The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JonInMiddleGA]

The edgy super PAC that helped Handel thwart Ossoff | Political Insider blog

Nice short but interesting read about "how the 6th was won". A piece about a super PAC's approach that helped Handel turn back Ossoff in the runoff last week.

[Drake]

It was true in the general, and it's true here. The GOP is really good at doing their analytics, getting good data, and using that data effectively.

I wonder sometimes if the Dems are so bad at it because they're stuck in some "all rational people..." neverland where they think just saying stuff is sufficient appeal to get people to "do the right thing".

That difference between "all rational people surely believe like we do" and "I'm left out of the process, and these people promise to represent me" is a killer. It's the core of the "Dems call us racists and bigots" idea. The Dems are preaching a generalized message of "do the right thing" to a country that has a solid percentage of people who need them to "do what I need you to do so I can survive". Somewhere in there is the Dem obsession with social justice...but it's social justice for people outside the tent. They expect the people in the tent to give no matter what it costs, because being white/wealthy/American is privilege enough, I suppose.

R.R. Reno has some really interesting ideas about the problem with the progressive ideology is that it has to keep creating increasingly atomized victim groups to propel an agenda that is irrevocably linked to "progress"...and subsequently, Dems don't get that they're shedding active, engaged support every time they create a new victim class and isolate/alienate a portion of their base who become de facto "oppressors". They seem to forget that people engage with politics to be part of the solution...and the Dems keep finding an increasing number of ways to tell even their own people that they're part of the problem.

No wonder Dem voters are starting to say, "Fuck that. I've given enough."

Compare that to the GOP message that externalizes the big threats (Muslims, fascists, other countries, other ideologies) and otherwise tells everybody, "Things are tough all over, and we want to help you with that." We'll help you keep your families, your jobs, your guns, your religion, your traditional way of life. That's a much more directed message than "We want to create a world where everybody of ever race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity (etc., etc.) is fee to live in safety. We're all going to have to sacrifice and let go of some of our bad ideas, but it'll be super in the long run."

And they don't get why they lose American religious voters (because, generally, they have a Sunday School level of religious understanding). They've got a great utopian project in mind...except the religious voters are already involved in a utopian project, and believe that the Kingdom of God isn't something you can achieve through human means. They just want enough help to hold on until it gets here.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that better analytics also help explain the GOP move away from the middle. Base mobilization works as a strategy when you can target your base so effectively.

In the old days, you could very roughly try to mobilize your voters ("let's target the inner city" "Let's do a rally in this rich suburb," etc.), but you were limited based on the info you had. Accordingly, it made sense--after you won your primary--to try and campaign toward the middle and get the moderate voters.

Now, when you can give your door knockers a list of "2,000 likely GOP voters in this neighborhood who tend not to vote in mid-terms," who the fuck cares about moderates anymore? Put all your energy into getting as many of those 2,000 folks to the polls as possible.

Also, the parties realize (even as the general public and the media does not) that the number of true moderate voters is very very small. Losing even a fraction of your base to appeal to them is a losing proposition.

[molson]

Democats losing to Donald Trump and not even being able to capitalize from Trump's insanity and incompetence will be the biggest failure is U.S. political history. And if you look back at this board around 2008 and 2012, the thought was that Republicans would be irrelevant by now and we'd basically have a 1-party system in the U.S.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It changes an unconscionable overreach by government.

It was horrible legislation when it had Obie's name attached, it's horrible legislation if you rename it with some new catchphrase.

I'm just going off your statement that it isn't insurance. Health insurance hasn't truly existed since EMTALA was passed in 1986.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The edgy super PAC that helped Handel thwart Ossoff | Political Insider blog

Nice short but interesting read about "how the 6th was won". A piece about a super PAC's approach that helped Handel turn back Ossoff in the runoff last week.

It links to it but the full piece on Politico is good too.

The GOP’s one-man fire brigade - POLITICO

[JPhillips]

The more GOP leaders and pundits test the idea that collusion with Russian isn't a crime, the more I think there must have been collusion with Russia.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The more GOP leaders and pundits test the idea that collusion with Russian isn't a crime, the more I think there must have been collusion with Russia.

Ditto.

[Easy Mac]

Trump's presidency would be so much easier right now if Obama hadn't colluded with the Russians.

[CrimsonFox]

I just called Rob Portman. Why don't I feel any better.

[Thomkal]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politi...inkId=39109451

Ban partially in affect-students and family members not affected-those with no ties to America not allowed in-the Court will hear oral arguments in the fall

[ISiddiqui]

The decision on the injunction was interesting. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch wanted to strike down the entire injunction (because it'd be difficult for the executive branch to determine what was necessary 'connection' to an American). So that means Roberts and Kennedy likely wanted to carve out the connection part of the prelim injunction.

Meaning that perhaps this indicates that the ruling (which will likely be out next year if they hear it in October) may have two distinct groups - those with connections to the US citizens or organizations cannot be banned, but those with no connection can. However, this is dealing with a preliminary injunction - so harm to non-connected foreign nationals may have been what swayed Justice Kennedy and by the time the case is heard, he may be looking at it in a different way (the prelim injunction hearing is based on harm, whereas the full case is based on Constitutional reasons).

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politi...inkId=39109451

Ban partially in affect-students and family members not affected-those with no ties to America not allowed in-the Court will hear oral arguments in the fall

Seems like a strange ruling to me, and while I personally think that the travel ban is pointless, I actually agree with Clarence Thomas' reasoning about this decision. Is there some precedent in immigration or constitutional law requiring the US to admit travelers with "bona fide ties," and where are those "bona fide" ties defined? Did the SC just invent a principle that neither parties to the lawsuit would actually ascribe to?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by King of New York

Seems like a strange ruling to me, and while I personally think that the travel ban is pointless, I actually agree with Clarence Thomas' reasoning about this decision. Is there some precedent in immigration or constitutional law requiring the US to admit travelers with "bona fide ties," and where are those "bona fide" ties defined? Did the SC just invent a principle that neither parties to the lawsuit would actually ascribe to?

This has nothing to do with immigration or constitutional law, as those issues are what have to be ruled upon later. This has to do with whether to stay a preliminary injunction and preliminary injunctions are issued on the basis of whether the parties would suffer irreparable harm before the issues were decided.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This has nothing to do with immigration or constitutional law, as those issues are what have to be ruled upon later. This has to do with whether to stay a preliminary injunction and preliminary injunctions are issued on the basis of whether the parties would suffer irreparable harm before the issues were decided.

Ahhh, okay--thanks for the explanation.

[larrymcg421]

Gorsuch has been voting closer to Thomas than to Kennedy. Good job, Green Party voters! Don't worry, refugees. Susan Sarandon will soon be here to tell you exciting stories of her fight for campaign finance reform!

[ISiddiqui]

Considering we knew that Gorsuch was a big proponent of natural law philosophy, it's no surprise that he's voting with Thomas (the only other natural law guy on the Court).

[Edward64]

Obama must have choked on his coffee reading this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/26/politi...ion/index.html

President Donald Trump continued to criticize former President Barack Obama on Monday for his response to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election -- blasting his predecessor in a series of tweets, then demanding an "apology."

"The reason that President Obama did NOTHING about Russia after being notified by the CIA of meddling is that he expected Clinton would win ... and did not want to 'rock the boat.' He didn't 'choke,' he colluded or obstructed, and it did the Dems and Crooked Hillary no good," Trump wrote.

Another 3.5 years of this distract and deflect is going to be painful.

FWIW, I do not believe Trump colluded with the Russians but can easily believe there was some collusion at the Bannon level.

[tarcone]

And Obama knowing 5 months before the election and doing nothing epitomized his weak administration. There is no reason a President should lay down for a foreign power meddling in our elections.

Dang, I sound like the Dems a couple months back.

[HomerSimpson98]

Can you imagine the smooth, calm waters that would have ensued had Obama gone public with that info? A foreign power directly helping the sitting President's opposing party's candidate? The election was already craptastic enough as it was.

[PilotMan]

OMG, he would have been ripped apart for trying to influence the election to his party's favor. All the information would have had to remain confidential, and it would have been his word versus the entire Republican fire brigade. That's not to say that more couldn't have been done, but to do so would have opened him up to a never ending question on the limits of Presidents to influence an upcoming election.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And Obama knowing 5 months before the election and doing nothing epitomized his weak administration. There is no reason a President should lay down for a foreign power meddling in our elections.

Dang, I sound like the Dems a couple months back.

First, we had no idea what the scope of the breaches were. It would take months to figure that out no matter what was done because of how our voting system is set up. Any strong reaction before having more data than "the Russians interfered" would be knee jerk.

Second, the entire point of Russia interfering was to create distrust in our election system. That's how you bring down a democracy. An immediate knee jerk reaction before the election would have been a huge win for Russia and Obama would have been castrated for election inference and fear mongering.

Once it was clear strong interference occurred and the election was over the Obama administration seized two Russian compounds in the US, kicked 35 diplomats out of the country, and sanctioned several more. That's the strongest sanctions placed on Russia since the cold war and it's laying down?

You stated in this very thread that the Russian interference was tin foil shit from democrats. If Obama had acted more swiftly and harshly how would you have taken it? How would Republicans as a whole have taken it? 6 months ago Republicans were asking what was so bad about being friendly with Russia and had a higher approval of Russia and Putin than Hilary.

You can't play the "my team won" and I don't care how it happened and then blame the other team for not doing enough to stop you from electing the guy that won.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And Obama knowing 5 months before the election and doing nothing epitomized his weak administration. There is no reason a President should lay down for a foreign power meddling in our elections.

Dang, I sound like the Dems a couple months back.

Originally Posted by Atocep

First, we had no idea what the scope of the breaches were. It would take months to figure that out no matter what was done because of how our voting system is set up. Any strong reaction before having more data than "the Russians interfered" would be knee jerk.

Second, the entire point of Russia interfering was to create distrust in our election system. That's how you bring down a democracy. An immediate knee jerk reaction before the election would have been a huge win for Russia and Obama would have been castrated for election inference and fear mongering.

Once it was clear strong interference occurred and the election was over the Obama administration seized two Russian compounds in the US, kicked 35 diplomats out of the country, and sanctioned several more. That's the strongest sanctions placed on Russia since the cold war and it's laying down?

You stated in this very thread that the Russian interference was tin foil shit from democrats. If Obama had acted more swiftly and harshly how would you have taken it? How would Republicans as a whole have taken it? 6 months ago Republicans were asking what was so bad about being friendly with Russia and had a higher approval of Russia and Putin than Hilary.

You can't play the "my team won" and I don't care how it happened and then blame the other team for not doing enough to stop you from electing the guy that won.

Atocep pretty much sums up my response to this. It just all depends on who the spotlight is on and whether you are on their team or not doesn't it?

[cartman]

With hindsight, it appears that the expulsion of all those Russian diplomats and closing of a couple of their compounds was tied to the initial reports the Obama administration received on the hacking attempts, even though it was stated it wasn't due to that at the time it happened.

[Ben E Lou]

Possible chemical weapons activity at Syrian air base used in past chemical attack.

[Easy Mac]

He literally has fake news hanging in his golf clubs.

A Time magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake. - The Washington Post

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

He literally has fake news hanging in his golf clubs.

A Time magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake. - The Washington Post

The King Snowflake strikes again!

[Edward64]

The first step to building the wall. Looking forward to see how this develops. Not a Trump fan but support the wall and immigration reform.

Homeland Security Will Start Building Border Wall Prototypes This Summer - The New York Times

The Department of Homeland Security will start construction of prototypes for a border wall this summer in the San Diego area, agency officials said on Tuesday, the first step in fulfilling a campaign promise made by President Trump.

Homeland security officials said the prototypes would be added to the existing border walls in San Diego and would allow the agency to evaluate which barriers are most effective in giving Border Patrol agents time to respond to illegal drugs and human smuggling. Officials said they planned to build four to eight prototypes but did not say when construction would begin.
:
After Mr. Trump issued an executive order on a border wall in January, Customs and Border Protection in March issued two requests for proposals, for both a concrete wall and other wall types.

Officials at Customs and Border Protection say they have received hundreds of bids for prototypes, but the agency has not yet chosen vendors.

Despite the requests for proposals, funding for a wall was not included in the spending bill passed by Congress. But homeland security officials used $20 million allocated from other programs at the department to pay for prototypes. The agency has identified the San Diego area and the Rio Grande Valley region in South Texas as priority areas for new border walls.

[Julio Riddols]

While I agree the response to the knowledge of Russian interference was weak, I don't know what else could have really been done considering when it happened. You can't just go out and say the shit is happening without knowing how much and how long, not to mention during an election cycle that was in full swing by then.

I think the recent poll on what foreign countries think of Obama vs. Trump says all that needs to be said. 2 countries out of 37 prefer Trump's America.. And one of them is Russia (who rates Trump 42 points higher). The other is Israel, by only 7 points. 30 of the other 35 countries have at least an 18 point negative swing considering Trump Vs. Obama. The poll

Our foreign policy when it comes to "making this country great again" is a huge failure so far. I don't see anything yet that indicates we have taken a step toward the aforementioned greatness in any aspect, at home or abroad. I'd be stunned if we did. I'm ready to be surprised.

I think maybe the only thing us civilian R's and D's can agree on right now is that Chaffetz's recent request that congressmen get an additional 30k stipend for living expenses is dumb to say the least. Between him and McConnell I don't think there are two more punchable faces in congress.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I think maybe the only thing us civilian R's and D's can agree on right now is that Chaffetz's recent request that congressmen get an additional 30k stipend for living expenses is dumb to say the least. Between him and McConnell I don't think there are two more punchable faces in congress.

[panerd]

So regarding Russia...

They meddled in the election to help Trump win.
Russians have a 42 higher approval rating of Trump than Obama.
Trump is going to start World War 3 with Russia.

Huh?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

So regarding Russia...

They meddled in the election to help Trump win.
Russians have a 42 higher approval rating of Trump than Obama.
Trump is going to start World War 3 with Russia.

Huh?

And the Germans will bomb Pearl Harbor.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I think maybe the only thing us civilian R's and D's can agree on right now is that Chaffetz's recent request that congressmen get an additional 30k stipend for living expenses is dumb to say the least.

And I didn't think it was a half bad idea. Go figure.

[ISiddiqui]

They are required to have two residences after all. If the 30k is only for living expenses for a Washington DC residence (that's $2,500 a month), I don't really have that much of a problem with it.

[cuervo72]

It's not a half-bad idea if it could result in more non-rich citizens to run for office. Yes, $174k is a really nice salary. But it's only guaranteed for two years, and if you have to pay a good chunk for housing (or other expenses) - while I assume maintaining a residence in your district - maybe the cost of doing so puts more of a damper on wanting to run. As it is they probably have to put their careers on hold (unless they have their own private practice, in which case -- probably well-heeled).

I don't suppose the political parties are allowed to own their own houses, frat-style are they?

[Thomkal]

Isn't Chaffetz the one who stayed in his office rather than get a house/apartment to show how committed he was or some such nonsense?

[tarcone]

Most federal politicians can afford to live where they work I imagine.

Whats next? Congress needs $30k a year to eat? After all, they have 2 residences to buy groceries for.

[cuervo72]

But isn't that what many are saying part of the problem is? That we are represented by federal politicians. Not somewhat more common people, which is supposed to be part of the idea, at least for the House.

Let's say I wanted to run for a House seat. $174k is going to be more than my salary. But if I have to pay for a residence in DC (make believe I don't live in MD), maintain a wardrobe (I have, like, one suit that fits right now), handle travel, etc. while quitting my day job (make believe I have a day job) and leaving my family for long stretches of time...yeah, I don't know if that's worth it. If I was a 60yo empty-nest retired millionaire, maybe so!

The problem is, largely, that the House is probably more populated by that second type, and they really don't need to be compensated more. But pay might be more of a barrier for entry for others.

[cuervo72]

I mean, maybe apply the argument for vouchers here. Vouchers in theory aren't for those rich enough to already be going to private schools, they're for the families that can't afford it. Consider this a congressional voucher.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I don't suppose the political parties are allowed to own their own houses, frat-style are they?

I would be all for this, a congressional barracks if you will.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Thats one more punchable face, I said I didn't think there were two.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They are required to have two residences after all. If the 30k is only for living expenses for a Washington DC residence (that's $2,500 a month), I don't really have that much of a problem with it.

Lets not kid ourselves here, they get a lot more than that 170k everybody knows about.

I think I could make 170k work for two houses easily and still have plenty left over to live nice and comfortable.

[Logan]

There is ZERO chance any elected official in DC makes anything work on a legit $174K, unless they have a spouse kicking in a nice second income.

[ISiddiqui]

Washington's pretty damned expensive (a coworker who was there for a while joking said that going to Hawai'i was cool because it wasn't any pricier than D.C.), so the two houses thing may be relatively difficult (maybe rent, but even then).

I mean maybe could make $170k work for two houses easily in NC or Atlanta, but if one of those houses is in D.C., I doubt how easily that would go.

[Logan]

I used to work in the federal government and still know many people there. I have a friend, 33 year old single girl who lives in DC. She makes $130K with the geo pay differential (+20% for DC). She has a nice apartment and puts some money away but there is no way she would be affording anything resembling a decent lifestyle with another $44K, a family, and a second residence to pay for.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Big publicity win for Trump. He complained in a debate in September that Carrier was moving their factory and 1,400 jobs to Mexico. He's apparently worked out a deal for them to stay in the U.S.

Carrier says it has deal with Trump to keep jobs in Indiana | Fox News

Carrier workers facing layoffs feel betrayed by Trump

Make America great again!

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Isn't Chaffetz the one who stayed in his office rather than get a house/apartment to show how committed he was or some such nonsense?

And Paul Ryan. And Jonah Ryan.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I don't suppose the political parties are allowed to own their own houses, frat-style are they?

Not sure, but John Goodman can make a sitcom about it.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Carrier workers facing layoffs feel betrayed by Trump

Make America great again!

Same with Boeing down here. He came to Charleston shortly after they voted against unionizing and talked about the strength of the American worker. Now they're laying off a few hundred workers, with more layoffs planned by year's end.

It's all just a long, rich con.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by digamma

And I didn't think it was a half bad idea. Go figure.

It may not be a bad idea if it made those who weren't wealthy more likely to be able to run for office, but in Chaffetz's case surely instead of being given more money by the government he could just chose to spend what he does have on housing rather than a new iPhone. He's got to make that decision himself.