Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

13334363839168

Comments

  • Barnabas wrote:
    But I think Joe was a kind of GOP/Democract hybrid wasn't he? At a time when more right-leaning Dems and moderate GOPs actually existed. Before the polarisation squeezed the life out of the centre ground.

    Is it true to say that there are no right-leaning Dems anymore? I interpret that as meaning Democrats comfortable with President Clinton's embrace of right wing economics. That's my first question.

    My second question is whether the policy positions of Democrats have really shifted, or whether they are pursuing the same social policy agenda that (say) Teddy Kennedy pursued, but are embracing a different label (socialist). Without making an extended argument, my feeling is that Teddy Kennedy would be entirely comfortable with the sorts of policies being advocated by so-called Sanders Democrats in the current campaign.

    This really drifts into another Purg thread (although that one had more of a British flavour), but does Bernie Sanders actually subscribe to a Marxist interpretation of society, or is he really just wanting to see less income inequality and a more interventionist approach to Government within the context of the existing social structure? He might say he's a socialist, but I don't FINK so.

    I think that its the Republicans who have in large numbers detached themselves from the political pendulum, and their sharp turn rightward has changed the perception of the middle ground. What is now seen as the middle ground is a shadow. The real middle ground is now almost exclusively the province of the Democratic Party.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    .
    I gather DT has now canceled a pay raise for federal employees. Way to shoot himself in the foot.

    As one blogger put it "I guess the Republicans don't ever expect to win Virginia again".

    For those unfamiliar with the political geography involved, Virginia has recently become a swing state in presidential elections and a lot of federal workers live in the state, particularly the northern bits just outside the District of Columbia.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Oops!
    Bombshell leak to Toronto Star upends NAFTA talks: In secret ‘so insulting’ remarks, Trump says he isn’t compromising at all with Canada

    High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.

    In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”

    “Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal ... I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.

    In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.

    And of course there's a quote highlighting President* Looselips' weird belief that trade agreements are only about vehicle imports and exports.
    “Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.

    Needless to say Trump's assertions that he's not negotiating with Canada in good faith was taken by the Canadian government as reason to believe that Trump is not negotiating in good faith.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    !!!

    Trump says he "can't kill these people?!"

    Where's Dietrich Bonhoeffer when we need him?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    .
    I gather DT has now canceled a pay raise for federal employees. Way to shoot himself in the foot.

    As one blogger put it "I guess the Republicans don't ever expect to win Virginia again".

    For those unfamiliar with the political geography involved, Virginia has recently become a swing state in presidential elections and a lot of federal workers live in the state, particularly the northern bits just outside the District of Columbia.

    Apparently, the state is now liberal enough that a political fund could run this ad, using the Gadsden and Confederate flags as negative symbolism, and portraying headscarved Muslim girls as sympathetic, without doing significant damage to the candidate they were endorsing.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Trump says he "can't kill these people?!"

    Hey now, don't concentrate on 'the glass is half empty' of Trump implying he'd like to nuke Canada, remember 'the glass is half full' bit about Trump admitting he can't do it.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Moronic. Even for him.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Needless to say Trump's assertions that he's not negotiating with Canada in good faith was taken by the Canadian government as reason to believe that Trump is not negotiating in good faith.
    Haven't they learned to take NOTHING he says to mean what it sounds like? After all, "Truth isn't truth."

    Meanwhile, I'm wondering why I didn't just stay in Canada when I was there last week -- at least until this nightmare is over.

  • And porn star will save the world from him.
  • McCain is on record I think as stating his regret at choosing Palin.

    Trump is slowly destroying the GOP. However I have the very opposite of sympathy. For it is they who played this game of disinformation and subtle lies for 20 years... only to be taken over by someone who does it bigger and better. If you play with fire just beware that you could be the next Thomas Farriner...*

    This game of tax cuts for the wealthy, defence of corporations and demonisation of healthcare, of opponents and others... yes it will win you elections but it will also leave the door open to narcissists and extremists because your ill-informed base will prefer them to you.

    The thing is the GOP as with the Tories in the UK** are dragging everyone else down with them. Hence my lack of sympathy. The costs are huge.

    AFZ

    *potentially responsible for starting the Great Fire of London
    **both austerity and Brexit are built on lies and disinformation with no proper rational basis and may well destroy the Conservative party but the costs have been born by the most vulnerable in out society.
  • I agree that the GOP is in bad shape and that Trump is making it worse. I think the decay started a lot more than 20 years back. I think the GOP started sliding down toward evil when it adopted the Southern Strategy, which was in the early 70s. The strategy swallowed up the party. While there are Republican voters who still believe in traditional Republican values such as fiscal conservatism, their leaders don't adhere to much except staying in power and making super-rich people even richer.

    The GOP is not going to disappear, but it may become even worse. It might fragment into at least two parts. We might end up with coalition government.

    I am tempted to start a new thread on imagined Trump nightmare scenarios.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited September 2018
    HarryCH wrote: »
    The GOP is not going to disappear, but it may become even worse. It might fragment into at least two parts. We might end up with coalition government.

    In a lot of ways the American party system already is a form of coalition government. Traditionally the parties are broad coalitions of interest groups gathered under a single banner for expediency and the requirements of the first past the post electoral system. In other words, unlike a parliamentary system American coalitions are formed ex ante rather than ex post. What's interesting is that the Republican party seems to be moving away from this, becoming more like an ideologically coherent European-style political party rather than an American-style coalition party. We'll see if this narrower focus is sustainable in the American electoral system, I guess.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Traditionally the parties are broad coalitions of interest groups gathered under a single banner for expediency and the requirements of the first past the post electoral system. In other words, unlike a parliamentary system American coalitions are formed ex ante rather than ex post.
    That's a feature of any broadly first-past-the-system, two-party or not. In a first-past-the-post system it's always going to pay off to try and sweep up your coalition partners' votes before you go in rather than after.
    Whether this can be stable for any political party in the current political climate isn't clear to me. Both the major political parties in the UK at the moment have problems with internal ideological struggles.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Faking it?

    This looks like a considered ploy. The worse the news is for the President, the more frequently he calls 'Fake'.

    And yet, following Manafort and Cohen, the polls suggest that he is losing credibility. The numbers suggest a small but significant erosion of core support. The mid terms look ever more important. What will it take for the GOP to turn away? The evidence that he is becoming a vote loser? Or the increasing awareness of 'liar, liar, pants on fire'?
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    edited September 2018
    Trump is only in real trouble once Pence starts letting it be known that he has complete confidence in Trump and doesn't want the job.
  • I was just thinking that in not a few ways, Sarah Palin was a sort of harbinger of Trump.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I was just thinking that in not a few ways, Sarah Palin was a sort of harbinger of Trump.

    See the Mccain thread?
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I was just thinking that in not a few ways, Sarah Palin was a sort of harbinger of Trump.

    See the Mccain thread?

    I can’t find it. Could you post a link?

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited September 2018
    Dafyd wrote: »
    That's a feature of any broadly first-past-the-system, two-party or not. In a first-past-the-post system it's always going to pay off to try and sweep up your coalition partners' votes before you go in rather than after.

    With the flip side that if a faction wants to leave, they face the electoral wilderness of being a minority party.
    Whether this can be stable for any political party in the current political climate isn't clear to me. Both the major political parties in the UK at the moment have problems with internal ideological struggles.

    I suspect in the case of the UK the history of the SDP is a powerful disincentive for the left, and UKIP is a disincentive for the right (for different reasons). That said, I suspect were one party look closer to a significant split than either does currently, then both might end up splitting in short order.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Trump is only in real trouble once Pence starts letting it be known that he has complete confidence in Trump and doesn't want the job.

    You may well be right but this is only true is Pence himself is not culpable. Hard to tell, but from what I've read, I wouldn't be surprised to see a parallel impeachment process. Or is that too much to hope for?

    AFZ
  • I'm sure a man who insists on being chaperoned when he has dinner with any woman other than his wife has thought of that and made sure his hands are (relatively) clean.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Boogie wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I was just thinking that in not a few ways, Sarah Palin was a sort of harbinger of Trump.

    See the Mccain thread?

    I can’t find it. Could you post a link?
    Hagiography in Death.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Thanks @Barnabas62
  • Jane R wrote: »
    I'm sure a man who insists on being chaperoned when he has dinner with any woman other than his wife has thought of that and made sure his hands are (relatively) clean.

    Pence was supposedly picked as Trump's running mate at the urging of Paul Manafort. I wouldn't be so sure about anything.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Then again, if Manafort goes down, isn't Trump likely to pardon him? And does T have the wit to understand that if he issues a pardon, it rather suggests that there was something Manafort needed to be pardoned for?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Manafort will go down. He is bound to get substantial jail time following his conviction. So any pardon will have convictions to pardon. And he is facing other charges as well. I think a president can pardon whoever he wants to, before or after conviction or sentencing.

    So far I don't think the convictions relate directly to the Mueller investigations. And so far there is no deal with Mueller. And so far Mueller is saying nothing about Trump.

    So a Trump pardon would make him look very bad, Might cause even the GOP to turn.
  • Nothing will cause the GOP to turn. I really believe this.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    I think the GOP would turn if they actually thought Trump was making it harder for them to achieve their goals. Right now he isn't despite being a criminal racist. If that changes? I think so.
  • Gwai wrote: »
    I think the GOP would turn if they actually thought Trump was making it harder for them to achieve their goals. Right now he isn't despite being a criminal racist. If that changes? I think so.

    Why would an institution that has criminal and racist tendencies turn against an individual of that type?

  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    As I said if he were making it harder for them to achieve their goals. For instance, if they lost a lot of seats in the midterm and in response he got nuttier. If voters continued to be move away from him? The institution would turn.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    That's what I was thinking, Gwai - it seems to me that the only thing that will make the GOP turn against him will be if they think he's becoming an electoral liability.

    The fact that he wouldn't know a moral or a scruple if it jumped up and bit him doesn't seem to matter - to the party or to the delusional idiots that vote for them.
  • Piglet wrote: »
    The fact that he wouldn't know a moral or a scruple if it jumped up and bit him doesn't seem to matter - to the party or to the delusional idiots that vote for them.
    He also wouldn’t know truth if it bit him.

  • I don't see that the Republican party knows nipping morals or snapping scruples either. Only expediency.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    And self interest.
  • Is it time to stop using GOP to means Republican? The G seems particularly inappropriate.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    An article which endorses mousethief's point.

    Time to imitate Diogenes? Carry lamps in the daytime and proclaim that you are looking for an honest elected Republican?

    I suppose it demonstrates just how much constitutional government depends on norms of behaviour. Norms which the GOP appears to be abandoning.

    I also suppose it means that the midterms will get very dirty as all means possible are used to counteract the threatened Blue Wave. So that power can be retained. The cost of Trump and his destructive behaviour will only become too high if the GOP lose majorities in both House and Senate. Last time I looked, 538 was forecasting a 5 in 7 probability that the Democrats will win the House, despite the gerrymandered district boundaries. The Senate looks much harder.

    Trump continues to blast Sessions. His efforts to exert political control over the DoJ are blatant. Do they amount to obstruction of justice, as the law sees it? I don't know, but it looks as though the GOP doesn't care.
  • Am I naive to have faith in the commitment of judges to legal principles? I don't think I am, but I worry that my certainty is faith-based. I just don't see how anyone with the capacity to get a good enough degree to get a job as an associate to a judge of the Supreme Court, spends a career litigating and deciding cases and then remains good enough to be selected to be a Supreme Court Justice and get through a vetting session as hostile as they always are these days in the Senate is going to be anything other than utterly committed to the integrity of the Courts. That goes for judges of every political persuasion.

    I know that conservatives have been trying to undermine this since the 1980's, but I still don't reckon that any of the Judges are going to support a position that is inconsistent with the way lawyers think. This applies at all levels of the judiciary where I live. Some Judges in America are elected (appalling, but its their system not mine) but I don't know how high up the scale that goes, and whether the systems are the same across the country. But surely at the senior levels of the judiciary in all jurisdictions people are appointed based in part on their skills as lawyers as much as their opinion on abortion. If that is so, they will make a decision which is within the realm of possibility from the point of view of the law.

    I shall now post my favorite clip.
  • The problem with putting faith in judges is that the current administration is busy filling all the vacancies in the lower (less-than-Supreme?) federal courts with their own hand-picked so-called conservatives.

    As to nomenclature, GOP now stands for Greedy Old Perverts. Don't get me started on the term "conservative," which once meant "to conserve." They've become destructionists. And then there's "supreme," as in the Court, which is also about to fall to the New Orange Standard . . .
  • Ohher wrote: »
    As to nomenclature, GOP now stands for Greedy Old Perverts.

    I am so stealing this!

    [not worthy]

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Am I naive to have faith in the commitment of judges to legal principles? I don't think I am, but I worry that my certainty is faith-based. I just don't see how anyone with the capacity to get a good enough degree to get a job as an associate to a judge of the Supreme Court, spends a career litigating and deciding cases and then remains good enough to be selected to be a Supreme Court Justice and get through a vetting session as hostile as they always are these days in the Senate is going to be anything other than utterly committed to the integrity of the Courts. That goes for judges of every political persuasion.

    I know that conservatives have been trying to undermine this since the 1980's, but I still don't reckon that any of the Judges are going to support a position that is inconsistent with the way lawyers think. This applies at all levels of the judiciary where I live. Some Judges in America are elected (appalling, but its their system not mine) but I don't know how high up the scale that goes, and whether the systems are the same across the country. But surely at the senior levels of the judiciary in all jurisdictions people are appointed based in part on their skills as lawyers as much as their opinion on abortion. If that is so, they will make a decision which is within the realm of possibility from the point of view of the law.

    Maybe.


    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I suppose it demonstrates just how much constitutional government depends on norms of behaviour. Norms which the GOP appears to be abandoning.

    I also suppose it means that the midterms will get very dirty as all means possible are used to counteract the threatened Blue Wave. So that power can be retained. The cost of Trump and his destructive behaviour will only become too high if the GOP lose majorities in both House and Senate. Last time I looked, 538 was forecasting a 5 in 7 probability that the Democrats will win the House, despite the gerrymandered district boundaries. The Senate looks much harder.

    Trump continues to blast Sessions. His efforts to exert political control over the DoJ are blatant. Do they amount to obstruction of justice, as the law sees it? I don't know, but it looks as though the GOP doesn't care.

    It does look like the Dems will take the House. The Senate is another matter. Even taking a majority in the Senate would not be enough for a conviction if the House impeached as two-thirds needed. However, I do believe that even the GOP could reach a tipping point whereby a Senate Conviction becomes a realistic possibility. For me, it requires two things: 1) For Mueller to show evidence that is very compelling and 2) For there to be a clear electoral liability going-forward.

    AFZ
  • Piglet wrote: »
    Then again, if Manafort goes down, isn't Trump likely to pardon him? And does T have the wit to understand that if he issues a pardon, it rather suggests that there was something Manafort needed to be pardoned for?

    I am reminded of the case of Scooter Libby. It's a useful object lesson for those who think that the modern Republican party has any problem with using presidential pardons to obstruct justice. Libby was convicted of obstructing justice and had his sentence commuted (also a presidential power) rather than receiving a full pardon, since pardoning him would have removed his fifth amendment right to refuse to testify and that would have likely been problematic for several then-serving Bush Administration officials, including vice president Cheney. The difference here is that Manafort has not (to date) been convicted of anything directly related to Donald Trump or his presidential campaign so as long a pardon stays narrowly focused on what Manafort has been convicted of (to date) removing Manafort's fifth amendment right to refuse testimony would not be problematic for Trump. A blanket pardon of any wrongdoing, on the other hand, would be.

    Libby finally received his full pardon in April of this year, from President* Trump.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I just don't see how anyone with the capacity to get a good enough degree to get a job as an associate to a judge of the Supreme Court, spends a career litigating and deciding cases and then remains good enough to be selected to be a Supreme Court Justice and get through a vetting session as hostile as they always are these days in the Senate is going to be anything other than utterly committed to the integrity of the Courts.

    Look at it from a slightly different perspective. You're talking about lawyers who have managed to attract the attention of presidents with definite political agendas and who are palatable enough to senators who are often beholden to corporate interests. Why would "the integrity of the Courts" be the focus of judges selected by such a process?

    I'm not sure I can detect a commitment to the integrity of the Court in Bush v. Gore (a.k.a. the Precedent Which Must Not Be Named) or in Shelby County v. Holder [PDF] which ruled Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional without being able to identify which part of the Constitution it violated. The basic rubric for being a Republican-appointed federal judge is that you have to side with the state on criminal cases, against the state on civil cases, and favor corporations against individual citizens. That is the entirety of the "integrity" Republican politicians expect from judicial appointments.
  • It should also be remembered that a lot of very interesting questions are likely to be decided by the Supreme Court very soon. Things like the scope of subpœnas (either Congressional, issued by a special counsel, or from attorneys pursuing civil cases) of presidential documents, the indictability of a sitting president, the scope of the Emoluments Clauses, both foreign and domestic, and a whole host of other questions. In short, one of the things that should be remembered during the Kavanaugh hearings is that Trump is trying to appoint a judge for his own cases.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited September 2018
    Here is the BBC account of the latest offending outburst.

    I did note this comment from GOP Senator Ben Sasse, a white evangelical and also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It made me wonder what questions he might now have re Kavanagh.
    U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement regarding the President’s attack on the Department of Justice for indicting two Republican congressmen.

    “The United States is not some banana republic with a two-tiered system of justice – one for the majority party and one for the minority party. These two men have been charged with crimes because of evidence, not because of who the President was when the investigations began. Instead of commenting on ongoing investigations and prosecutions, the job of the President of the United States is to defend the Constitution and protect the impartial administration of justice.”

    Protect the impartial administration of justice? Well, there's a thing. Has he been joined yet by any other GOP members in his criticism? And why is the Senate Judiciary Committee not issuing a joint bi-partisan statement precisely along those lines?

  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    And why is the Senate Judiciary Committee not issuing a joint bi-partisan statement precisely along those lines?

    They have a somewhat full schedule today [video]. Let's see if it gets mentioned during the hearings.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited September 2018
    Thanks for the link. Just watched half an hour of it. The evidence of just how highly politicised the Supreme Court already is was compelling. The Roberts Five indeed.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Just watched Ben Sasse. He was quite overt again in his condemnation of Trump's latest horror-tweet and said he expected Kavanagh felt the same.

    BUT his response to the evidence that the Supreme Court IS politicised already was to blame Congress for delegating too much of its power to the executive branch of government to make enabling regulations. He wants an a-political Supreme Court and wants Kavanagh to be judged by the standards that should apply in that case. Quite an elegant argument but some way away from what is actually going on.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Woodward strikes again.

    The White House is going to become even more bizarre after this. Of all the choice quotes, this one is my favourite
    "Don't testify. It's either that or an orange jumpsuit" - John Dowd

    An orange jumpsuit would go well with the orange hair.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I know that conservatives have been trying to undermine this since the 1980's, but I still don't reckon that any of the Judges are going to support a position that is inconsistent with the way lawyers think. This applies at all levels of the judiciary where I live. Some Judges in America are elected (appalling, but its their system not mine) but I don't know how high up the scale that goes, and whether the systems are the same across the country. But surely at the senior levels of the judiciary in all jurisdictions people are appointed based in part on their skills as lawyers as much as their opinion on abortion. If that is so, they will make a decision which is within the realm of possibility from the point of view of the law..

    I don't think many people seriously take issue with the competence and basic judiciousness of Trump's two SCOTUS appointments -- though, as noted upthread, some of his appointments to lower-level federal courts leave a lot to be desired. The issue is that from Clarence Thomas onwards, Republican administrations have consistently been appointing *very* conservative judges -- and, just for good measure, the Republican-controlled Senate went to extraordinary lengths to prevent the appointment of a fairly moderate candidate in the last year of Obama's presidency. The upshot of which is that, assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed, the SCOTUS will (for the first time in recent history) have a solid majority of 5 strongly right-wing judges, all arguably highly qualified, but all basically appointed because of their known judicial politics. The political reason for this is that a substantial proportion of the Republican base votes Republican precisely to ensure the appointment of very conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

    It will be interesting (I suppose that's one word) to see what happens to existing precedents when the block of 4 very conservative judges becomes a majority block of five. The Supreme Court ultimately has the authority to overrule its own precedents, and there is high-profile recent-ish precedent (so to speak) for doing so in the form of Lawrence v. Texas, which overruled Bowers v. Hardwick on the way to constitutionalizing gay rights. A number of important US constitutional precedents are close votes, with judges formerly in dissent who will now be able to form an easy majority. I would be surprised if the Supreme Court started throwing existing precedents out the window with wild abandon but there are many ways to diminish the significance of a precedent short of explicit overruling.

    It's not going to be that difficult for the Supreme Court to continue to render decisions that are "in the realm of possibility from the point of the law", especially given what seems to be the wide divergence in what the US Constitution should mean among practicing US lawyers. But I think there is a strong possibility of a sharp turn rightward within the broad parameters of arguable constitutional legality.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    Good God. Are we sure we're not in some alternate world simulation? Though I doubt there is a mind dark enough to program this reality. This is the President and Leader of the Free World FFS.

    Every time I think we've heard it all new revelations just pull the ground apart from under me. Godspeed, Americans.

    In the Senate hearings, I did like nominee Brett Kavanaugh's line "I am a pro-law judge" -- as opposed to an anti-law judge?

  • Climacus wrote: »
    In the Senate hearings, I did like nominee Brett Kavanaugh's line "I am a pro-law judge" -- as opposed to an anti-law judge?

    It's a low standard, but a standard nonetheless...

Sign In or Register to comment.