Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[Florestan]

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?

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. 

[Turner]

You mean Georgia, right?

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

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.

[Florestan]

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. 

[North Star]

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)

[Turner]

Well, it´s not exactly a thing one would guess

[Florestan]

(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.

[Florestan]

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.

[Todd]

Two candidates for the office of POTUS besmirching and slandering each other. Quite unheard of and unprecedented. 

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.

[Florestan]

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.

[Todd]

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. 

[Karl Henning]

What Could Stop President Trump From Putting His Portfolio First?

[Todd]

What Could Stop President Trump From Putting His Portfolio First?

Congressional hearings.  Oh, uh-oh.

[Todd]

(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.)

[Todd]

The market seems to have decided 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.  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.

[Mister Sharpe]

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.

[Todd]

At last, the US and Russia will reset their relationship. 



(That's unheard of.)

[amw]

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. <_<

[Todd]

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.

[Mister Sharpe]

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.

[Florestan]

Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Contemporary democracy in a nutshell.