USA Politics

[arpeggio]

the NYT is actually doing well. The idea that it is 'failing' is a Trump move to discredit the press, while Trump's really running multiple businesses into bankruptcy, and now of course the entire USA.

One could say 'local' newspapers are doing bad, but the Times has become a international newspaper.

Being a Trump sock puppet Diner Cop echoes the meaningless "failing NYT" phrase because he, too, likes to lie. That's the price you pay.

The situation is this, Trump supporters are constantly making proclamations.  If one takes the time to do the research one finds that the majority of what they say is inaccurate.

I am no longer interested in going on wild goose chases.  They are like the boy who cried wolf.

[arpeggio]

What is so disheartening about the latest revelations concerning Trumps tax returns is that most Republicans hate Democrats so much they would rather see Jack the Ripper in the White House instead of a Democrat.

[Herman]

the truly disheartening thing of course is none of these discussions matter.

Trump and the GOP will stage a quasi-legal coup d'etat in November, a number of people pro and con will be shot and killed, and when the dust settles Trump will still be in the White House, where he's 'immune' from lenders domestic and foreign. And if he's still able to utter talk in 2024 he'll continue. People will basically die to save his sorry ass. Nothing will make Trump feel better than that.

Used to be people predicted he would step down in December and pardon himself in advance, but that doesn't help him with his debt problems. Like many authoritarian leaders he needs to stay in power for the immunity. Barr and the GOP will support and enable this because the GOP is a minority party that increasingly needs weird stuff to stay in power and realise its goals: tax breaks for the rich and end Roe v Wade.

The USA has ceased to be a functioning democracy, and calling the NYT and the Washington Post failing or crooked is part of this.

[BasilValentine]

What is so disheartening about the latest revelations concerning Trumps tax returns is that most Republicans hate Democrats so much they would rather see Jack the Ripper in the White House instead of a Democrat.

It has nothing to do with hatred of Democrats. It's about power and wanting to hold onto it and their jobs.

[arpeggio]

It has nothing to do with hatred of Democrats. It's about power and wanting to hold onto it and their jobs.

Of course many in the Trump movement are motivated by power.

According to Rick Wilson, David Frum and Charles Sykes, in their books about the Trump movement, for many of his supporters religion plays a role.

They also discuss the animas that most of them have toward Democrats as well as the power issue.

[krummholz]

Trump and the GOP will stage a quasi-legal coup d'etat in November, a number of people pro and con will be shot and killed, and when the dust settles Trump will still be in the White House, where he's 'immune' from lenders domestic and foreign. And if he's still able to utter talk in 2024 he'll continue. People will basically die to save his sorry ass. Nothing will make Trump feel better than that.

I think this is only a realistic possibility if the vote count is close enough that there is sincere doubt about who won. Otherwise, as last week's Senate resolution shows, quite a few Republicans will cry "enough!" and Trump will be gone. If the Trump inner circle tries to assassinate them, the first one they either kill or who survives will blow the whistle, the public will rise up, and again, Trump will be gone.

It's been suggested that the best way to avoid this scenario is for large numbers of people to show up at the polls instead of voting by mail, to deny Trump the opportunity to declare victory prematurely. This is tragic, as some who do will likely contract COVID-19 because of this, but unless something changes between now and November 3, it may be the truly patriotic thing to do.

[Todd]

The USA has ceased to be a functioning democracy

The juggernaut did it.

[krummholz]

An honest question for @Todd and any other Trump supporters: why do you continue to stand behind this man in spite of the allegations that have been made about him, and in spite of his faithfully reported (and recorded!) words?

Do you believe the allegations are false? If so, please address two or three recent ones: those of Bob Woodward in Rage (including Trump's words on tape); his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, to wit, his statement "Get rid of the ballots, and you don't have a transition, you have a continuation" (also on tape); and the story about how little he paid in taxes.

Or does it all not matter to you? If not, then why not? Why do you want to see Donald Trump get a second term?

[Todd]

An honest question for @Todd and any other Trump supporters: why do you continue to stand behind this man in spite of the allegations that have been made about him, and in spite of his faithfully reported (and recorded!) words?

Do you believe the allegations are false? If so, please address two or three recent ones: those of Bob Woodward in Rage (including Trump's words on tape); his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, to wit, his statement "Get rid of the ballots, and you don't have a transition, you have a continuation" (also on tape); and the story about how little he paid in taxes.

Or does it all not matter to you? If not, then why not? Why do you want to see Donald Trump get a second term?

A lot of assumptions in your questions, including that I am a Trump supporter, as typically understood.

I have explicitly stated why I would prefer a second Trump term on multiple occasions on this forum.  That was before he advocated negative interest rates, though.  I will let you do some looking.  Ultimately, I am fine with all possible outcomes. 

Now, perhaps you, or some GMG Constitutional Law expert, can explain how Trump's various proclamations change the three critical dates of the election, and how said proclamations will impact the second and third key dates.  There are reasons why Trump is belching out political theater bluster while putting together a big legal team.

[Karl Henning]

It is quite telling that when Trump talks about throwing out ballots, or refuses to commit to a peaceful transitional power, elected Republicans remain silent. No doubt they believe, correctly, that their base is more attached to Trump than to democracy.

[71 dB]

An honest question for @Todd and any other Trump supporters: why do you continue to stand behind this man in spite of the allegations that have been made about him, and in spite of his faithfully reported (and recorded!) words?

Do you believe the allegations are false? If so, please address two or three recent ones: those of Bob Woodward in Rage (including Trump's words on tape); his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, to wit, his statement "Get rid of the ballots, and you don't have a transition, you have a continuation" (also on tape); and the story about how little he paid in taxes.

Or does it all not matter to you? If not, then why not? Why do you want to see Donald Trump get a second term?

I had difficulties understanding the support for Trump when I started following US politics (this was winter 2017) because I coudn't get how some people can't see Trump is totally unfit to the president. What made me understand things was when I heard the lefties such as TYT call Trump the "cult leader". His supporters have never had much rational reasons for their support. It's all about feelings. Trump makes them feel good. That's all it is. The mistake we did while evaluating the opinions of other people we assume they have come to the conclusion thinking rationally, but that's not often the case. A lot of people seem to fool themselves by thinking if something feels good it means it's a fact or it makes sense, but the World does not work that way. The facts are often depressing! Facts often makes us feel bad. If you reject the bad feeling you also reject the facts. Trump is for many the "savior" who denies the facts and makes people feel good. Unfortunately it's only for a short time, because denial of the facts has ugly consequencies, for example a corporate frendly supreme court for decades blocking nearly all progressive ideas, althou an amendment to ban money in politics is a theoretical solution for this, but you need to make that amendment done and it's really really difficult!

So, that's what this is all about. If climate change makes you feel bad, you can believe in your cult leader Trump who says climate change is just a Chinese hoax and feel good about doing nothing about it. If mexican immigrants make you feel bad, daddy Trump makes you feel good by promising the wall. The only rational reasons to vote for Trump in 2016 were his economical leftism compared to centrist corporate Hillary: He talked about bringing the outsourced jobs back. He talked about affordable great healthcare. Many desperate Americans were ready to take that chance, but if those people really are rational in their decision, they should have noticed long ago Trump is a total fraud.

[SimonNZ]

I have explicitly stated why I would prefer a second Trump term on multiple occasions on this forum. 

No. You haven't. Please do so now.

Because there's nothing to be found in lookng through all your previous posts - like anyone's going to do that - beyond cheap snark from a guy who somehow thinks cheap snark makes hiim sound like Oscar Wilde.

[71 dB]

The USA has ceased to be a functioning democracy,...

Yes.

It happened little over 40 years ago when money in politics was allowed as "freedom of speech." At first the consequences were mild. Reagan accelarated things with his "trickle down" economics (hardly anything ever trickles down, because the rich rather keep the money themselves). Money in politics slowly pushed both the Republicans and the Democrats to right so that Obama did an originally Republican healthcare plan for example. In economic issues The Dems are now were the Republicans used to be a few decades ago while the Republicans now support full crony capitalism for the bottom 99 % and corporate socialism for the top 1 %.

[Todd]

It happened little over 40 years ago when money in politics was allowed as "freedom of speech."

Are you referring to Buckley?

[71 dB]

No. You haven't. Please do so now.

Because there's nothing to be found in lookng through all your previous posts - like anyone's going to do that - beyond cheap snark from a guy who somehow thinks cheap snark makes hiim sound like Oscar Wilde.

Well said!  Todd is mr. Cheap Snarks!

Anyway I am quite sure I know why Todd wants to vote for Trump: Trump makes Todd feel good. Knowing what kind of person Todd is I'd say it's the "own the libs" aspect. 

[71 dB]

Are you referring to Buckley?

Yes. Buckley v. Valeo, 1976. It's not the only ruling undercutting the US democracy, but one could say it is the beginning of the current situation.

[Todd]

Yes. Buckley v. Valeo, 1976. It's not the only ruling undercutting the US democracy, but one could say it is the beginning of the current situation.

The ruling does not undercut democracy.

[71 dB]

The ruling does not undercut democracy.

Why? What does it do then in your opinion? What is it for?

[Todd]

Why? What does it do then in your opinion? What is it for?

It protects freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, the latter by narrowing the scope of the underlying statute.  Congress passes questionable or inexact legislation from time to time.  Only a radical court would throw out Buckley. 

US fans of vigorous campaign finance law need to push for a Constitutional Amendment; non-American fans of vigorous campaign finance law can do nothing.

[71 dB]

It protects freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, the latter by narrowing the scope of the underlying statute.  Congress passes questionable or inexact legislation from time to time.  Only a radical court would throw out Buckley. 

US fans of vigorous campaign finance law need to push for a Constitutional Amendment; non-American fans of vigorous campaign finance law can do nothing.

Kyle Kulinski said the logic behind this implies prostitution should be legal, because paying for a prostitute is saying "I like blowjobs!" 

As for freedom of press, the ruling is badly formulation as it makes possible wild bribing of politicials that has nothing to do with journalism.