1) "the Republican legislature" is not itself an expression of voters makiing a clear choice, albeit an earlier one than the latest, and (2) North Carolina does not have a Constitution which clearly prescribes the limits of both legislative and gubernatorial powers and the mechanisms by which any transgression of such limits is to be redressed.

Quote
Combine this sort of thing with continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups, and you have the potential making of a de facto one-party state: one that maintains the fiction of democracy, but has rigged the game so that the other side can never win.

This is probably the most ridiculous and counter-factual part of the article, taking into account that Obama, an African-American unabashed Democrat and liberal has been elected twice. Just who are those who make "continuing efforts to disenfranchise or at least discourage voting by minority groups"?

Quote
Why is this happening? I’m not asking why white working-class voters support politicians whose policies will hurt them

Why, this is precisely the first question he should ask, and actually reformulate it as "why white working-class voters support politicians whose policies they perceive as being beneficial to them" --- because, hey, not everybody is a Nobel Prize in Economics so that he can understand the intricacies, and evaluate the consequences, of an economic policies program, provided they have read it in the first place...

Quote
— I’ll be coming back to that issue in future columns.

If the intellectual quality of those columns were the same, he would better spare us and find a better use for his time.

Quote
My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values. And let’s be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of “both sides do it.”

So what’s driving this story? I don’t think it’s truly ideological. Supposedly free-market politicians are already discovering that crony capitalism is fine as long as it involves the right cronies. It does have to do with class warfare — redistribution from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy is a consistent theme of all modern Republican policies. But what directly drives the attack on democracy, I’d argue, is simple careerism on the part of people who are apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support.

For such people, toeing the party line and defending the party’s rule are all that matters. And if they sometimes seem consumed with rage at anyone who challenges their actions, well, that’s how hacks always respond when called on their hackery.


This is probably the most intellectually dishonest part of the article. Can Paul krugman, or indeed anyone else, claim in all earnest that the highlights apply only to the GOP´s political and financial elite? Is the Democratic Party truly immune from, and opposed to, relying on and promoting "apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support"? Are there not people in the Democratic Party for whom "toeing the party line and defending the party’s rule are all that matters. And if they sometimes seem consumed with rage at anyone who challenges their actions, well, that’s how hacks always respond when called on their hackery."?

Quote
One thing all of this makes clear is that the sickness of American politics didn’t begin with Donald Trump, any more than the sickness of the Roman Republic began with Caesar.

Two comments.

1. This is true, but the analogy should stop here, at least from Paul Krugman´s point of view. As anyone who read ancient history long before Trump´s advent and is truly familiar with it knows,  Caesar´s was a quite popular attempt at curing the Roman Republic´s sickness. Had he succeeded, the course of Roman history and indeed of the whole world would have been very different. But counterfactual history is never more than an inconsequential intellectual game. The lesson Krugman should learn from all that is not at all that the American republic will fall soon, but that it was precisely Caesar´s assasination that precipitated the Roman Republic´s fall and paved the way for the civil war and the rise to power of Octavian Augustus.

2. What exactly is the sickness of the American Republic? The only symptom that has been diagnosed so far is that following free and democratic elections (1) one party has been replaced by another at presidential level, and (2) the same party was confirmed in power at federal legislative level. Paul Krugman and many of his followers in having read history lately may very well see terminal illness in this. I beg to differ and see nothing else but the normal, peaceful and not at all unprecedented workings of a constitutional republic.

Quote
The erosion of democratic foundations has been underway for decades, and there’s no guarantee that we will ever be able to recover.

But if there is any hope of redemption, it will have to begin with a clear recognition of how bad things are. American democracy is very much on the edge.

Translation in plain English: although peaceful alternance in power has been the norm in American politics for decades centuries (except a brief civil war), and there is no compelling reason to fear it will not go on just like that in the future, the fact that the latest presidential election yielded a result Krugman and many do not like means that American democracy is very much on the edge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I was wrong in my initial evaluation. A mediocre schoolboy could have come up with a better reasoned column. Not that it means anything, but I can´t help stating that beginning today Paul Krugman for me has lost any intellectual and moral credibility.


Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 19, 2016, 01:00:54 PM
Here it is, exhibit A for the above. Why not history of the 1900s, or the 1870s, or the 1848s, or the 1815s, or the Napoleonic Wars, or the French Revolution, or indeed the history of the intellectual and social ideas and (oftenly unintended) consequences of Renaissance, Reformation or Enlightenment? Anyone who read history long before Trump´s advent and is truly familiar with it knows that the 1930s cannot be properly understood without and outside those historical forces and events that concurred in shaping their own history. Anyone, that is, except Krugman and the "many" he alludes to.


Krugman is brilliant at economic analysis, particularly on trade, but less so in other areas.  I remember when he won the Nobel, a friend of mine, of the American liberal sort and a fan of Krugman, lamented that Krugman would become insufferable as a result.  Whatever the case may be, Trump is the end of everything.  The Republic will die.  Democracy will wither.  There will probably be widespread drought and plague.  Oh, who are we kidding: Trump is the Antichrist and the End of Days are nigh.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Gurn Blanston on December 19, 2016, 01:24:14 PM

Krugman is brilliant at economic analysis, particularly on trade, but less so in other areas.  I remember when he won the Nobel, a friend of mine, of the American liberal sort and a fan of Krugman, lamented that Krugman would become insufferable as a result.  Whatever the case may be, Trump is the end of everything.  The Republic will die.  Democracy will wither.  There will probably be widespread drought and plague.  Oh, who are we kidding: Trump is the Antichrist and the End of Days are nigh.

Damn, I thought Obama was the Antichrist... I'm so confused...! ::)

8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 19, 2016, 01:56:02 PM
Barry was a dry run.  Trump is the Coca-Cola of Antichrists; he's the real thing.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 19, 2016, 02:04:02 PM
Russian ambassador to Turkey shot dead by Turkish policeman.

Truck driven into crowd attending Berlin´s Christmas Fair, nine dead, driver arrested.

Three dead in Zuerich reported attempt.


Trump looks like a walk in the park at noon.  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 19, 2016, 04:31:27 PM
Russian ambassador to Turkey shot dead by Turkish policeman.

Truck driven into crowd attending Berlin´s Christmas Fair, nine dead, driver arrested.

Three dead in Zuerich reported attempt.


Trump looks like a walk in the park at noon.  ;D ;D ;D

Depends. For example, if Trump's America throws a wrench into the Paris Agreement, the repercussions will be far and wide and will go way beyond a bunch of ugly headlines.

(thanks for the dissection of the Krugman piece, though, you raise valid points)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 19, 2016, 04:40:22 PM
Depends. For example, if Trump's America throws a wrench into the Paris Agreement, the repercussions will be far and wide and will go way beyond a bunch of ugly headlines.


Wrong for two reasons.  First, the Paris Agreement is non-binding, so even if countries fail to meet targets - and many will - there are no meaningful penalties.  Second, other countries can take action with or without the US, and the US can take action with or without other countries.  If Trump does throw a wrench in the works, whatever that means exactly, it would merely offer "Europe" a chance to show the world how it can lead.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 19, 2016, 05:40:25 PM
Well, it's official, the Electoral College selected Donald Trump as the next President of the United States. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/politics/electoral-college-donald-trump-vote/)  Trump lost two electors and Clinton lost four.

What next for the poor, distraught #stoptrump/#NotMyPresident deep thinkers out there?  SCOTUS magic?  The 25th Amendment?  An attempt at impeachment on January 21st?  Retreat to safe spaces?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 19, 2016, 05:48:46 PM
What would Trump have to do to make you think that this all wasn't just entertainment and that maybe you should be starting to become concerned?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 19, 2016, 05:54:57 PM
What would Trump have to do to make you think that this all wasn't just entertainment and that maybe you should be starting to become concerned?


Concerned about what?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: SimonNZ on December 19, 2016, 06:17:27 PM

Concerned about what?

Sure. Forget I asked.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on December 19, 2016, 11:53:07 PM
there are no meaningful penalties

I'd say rising sea levels, mass migration and other lovely aspects of climate change that are already shaping the world into a shittier place are quite meaningful.

Sure, the EU could (and should) lead. But a superpower – and a super-producer of carbon emissions – sticking its head in the sand would be a serious setback in the whole process of mitigating the chasm we're plunging into.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 20, 2016, 05:28:59 AM
What would Trump have to do to make you think that this all wasn't just entertainment and that maybe you should be starting to become concerned?

I think if something bad happens like the stock market sinking or a major terrorist attack, the Trumpsters initial response would be denial.  I thing it would take something really major like WWIII breaking out and incoming nuclear missiles.  Although this is highly unlikely, I hope, it would probably take something like this to make them realize that it was maybe a bad idea to elect Trump.

Of course they are not going to admit anything now.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 20, 2016, 05:43:05 AM
I think if something bad happens like the stock market sinking or a major terrorist attack, the Trumpsters initial response would be denial.

Always.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on December 20, 2016, 05:46:44 AM
Conservativism:  having a rotten time. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-is-at-its-peak-but-conservatism-has-hit-rock-bottom/2016/12/19/ebcb896e-c624-11e6-8bee-54e800ef2a63_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e1af2ed71eff)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Jeffrey Smith on December 20, 2016, 07:31:22 AM
Meanwhile Donald and Carlos had a "lovely dinner"
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/19/slim-got-positive-vibe-from-trump-on-mexico-at-meeting-spokesman.html
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 20, 2016, 07:49:14 AM
I'd say rising sea levels, mass migration and other lovely aspects of climate change that are already shaping the world into a shittier place are quite meaningful.


Those are happening now.  They will get worse, with or without the Paris Agreement.  CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere now are at levels that cannot be reversed for decades or longer, even cutting emissions to zero right now, which obviously cannot and will not happen.  Just wait until large-scale wars relating to stores of potable water start becoming more commonplace and great powers become actively involved.  Things will, or at least can, get truly ugly then.

Of course, when I wrote there are no meaningful penalties, I was referring to enforcement mechanisms within the agreement itself.  Without enforcement mechanisms, there is nothing to prevent member states from conveniently missing targets.  Hand-wringing over long-term consequences and sorrowful pronouncements by contrite heads of government or state aren't the same thing.  I assume you know that, but perhaps not.

Again, countries other than the US, and even multinational corporations, can undertake all manner of mitigation policies without treaty level involvement from the US.  If it is as urgent as you state, they should.  Right now.  They should go further than the Paris Agreement.  There is no reason the EU, even in its diminished state after the UK leaves, cannot impose a stiff, uniform carbon tax, for instance.  (Well, aside from the obvious economic and political reasons.)  The EU, and/or European countries of significance, can impose punitive fines and measures against countries (eg, US, Australia, China, Gulf states) and companies domiciled in those countries, for not complying with preferred emission targets and for generating disproportionate levels of emissions.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: BasilValentine on December 20, 2016, 08:28:39 AM

Again, countries other than the US, and even multinational corporations, can undertake all manner of mitigation policies without treaty level involvement from the US. 

Or they could make deals with a country that has sought and fought for viable year round ports in Europe for centuries, whose leaders see global warming as a way to make Archangel into a tropical paradise and who seek to exploit fossil fuels indefinitely, all applauded by a US president who wants to see the renaissance of a coal-powered economy.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 20, 2016, 08:50:13 AM
Or they could make deals with a country that has sought and fought for viable ports in Europe for centuries, whose leaders see global warming as a way to make Archangel into a tropical paradise and who seek to exploit fossil fuels indefinitely, all applauded by a US president who wants to see the renaissance of a coal powered economy.


Sure, they could do that, but the deals would probably have to be renegotiated after no more than eight years.  Negotiating anything major with Europeans of significance might take longer than that, though.

If Trump is truly serious about radically altering US relations with the rest of the world pertaining to environmental issues, he can simply withdraw from the UNFCCC, and thereby kill the Paris Agreement in short order.  Maybe he does that, or maybe he rides out the four year obligation triggered by Obama's Constitutionally dubious "ratification" of the agreement before flip-flopping.  It may make sense to have some of his appointees pay lip service to the agreement in private and simply blow by the non-enforceable limits on emissions.  It's sort of a win-win situation.  The US can stay part of the agreement, break it, and face no material consequences.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: arpeggio on December 21, 2016, 11:16:12 PM
It is obvious that no matter what happens the Trumpsters will never admit that they may not have a mandate to implements all of their agenda.

I realize that this is anecdotal but I have seen several incidents which shows that one of the reasons Trump won the election is because he played the bigotry card.

One was the Trumpster at the Bernie Sander's meeting who stated that the reason she does not have a better job because of the illegal immigrants.

Then there was O'Reilly's rant that eliminating the Electoral College would take away power from Rural White America (Of course it would because it is rigged in favor or Rural White America at the expense of Urban America.)

Then there is the recent racial rant at the JCPenny in Kentucky.  Some of the statements the women in the rant stated to justify her remarks is that she believes most Americans agree with her and she admitted that she voted for Trump.

Then there is my brothers attack against my daughter-in-law and my grandchildren which I have mentioned earlier.

From what I have read most Americans are pro-choice but as far as most Trumpsters we are wrong.

Most Americans believe in climate change but as far as most Trumpsters we are wrong.

Most Americans believe in some gun control but as far as most Trumpsters we are wrong.

I refuse to believe that we are wrong over everything.

54% of the Americans who voted in the election voted against Trump.

As long as Trumpsters insist that they won a mandate they leave those of us in the majority no choice but to be as obstructionist and unreasonable as they claim we are being.  We might as well live up to the low expectations that they have of us.  I know one of the actions I intend on doing is joining the ACLU and accusing me of being Un-American, that I have no knowledge of history, that I am wrong about climate change or whatever is not going to change my mind.

I do not have the rhetorical wherewithal as some of the Trumpsters here but I do know bogus gobbledygook when I see it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 22, 2016, 03:28:22 AM
Then there was O'Reilly's rant that eliminating the Electoral College would take away power from Rural White America (Of course it would because it is rigged in favor or Rural White America at the expense of Urban America.)

And yet with the same EC in place Clinton and Obama, as "urban America" as one can get and think of, were both elected twice. Also, I don't think Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FD Roosevelt, JF Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter were particularly tied to "rural white America".

I know one of the actions I intend on doing is joining the ACLU

May I remind you that you already joined the ACLU?

One of the things I have done is joined the ACLU.




Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on December 22, 2016, 05:11:01 AM
And yet with the same EC in place Clinton and Obama, as "urban America" as one can get and think of, were both elected twice. Also, I don't think Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FD Roosevelt, JF Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower or Jimmy Carter were particularly tied to "rural white America".
Of course Clinton could position himself as part of the "white working class" due to being governor of a Southern state and talking like "ordinary (i.e. white) people", and the conservative vote was also split between his Republican opponents and independent Ross Perot. Obama was elected as a "change candidate" in the midst of a financial crisis, which left a lot of the "white working class" out of a job and wanting something different, and re-elected in a year that the Republicans ran a moderate, pluralist candidate in the face of increasing extremism and nativism in the ranks of their party.

Abraham Lincoln: Times were different in 1860; although the Electoral College had been created to give slave states representation by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person for determining number of electors, the slave population of the South was on the decrease, weighting power more heavily in the free states. So Lincoln won 59% of the electoral vote with only 39% of the popular vote—the least popular president in American history. Ironically, the abolition of slavery helped change the balance of power by—once the Confederate states were re-admitted to the Union—immediately increasing their electoral power by 40%. Nonetheless, only one Democrat was elected president (Grover Cleveland, twice) for the next 52 years.

Theodore Roosevelt: Ran on a fairly explicit populist, pro-labour platform, vaguely similar to Trump's campaign promises without Trump's immediate backslide into neoliberalism. Helped that he'd already been president for 3 years so people knew what they were getting.

Woodrow Wilson: Roosevelt split the electorate by cannibalising a lot of Taft's voters—had the Republican party stayed united it would have been a fairly easy win, 50% of the vote to Wilson's 42%. The Republican Party, again, was pro-labour at this time, though Taft was beginning to move away from this, leading to Roosevelt's defection.

FDR: It was the Great Depression. A lot of the "white working class" was out of a job. FDR was the change candidate and represented their interests successfully enough to win their vote four times in a row. He also ran on a conservative, anti-socialist, free trade, anti-spending campaign before (once in office) changing his mind to create the New Deal.

Eisenhower: White people love soldiers, I guess. Plus, he pledged to be tougher on the USSR, and everyone knows the USSR is bad, right? As well, Truman faced tough opposition in the 1952 primary from a populist outsider and eventually withdrew from the race, but the convention nonetheless refused to support that candidate (Estes Kefauver) and instead picked a fairly weak and indecisive Adlai Stevenson.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Stevenson concentrated on giving a series of thoughtful speeches around the nation; he too drew large crowds. Although his style thrilled intellectuals and academics, some political experts wondered if he were speaking "over the heads" of most of his listeners, and they dubbed him an "egghead," based on his baldness and intellectual demeanor.
You'd think the DNC would have learned its lesson from Eisenhower's 81%+ electoral college victory by 2016, but apparently not. >_>

JFK: Won the popular vote by only about 100,000 votes, by very close margins in some states. Kennedy chose a running mate who represented the "white working class" a lot better than he did (LBJ, who had been a high school teacher in rural Texas before going into politics). Nixon supporters continued to contest the election long after Nixon himself had conceded, and some still to this day believe the vote was stolen in Illinois and Texas, which, if they had gone for Nixon, would have flipped the election.

Carter: Political outsider, evangelical Christian, farmer and naval officer.... Carter basically is the "white working class" lmao. Arguably, his election is what started the dominance of the "white working class"—Ford won cosmopolitan states like California, Illinois and Michigan, and lost Ohio by 10,000 votes; Carter won blue-collar voters 57% to 41% and those without a college degree 55% to 44%. White voters did break for Ford, but only by five points.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Florestan on December 22, 2016, 05:33:44 AM
Thanks for the analysis. Now, maybe in America things are different, but in Europe the "working class" is a specifically "urban" social stratum. "Rural" is hardly the first attribute coming to mind when speaking of the "working class". So if this is also true of the USA then my point stands, since being pro-"working class" and explicitly aiming at their votes means trying to win an "urban" part of the country.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on December 22, 2016, 06:24:34 AM
In the US, rural areas and smaller towns have tended to be predominantly white working-class—the Deep South was an exception for a while, but not so much anymore. Apart from the former big manufacturing cities, most of which have either become poverty-ridden and disempowered and usually majority black (Detroit, Cleveland) or reoriented their economic priorities and become majority white professional (Pittsburgh), larger metropolitan areas have tended to be dominated by either the white professional class, or the non-white working class.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Que on December 22, 2016, 01:50:03 PM
Quote
Donald J. Trump–Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump

The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes

08:50 - 22 dec. 2016

More nukes? ??? The guy is a freaking idiot....
If he  continues like this he will turn out to be a even bigger thread to world peace than George Busch, who started an illegal war (which is a war crime BTW) that set the whole Middle East on fire and nurtured the growth of international terrorism....

And the good news is that Trumps' "buddy" conveniently wants more nukes as well:

Quote
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday called for the country to reinforce its military nuclear potential and praised the army’s performance in its Syria campaign.

In a speech that recapped military activities in 2016, Putin said the army’s preparedness has “considerably increased” and called for continued improvement that would ensure it can “neutralise any military threat”.

“We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems,” the Kremlin strongman said.

http://t.guardian.ng/news/putin-urges-russian-nuclear-weapons-boost/

I guess they can have a nuclear party...that should be fun....  :laugh:

Q
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 22, 2016, 02:16:04 PM
More nukes? ???


Increasing the size of the nuclear arsenal will require Congressional approval and funding, which, while not out of the question, will not magically materialize.  It will also require renegotiating or abandoning treaties, which is not out of the question, either, but won't just happen just because.  It does call into question how much of a lovefest there is between Trump and Putin, assuming one takes their pronouncements at face value.  On the plus side, such a move would give Rick Perry something to do.

As to Bush, he obtained an AUMF for invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, so he acted legally as it pertains to US law, which is much more important than international law, and even there, the most one can say is that the meaning of the UN Resolutions is uncertain.  Bush will go to his grave a free man, never having had to face charges at the ICC, which the US isn't part of, in any event.  (If the ICC decides to proceed with an investigation of the US over torture, that will delay the US recognizing the ICC even longer and may jeopardize informal cooperation that has been in place for years.)  Unless, of course, you were referring to the Kuala Lumpur thing, which is entirely irrelevant.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Que on December 22, 2016, 02:42:58 PM
I'm well aware that Bush and others involved won't ever face trial over this or any oyher form of independent scrutiny.
There was no explicit mandate for an invasion by the UN security council and there was no just cause (casus belli), just a fabricated story.
At least Tony Blair, whose reputation is now stained immeasurably due to his supportive role in the matter, can claim that he believed the Bush administration...which he probably did.

But frankly who cares about George Bush? ::)
International law is designed to prevent this kind of thing, for reasons all too apparent in this day and age, and it utterly failed to do so.
This is why Putin now does whatever he wants - with total disregard of international law - in the Crimea and in Syria, and perhaps soon in Latvia and Lithuania.

You reap what you sow... enter Donald Trump....

Q
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 22, 2016, 02:53:49 PM
But frankly who cares about George Bush? ::)


Evidently, you do.  You brought him up.

International law has no effective permanent enforcement mechanisms.  Hard power is the real arbiter of international relations.  The UN and ICC have no hard power unless the US, either alone or in coalition, backs them up.  We are living through the end of a brief (quasi-) unipolar world that is moving back toward a multipolar world.  Fortunately for Americans, the Atlantic and Pacific are still there, the US nuclear deterrent is massive, and US conventional forces are still unequaled by any combination of hostile powers.  It won't last forever, but it will for a while.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Que on December 22, 2016, 03:38:38 PM

Evidently, you do.  You brought him up.

Just as an example of how an US presidency can have crucial influence over world events and can have a devastating effect on the respect for international law, conventions and relations. I don’t care about Bush's personal fate, the damage has already been done...and he is literally history.

Interestly, with the invasion of Iraq the Bush administration set in motion a chain of events that has now contributed to the rise to power of Trump.

Quote
International law has no effective permanent enforcement mechanisms.  Hard power is the real arbiter of international relations.  The UN and ICC have no hard power unless the US, either alone or in coalition, backs them up.  We are living through the end of a brief (quasi-) unipolar world that is moving back toward a multipolar world.  Fortunately for Americans, the Atlantic and Pacific are still there, the US nuclear deterrent is massive, and US conventional forces are still unequaled by any combination of hostile powers.  It won't last forever, but it will for a while.

The effect(iveness) of international law is determined by the ability of major powers to acknowledge that in respecting it, they create rules between them that will be to their mutual benefit. Of course some major power could become under the delusional impression that it doesn't need to respect these rules because it is dominant and omnipotent.
Bad mistake....and now Trump is ready to make matters worse?

Q
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on December 22, 2016, 04:15:40 PM
The effect(iveness) of international law is determined by the ability of major powers to acknowledge that in respecting it, they create rules between them that will to their mutual benefit.


I agree in a negative sort of way.  What you describe as mutually beneficial I would argue is really about establishing a system where non-compliance with established if perhaps informal rules becomes so potentially destructive that rational actors will operate with some degree of constraint.  This has been more important and effective since Trinity.



Of course some major power could become under the delusional impression that it doesn't need to respect these rules because it is dominant and omnipotent.


US policy reached that point in 2003.  Trump blusters about nukes and eradicating ISIS, but he also denounces nation building efforts.  Of course, so did Bush 43, but he blew the unipolar moment.



Bad mistake....and now Trump is ready to make matters worse?


Some of Trump's senior most military advisors are more hawkish than Trump himself, but they also conform to more or less standard outlooks pertaining to NATO and other norms.  Some do advocate for a more assertive stance regarding China, which will not always be possible.  Part of the standard outlook, unfortunately, includes supporting and advocating the expansion of NATO to the east (including now, per NATO itself, troops from Mongolia in a review capacity), and assuming a bellicose posture.  Now, of course, complicating all these things is the press coverage of Russia over the past several months.  They are the bad guys again, and even though no less an authority than President Obama has pointed out the economic and strategic shortcomings of Russia, you just got to make sure bad guys know their place.  When I survey Russian actions starting in 2008, I see thuggish behavior, but nothing significant enough to warrant a truly significant US response.  Syria and Ukraine do not impact US security directly.  Unfortunately, the Baltics can because of poor choices made in years past.  It's hard to see even Trump going nuclear over the Baltics, though.
Title: Yea, Trump Actually Won "America's Vote".....Just Forget About 'La-La Land'
Post by: snyprrr on December 22, 2016, 05:02:29 PM
Without California, Trump Won the Popular Vote, Too

in other words

Hillary Only Won the Popular Vote Because of California


California... who wants to secede...



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Que on December 23, 2016, 12:41:20 AM
It's hard to see even Trump going nuclear over the Baltics, though.

I quite agree. And that is where the danger lies: Putin understands that all too well.....

Q
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on December 23, 2016, 12:58:05 AM
With Trumps lack of impulse control, his stock moving twitters, and all the smart and unscupulous billionaires in his cabinet, I wonder.....
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Que on December 23, 2016, 01:21:01 AM
With Trumps lack of impulse control, his stock moving twitters, and all the smart and unscupulous billionaires in his cabinet, I wonder.....

They seem as clueless in matters of international politics as that bunch of nitwits that is running the UK at the moment.... ::)

A former executive of an energy company is going to deal with matters of war and peace on behalf of what still is a superpower.

It's going to be interesting, to say the least..

Q
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on December 23, 2016, 01:25:18 AM
They seem as clueless in matters of international politics as that bunch of nitwits that is running the UK at the moment.... ::)

A former executive of an energy company is going to deal with matters of war and peace on behalf of what still is a superpower.

It's going to be interesting, to say the least..

Q
Yes indeed, but I was thinking more in the values of their stockholdings, and their power to influence the POTUS twitters and tweets.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Que on December 23, 2016, 01:33:04 AM
Yes indeed, but I was thinking more in the values of their stockholdings, and their power to influence the POTUS twitters and tweets.

Oh that, it is probably going to be a WASP millionaires' field day! :laugh:

Q
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: -abe- on December 28, 2016, 09:33:17 PM
It would appear that many working class Americans have a huge amount of resentment of liberals, and voted for Trump to piss those people off...but I wonder if economic resentment isn't at play here. The shifting nature of the U.S economy means the off-shoring or doing away with (via automation) of many jobs held by America's middle and working classes. These American middle and working class people find themselves in a bit of philosophical pickle though. They believe in meritocracy, because they hope to attain material comfort and the status that come with it, at the same time, economic and technological forces are undermining their competitive edge such that a lot of the economic gains of the modern era are going to coastal professionals and the super-wealthy. A lot of these working class and middle class people (who feel the economic pressure) sense that they are losing out in the very same system they believed in, but they can't exactly declare that they are angry because they feel like losers...hence the incoherence of their politics.



Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: -abe- on December 28, 2016, 09:37:46 PM
These issues also animated the Bernie Sanders campaign, which truly spoke to the moment more than Hillary Clinton's ridiculous "more of the status quo" promises. Trump did to Hillary what Obama did to Romney: She was painted as someone who would make the economic situation of the working class as worse. Regardless of whether or not voters were naive to believe in Trump's message, it's clear that him directly addressing these issues in a way that played into the economic discontent of many people in middle America undeniably gave him the edge, and it was a disaster for the Democratic establishment to push aside Bernie Sanders. This could very well be the future -- the endless rage of the losers of the new economy who feel undignified.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on January 07, 2017, 03:05:06 AM
I continue to be weirdly impressed by how petty Mitch McConnell is (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-confirmation-trump-cabinet-nominees-233247). Kind of wondering if the 495 is designed in the shape of a demonic symbol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M25_motorway#Popular_culture) to pump out low-grade acts of evil on a constant basis, or something.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 07, 2017, 05:48:09 AM
I continue to be weirdly impressed by how petty Mitch McConnell is (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-confirmation-trump-cabinet-nominees-233247).


Not petty, smart.  As the article says, McConnell's moves "may tank Senate Democrats’ long-planned strategy to systematically attack Trump’s cabinet and wound the Republican Party."  Go Mitch!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on January 07, 2017, 06:26:12 AM
I mean, of course it's smart, and exactly the kind of strategy you use against political opponents (Dems did the same in '09, with McConnell being the beleaguered minority leader pleading for more time on some people in exchange for confirming a bunch of others immediately, iirc). I'm just taking a moment to appreciate the bloody-mindedness, sheer triviality and dogmatic insistence on rules that goes into making senators run back and forth between confirmation hearings on candidates they've had to review up to 150,000 pages of documents on. Certainly, the 115th Congress is getting off to an exemplary start.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 07, 2017, 06:41:06 AM
I'm just taking a moment to appreciate the bloody-mindedness, sheer triviality and dogmatic insistence on rules that goes into making senators run back and forth between confirmation hearings on candidates they've had to review up to 150,000 pages of documents on.


This is of course about grandstanding for TV.  Republicans and Democrats know that the cabinet picks will sail through unless Republicans object, Mattis maybe excepted (though it looks like he gets through easy), and televised hearings are how Dems can generate red-meat soundbites.  No one reads press releases from junior senators offices', and nobody but polisci researchers comb through the Congressional Record for written complaints and objections.  Gotta get on primetime. 

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on January 07, 2017, 07:03:40 AM
It's all about TV and social media. In one short sentence; this is why you are f.....d.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 07, 2017, 07:09:09 AM
It's all about TV and social media. In one short sentence; this is why you are f.....d.


Of course all of it is not about TV and social media, but confirmation hearings certainly are.  Legislation still requires sausage making.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on January 07, 2017, 07:24:01 AM

Of course all of it is not about TV and social media, but confirmation hearings certainly are.  Legislation still requires sausage making.
Of course. But legislation depends upon the elected, who are again dependent upon TV and social media, as well demonstrated by a recent election.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 07, 2017, 07:35:24 AM
Of course. But legsilation depends upon the elected,


True, but it has always been thus.  People have lamented about the quality of elected leaders in the US since the 1780s.  The worst offenders tend to be people with different views.  The current Congress is one of the best educated ever, and certainly better educated than in halcyon days of the 50s and 60s.  (Well, the 60s are the halcyon days if you don't count the political assassinations, riots, massive protests, and foreign war waged on questionable pretenses.)

And legislation in the US is also heavily dependent on Congressional staffers and outside groups and individuals (ie, lobbyists).  This, too, is not at all new.  But this time is different, I know.

Trump deserves credit where credit is due.  "As FDR mastered radio and JFK conquered TV, Donald Trump rules the Internet like no other candidate."  (From Bill Moyers' Twitter feed.)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on January 07, 2017, 08:57:14 AM
Trump deserves credit where credit is due.  "As FDR mastered radio and JFK conquered TV, Donald Trump rules the Internet like no other candidate."  (From Bill Moyers' Twitter feed.)
Yes, he did. And we probably both are aware of the Internet's problem with facts and information quality ....that's what I meant with the comment that you (and we all) in the long run may be well and truly f....d.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 07, 2017, 09:16:00 AM
....that's what I meant with the comment that you (and we all) in the long run may be well and truly f....d.


What does the "long run" mean?  Four years, ten years, thirty years, longer?  And what does "fucked" mean?  Fucked how?  I tend to see a gross overreaction to Trump's election in the press and by a variety of others.  Trump mastered a new-ish medium and will take office, and his opponents will adjust and adapt.  I doubt he will be as transformational as FDR or Reagan, nor do I think he will be as tyrannical as Lincoln or Wilson or FDR.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Mahlerian on January 07, 2017, 09:27:52 AM
Trump deserves credit where credit is due.  "As FDR mastered radio and JFK conquered TV, Donald Trump rules the Internet like no other candidate."  (From Bill Moyers' Twitter feed.)

If it takes being a troll and serial liar to "rule the internet," it would be by far the more honorable thing to abdicate.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on January 07, 2017, 09:42:37 AM
Less quality control. more talking down to the lowest denominator, more manipulation and scare mongering---I think this will mean more room for manipulators and less discussion of issues.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on January 07, 2017, 10:22:32 AM
And what does "fucked" mean?  Fucked how?

For starters? Ask the people who will lose healthcare.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 07, 2017, 10:41:26 AM
If it takes being a troll and serial liar to "rule the internet," it would be by far the more honorable thing to abdicate.


?


Less quality control. more talking down to the lowest denominator, more manipulation and scare mongering---I think this will mean more room for manipulators and less discussion of issues.


This does not live up to the hyperbole of being "fucked".


For starters? Ask the people who will lose healthcare.


First some legislation must pass that actually results in this occurring.  Current "repeal" legislation on offer won't cause that to happen in the immediate future.  And to be clear, it's health insurance coverage that will be impacted - though not removed - not healthcare delivery.  By law, hospitals in the US must treat anyone.  The setup is not ideal, but people too often confuse health insurance and healthcare delivery.  As in all the time, at least on the left.

Besides that, the new erato's prior post was that we all would be fucked - meaning people outside the US as well.  No responses so far show that to be even remotely close to true. 
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on January 07, 2017, 01:55:24 PM
By law, hospitals in the US must treat anyone.

I was talking about this:

Quote from:
If that’s what GOP lawmakers decide to do — as many informed observers suspect they will — there’s a high likelihood that they would, in fact, produce a death spiral. With guaranteed insurance for people with pre-existing conditions but no subsidies or individual mandate, premiums could skyrocket. Or, more likely, insurers simply would exit the market. Why risk losses when the whole law is getting repealed anyway? The upshot would be canceled coverage with no other options for people buying in the ACA’s marketplaces (like healthcare.gov or Covered California), as well as those buying directly from insurers, where the same rules apply.

(...)

President-elect Trump said recently that he wanted to keep the ACA’s prohibition against denying coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. It’s understandable that Republicans would want to keep the popular stuff in the ACA while getting rid of the unpopular stuff (the individual mandate and increased taxes). Unfortunately, there’s no magic pixie dust to make that easy or avoid difficult trade-offs.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-levitt-death-spiral-20161212-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-levitt-death-spiral-20161212-story.html)

Besides that, the new erato's prior post was that we all would be fucked - meaning people outside the US as well.  No responses so far show that to be even remotely close to true.

One example: The United States must join Europe to resist Russia’s meddling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-united-states-must-join-europe-to-resist-russias-meddling/2017/01/01/e9964cac-ceb1-11e6-a87f-b917067331bb_story.html)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 07, 2017, 02:07:35 PM
I was talking about this:


Yes, health insurance, as I noted.  Again, there is no legislation in place, and if you hop on over to Politico, you'll see an article highlighting how some Republican senators are wavering on repeal.  Nothing is in place yet. 



One example: The United States must join Europe to resist Russia’s meddling (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-united-states-must-join-europe-to-resist-russias-meddling/2017/01/01/e9964cac-ceb1-11e6-a87f-b917067331bb_story.html)


OK, an op-ed from WaPo, which generally favors a very interventionist foreign policy in its editorial section.  This article even uses the word "appeasement".  So?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: snyprrr on January 10, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Even I thought Trump tweeting back Meryl Streep was a little butthurt-y. Duuuude.... you ARE going to "pick your battles", aren't you? LOL!!!

However, she was in that 'Rickie and the Rockets' or something? Meryl, what the literal fukk?

Both Trump AND Obama have IMDBs.

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


Everyone needs to take two weeks worth of Quaaludes and let's just get this agony phase over with already... I'm tired of the whining

MAKE MY WALLET GREAT AGAIN!!!!
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 10, 2017, 04:15:30 PM
Anti-vaxxers rejoice: Donny loves Bobby! (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-meet-with-proponent-of-debunked-tie-between-vaccines-and-autism/2017/01/10/4a5d03c0-d752-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?utm_term=.8a1dfa3a4213)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on January 10, 2017, 07:49:51 PM
"At a hearing preoccupied with politically-charged issues like the Ku Klux Klan, abortion and the use of criminal law as a political weapon, Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley showed where his passions lie: irritation over the Justice Department's sluggish answers to his mail inquiries." (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/jeff-sessions-confirmation-hearings-updates-analysis-233402)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Rinaldo on January 11, 2017, 12:46:09 AM
The gift that keeps on giving.

(http://i63.tinypic.com/99gymc.jpg)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 11, 2017, 01:51:48 AM
... I'm tired of the whining

You don't say?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on January 11, 2017, 06:10:53 AM

     Trump's lack of credibility is biting him hard, isn't it? Now false news about him undermines his administration before he's sworn in. Putin got the President he wanted, one that just might end up severely damaged not only by the facts of his Putin connection but by false rumors about it. Yes, Trump has been surveiled for years by Russia. They do that you know, cultivate gullible Westerners and complile dossiers on them. Trump was a fat target. He will pay dividends.

     It's all good for Vladdy at this point. The rightward shift around the world has his full backing. The Philippines has it's own troll army, and the model is spreading all over the world.

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: The new erato on January 11, 2017, 06:22:30 AM
I was reputedly wrong about us all being f....d. Seemed like it was Donald that was.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 11, 2017, 06:32:18 AM
     Trump's lack of credibility is biting him hard, isn't it?

Quote from: The G.O.P.
We stand ready to be entirely gullible for you, The Donald.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: amw on January 11, 2017, 06:43:45 AM
On the other hand, this Russia nothingburger is certain to eat up a few days of airtime and deflect media attention away from the next few days of confirmation hearings. Very fortunate for a certain someone who would like his cabinet of corrupt plutocrats and far-right extremists to avoid significant public scrutiny. Hmm. Probably just a weird coincidence.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 11, 2017, 07:45:19 AM
Quote from: The G.O.P.
We stand ready to be entirely gullible for you, The Donald.


Quote from: Grover Norquist, ca 2012
We are not auditioning for a fearless leader.  We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.



On the other hand, this Russia nothingburger is certain to eat up a few days of airtime and deflect media attention away from the next few days of confirmation hearings. Very fortunate for a certain someone who would like his cabinet of corrupt plutocrats and far-right extremists to avoid significant public scrutiny. Hmm. Probably just a weird coincidence.


I'm outraged that you're not outraged.  Buzzfeed is legit.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 11, 2017, 07:46:17 AM
Oops, I melted down on Twitter again.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Marc on January 11, 2017, 08:14:56 AM
Yes, Ivanka is there!

I like this family.

:P
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on January 11, 2017, 09:44:14 AM

    It doesn't seem to me that attention has been diverted from the Trump nominees, else why the delays. Besides, it's all of a piece, Trump the not very witting Russo-stooge appoints people too compromised for anything more than a "de-ethics" probe. Cynics should rejoice at the world being pulled down to them even more than it was before.

    I am operationally an optimist. Improvements happen largely because we want them and we don't stop wanting the improvements we get, so we don't slip back very far. Our unwillingness to let Trumpian devolution go beyond a certain point is evident. Not that it won't go far, just that devolutionary politics has a way of arranging its own demise, but only after sorely disappointing the people who thought they might gain from it.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 11, 2017, 10:01:24 AM
Who is polling the Trump Voter Remorse?  8)
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 11, 2017, 10:04:02 AM
Who is polling the Trump Voter Remorse?  8)


Mine actually is working in reverse after the press conference.  The way he pimp slapped Clinton News Network and simply avoided answering some questions altogether almost made me wish I voted for him.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on January 11, 2017, 10:12:53 AM

     Re Trump and the Buzzfeed commotion, I'm reminded of Wolf Hall, the series about the Tudor fixer for Henry VIII Thomas Cromwell. He's interrogating one of the accused in the Boleyn business, and it comes to pass that this poor fellow realizes that his persecution of Cardinal Wolsey, and his rejoicing publicly at his death, is the reason he has been caught up in Cromwell's net.

     Cromwell says then: “Life pays you out, don’t you find? I need guilty men, Harry. So I found men who are guilty, though not necessarily as charged.”

     
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Marc on January 11, 2017, 10:21:22 AM

Mine actually is working in reverse after the press conference.  The way he pimp slapped Clinton News Network and simply avoided answering some questions altogether almost made me wish I voted for him.

Really?

I thought it was the saddest moment of the day.
Among the other sad moments.

Well, I'm gonna return to music... not the TRUMPet though.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 11, 2017, 10:36:33 AM
Really?


I exaggerated for effect.  I'm fine with how I voted.  But I did find it hilarious.  He did the same to Univision during the campaign.  It will be interesting to see if the English language press rallies to CNN's defense, especially given its conduct, or if this disappears into the ether of the (less than) 24 hour news cycle.  Coverage of Trump has, unfortunately, resulted in some sloppy reporting recently, like CNN here, or WaPo on the "fake news" story and the Vermont power grid hacking story.  Trump and Bannon are proving pretty good at manipulation and distraction.  Proper sourcing and vetting is perhaps more essential now than ever, I would argue - without exaggeration. 

Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 11, 2017, 10:52:28 AM
I exaggerated for effect.

That's how I read you.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: drogulus on January 11, 2017, 11:56:50 AM
     
  Proper sourcing and vetting is perhaps more essential now than ever, I would argue - without exaggeration. 



    I'm all in favor of that. While we're at it, if the intelligence services can do their duty by warning Trump of what he will face the next few years and in the process fuck him up real good as he tries to wriggle away from specific charges that he's Putin's minion while leaving the inference that he is generally exactly that, I'm OK with that, too. As long as he behaves as though the Russians have something on him, and the Russians do too, I'm content to wait for the evidence to come in when it does, how it does. There's no need to hack a poor slob who's obviously been hacked enough. He's really hacked himself better than anyone else could, the blabbering idiot. But then (heh!), I could be wrong about that, couldn't I?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: k a rl h e nn i ng on January 11, 2017, 12:02:22 PM
Could just be some fat guy in Jersey.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 11, 2017, 12:04:08 PM
But then (heh!), I could be wrong about that, couldn't I?


Sure can.  I mean, you went on about the demise of the Republican party not too long ago, so your powers of prognostication are, shall we say, in doubt.

When Trump and Putin meet, I'm guessing the public face put on will be as congenial as can be in the current environment.  However, I heed Chuck D's sage advice.



Could just be some fat guy in Jersey.


What is Chris Christie doing these days?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Spineur on January 11, 2017, 12:41:25 PM
     
He's really hacked himself better than anyone else could, the blabbering idiot. But then (heh!), I could be wrong about that, couldn't I?
He really has trouble completing a full sentence, jumping onto something else before coming back to some of his initial thoughts.  This reminded me of some elder family members who had minor strokes.   Does a US president has to pass some kind of health exam before being confirm in office ?
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 11, 2017, 12:46:16 PM
Does a US president has to pass some kind of health exam before being confirm in office ?


No, and thank goodness for that.  Imagine how FDR would have fared, especially in '44.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 11, 2017, 12:59:00 PM
I perused the damning document on BuzzFeed, all 35 pages of it.  Some tidbits of interest from the Summary sections:


Quote from: Very Reliable Source
Suggestion from source close to TRUMP and MANAFORT that Republican campaign team happy to have Russia as media bogeyman to mask more extensive corrupt business ties to China and other emerging countries.


This seems odd as no one important or informed really groups China in with emerging countries anymore.



Quote from: Very Reliable Source
Talk now in Kremlin of TRUMP withdrawing from presidential race altogether, but this still largely wishful thinking by more liberal elements in Moscow.


Hmm.



Quote from: Very Reliable Source
Kremlin engaging with several high profile players, including STEIN, PAGE, and (former DIA Director Michael Flynn), and funding their recent visits to Moscow.


STEIN, as in Jill Stein.  (Stein high profile?)  And just why doesn't Flynn merit all caps?

The salacious sex bits were pretty tame, I thought.  I'm not convinced that Trump wouldn't just buy American for what is alleged.  Even going for classy gals and not Backpage gals, Trump could have arranged the very specific act mentioned for only five or six grand, and that's assuming three girls who know how to keep their traps shut.  Given that Trump married one of his mistresses, and there's no dead girl/live boy accusation, this doesn't seem to be too potent.

Apparently, if the dates on the documents are to be believed, this has been around since last summer, but it surfaced now.  Nothing unusual in that timing.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on January 11, 2017, 02:12:21 PM
Trump could have arranged the very specific act mentioned for only five or six grand,
This is a rather specific thing for you to know about the market price of.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Todd on January 11, 2017, 02:13:38 PM
This is a rather specific thing for you to know about the market price of.


Don't tell my wife.
Title: Re: Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)
Post by: Brian on January 11, 2017, 02:24:42 PM