The Former Trump Presidency Thread

[Remus West]

Good lord this whole thing has gone and made LM eloquent!
Now we know the end is near.

[malchior]

Yes, one party is currently objectively worse than the other. But there are ugly people entrenched on both sides who want nothing more than to see the opposition party, and it supporters, burn, so they can remain safely ensconced in their liberal/conservative bubble and not have to hear from the other side at all.

I'm not disagreeing at all - more so that the scale is in completely leagues. That is my biggest beef with the NY Times and many of the 'old guard' media outlets. They keep trying to pretend this is a liberal/Conservatives partisan divide. It is more like a Liberal....Conservatives (90s Conservatives).........................................................................................(current Republican) divide.

Whataboutism is killing us. Are there Liberals entrenching now? Sure. I also argue it is probably mostly a result of how far to the right they have pulled. The message on the left hasn't changed much--which is a different problem all its own--but the right is in crazy land. Remember when we thought Palin was bad. That was only 10 years ago. Look where we are now. The trajectory is crazy.

[Zaxxon]

Good lord this whole thing has gone and made LM eloquent!
Now we know the end is near.

This.

Amen, LM.

[noxiousdog]

Of course there's a deep state, if you mean career civil servants who don't face elections. There's nothing nefarious about people keeping their heads down and doing their jobs. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

That was my reaction. Only calling it a "Deep State" makes it nefarious.

[Rip]

The basic premise that governance of the US is being held hostage somehow is laughable.

The sky isn't falling Henny Penny.

That suggesting it is because you don't agree with the decisions being made is hyperbole and fear mongering, nothing more.

Laughable like desperate laughable? Or maniacal laughable? That you can't see a very small minority is controlling the US against the wishes of the people and the states in the name of preventing the tyranny of the majority while redefining the law because they control government. Well, it's not laughable. It's lamentable. A minority of voters seized power by the nature of the institution of preventing the majority from trampling them. They took that power and expanded it through gerrymandering. They intended to vote their wallets and their (a?)moral agendas. They have since been exploited by a smaller minority with their own wallets and amoral agendas and they don't want to be wrong so they eat their shit sandwich in the name Ayn Rand or Donald Trump or Guns or God and they expect me to be happy about having to partake. Fuck that.

When we break gerrymandering I will accept that we are not being held hostage. This is my government but at this point it's by accident of birth not out of love for what we have. The institution has no respect for the institution, why should I?

No the majority is held hostage by their indifference and laziness. Voting is hard.

[Remus West]

The basic premise that governance of the US is being held hostage somehow is laughable.

The sky isn't falling Henny Penny.

That suggesting it is because you don't agree with the decisions being made is hyperbole and fear mongering, nothing more.

Laughable like desperate laughable? Or maniacal laughable? That you can't see a very small minority is controlling the US against the wishes of the people and the states in the name of preventing the tyranny of the majority while redefining the law because they control government. Well, it's not laughable. It's lamentable. A minority of voters seized power by the nature of the institution of preventing the majority from trampling them. They took that power and expanded it through gerrymandering. They intended to vote their wallets and their (a?)moral agendas. They have since been exploited by a smaller minority with their own wallets and amoral agendas and they don't want to be wrong so they eat their shit sandwich in the name Ayn Rand or Donald Trump or Guns or God and they expect me to be happy about having to partake. Fuck that.

When we break gerrymandering I will accept that we are not being held hostage. This is my government but at this point it's by accident of birth not out of love for what we have. The institution has no respect for the institution, why should I?

No the majority is held hostage by their indifference and laziness. Voting is hard.

No, breaking a senate that is created from an unequal basis based on numbers represented is hard. Breaking gerrymandering is hard. Having an Electoral college that is compelled by law to not do what it was instituted to do is hard. If it were purely on voting the majority would be handily in power.

[noxiousdog]

No, breaking a senate that is created from an unequal basis based on numbers represented is hard.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Breaking gerrymandering is hard.

I agree with this and we are going in the right direction. But remember that both sides have used it.

Having an Electoral college that is compelled by law to not do what it was instituted to do is hard. If it were purely on voting the majority would be handily in power.

Not handily, and it still ignores that 43% of eligible votes sat on the couch. 43%! A small fraction of those would put either party handily in power.

[Remus West]

No, breaking a senate that is created from an unequal basis based on numbers represented is hard.

That's a feature, not a bug.

Breaking gerrymandering is hard.

I agree with this and we are going in the right direction. But remember that both sides have used it.

Having an Electoral college that is compelled by law to not do what it was instituted to do is hard. If it were purely on voting the majority would be handily in power.

Not handily, and it still ignores that 43% of eligible votes sat on the couch. 43%! A small fraction of those would put either party handily in power.

Yes we need to drastically increase voter participation but that 43% is nationwide unless you got it from a new source. Getting every voter in California to cast a ballot would dramatically lower that 43% without changing a thing. It would be amazing but still change nothing.

Also, the Senate structure was created as a feature. It has become a bug.

[GreenGoo]

The basic premise that governance of the US is being held hostage somehow is laughable.

The sky isn't falling Henny Penny.

That suggesting it is because you don't agree with the decisions being made is hyperbole and fear mongering, nothing more.

Laughable like desperate laughable? Or maniacal laughable? That you can't see a very small minority is controlling the US against the wishes of the people and the states in the name of preventing the tyranny of the majority while redefining the law because they control government. Well, it's not laughable. It's lamentable. A minority of voters seized power by the nature of the institution of preventing the majority from trampling them. They took that power and expanded it through gerrymandering. They intended to vote their wallets and their (a?)moral agendas. They have since been exploited by a smaller minority with their own wallets and amoral agendas and they don't want to be wrong so they eat their shit sandwich in the name Ayn Rand or Donald Trump or Guns or God and they expect me to be happy about having to partake. Fuck that.

When we break gerrymandering I will accept that we are not being held hostage. This is my government but at this point it's by accident of birth not out of love for what we have. The institution has no respect for the institution, why should I?

No the majority is held hostage by their indifference and laziness. Voting is hard.

And voting ID laws would make purposely make it harder.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm not sure I understand that. Was it snark or something else?

If tjg wants to talk about something, then he should talk about something. If he doesn't like what people are talking about, he should say so. I'm not a fan of passive aggressive.

Christ man chill out. I did talk about something, the Austin bombings. I don't like that their President hasn't said shit about it. There is no thread about the bombings here.

We're all a little freaked out here. The latest bombing is slightly out of pattern in both location and technique, so now it's moving from concern and morbid curiosity to nervous...

I heard about a trip wire. I'm wondering if the "wrong" target tripped it or the bomber screwed up. It's very strange.

Stay safe man.

Doing our best! Yeah - the latest one is really strange.

Someone sent a bomb through FedEx in San Antonio. Seems dumb, they have all the sender's info and also a second package sent by the same person. Here's hoping it's the same individual and they close this one out soon.

[geezer]

I'm not sure I understand that. Was it snark or something else?

If tjg wants to talk about something, then he should talk about something. If he doesn't like what people are talking about, he should say so. I'm not a fan of passive aggressive.

Christ man chill out. I did talk about something, the Austin bombings. I don't like that their President hasn't said shit about it. There is no thread about the bombings here.

We're all a little freaked out here. The latest bombing is slightly out of pattern in both location and technique, so now it's moving from concern and morbid curiosity to nervous...

I heard about a trip wire. I'm wondering if the "wrong" target tripped it or the bomber screwed up. It's very strange.

Stay safe man.

Doing our best! Yeah - the latest one is really strange.

Someone sent a bomb through FedEx in San Antonio. Seems dumb, they have all the sender's info and also a second package sent by the same person. Here's hoping it's the same individual and they close this one out soon.

It does seem dumb, but Fedex doesn't ask for ID when you drop a package as I recall. One interesting thing - the location it was originally sent from in Austin is very close to the location where the trip-wire bomb was that went off yesterday. Does it mean the person lives around there? No idea, but it seems they were consistently operating in that part of town yesterday or the day before.

[Holman]

Yes we need to drastically increase voter participation but that 43% is nationwide unless you got it from a new source. Getting every voter in California to cast a ballot would dramatically lower that 43% without changing a thing. It would be amazing but still change nothing.

Yeah, a lot of non-voters are simply aware that their vote would do nothing in their locale.

Most of them are probably low-information enough that they know nothing about any race but the top of the ticket, but that's also true of many people who *do* vote.

Also, the Senate structure was created as a feature. It has become a bug.

Yep. It was obsolete almost as soon as states were created beyond the originals.

[LordMortis]

I do not accept this. I consider the Senate a feature. I think we work best as a federation of states and then only works if we have a Senate. We broke the house, though. I get how we could have this president and this senate but the house, the supposed will of the people above all should keep the other two in check, but we broke it and broken house is allowing the president to run amuck. The house we meant to be a major control. They have damned purse strings.

[Moliere]

The purpose of the Senate was to represent the States in Congress. That's why Senators were selected by the State Legislatures. When that was changed to popular vote elections then Senators became redundant to the House.

[malchior]

It has become a bug as populations have concentrated in cities in certain states. California has 67 times less representation per citizen than Wyoming. The House hardly makes up for that considering the powers the Senate holds. Judicial appointments, confirmation of cabinet members, ambassadors, etc. Especially since the Republicans cooked up dogma like the Hastert rule. It is a perfect example of the Republicans creating conditions to wield sole power whenever they are in a position to.

Edit: Also agree that the 17th amendment undermined the Senate. It made things more "democratic" but at a cost to systemic stability.

[LordMortis]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 441843002/

Hey pr0ner can I borrow your giant eye roll barfing eye rolls?

[msteelers]

Edit: Also agree that the 17th amendment undermined the Senate. It made things more "democratic" but at a cost to systemic stability.

You sure? The state legislatures are often filled with crazy people, and a large majority are Republican controlled. The last number I saw was 32. That’s 64 Republican Senators.

That doesn’t equal “systemic stability” to me.

[Fitzy]

There's a big difference between needs in Wyoming and needs in California. If you make the Senate conform to population, you may as well remove any influence from small population states. The Senate and House are balanced between place and population for a good reason. I still believe in that reason.

Expand the house. Leave the Senate alone (unless it's new states ripped from the big states or smashed together from the little ones).

Though if we are talking crazy anyway...I'd support adding a third senator, but only in states with 1 mil+ people. Balance that with requiring one Representative per x number of people (preferably x would be small, say 300,000) and put a cap of say 30 CongressCritter per state to encourage breakups. I suspect small population states would never agree to combine otherwise and I doubt large ones would split without an incentive.

[Holman]

Less than 24 hours after the WH indicated that there were no plans to call Putin to congratulate him on his "election" victory, Trump called Putin to congratulate him.

[El Guapo]

There's a big difference between needs in Wyoming and needs in California. If you make the Senate conform to population, you may as well remove any influence from small population states. The Senate and House are balanced between place and population for a good reason. I still believe in that reason.

Expand the house. Leave the Senate alone (unless it's new states ripped from the big states or smashed together from the little ones).

Though if we are talking crazy anyway...I'd support adding a third senator, but only in states with 1 mil+ people. Balance that with requiring one Representative per x number of people (preferably x would be small, say 300,000) and put a cap of say 30 CongressCritter per state to encourage breakups. I suspect small population states would never agree to combine otherwise and I doubt large ones would split without an incentive.

Why do small population states deserve disproportionate representation? The difference between needs in Wyoming and those in California supports greater devolution of powers to the states, but I don't see how it supports greater representation in Congress for low population states.

[malchior]

Edit: Also agree that the 17th amendment undermined the Senate. It made things more "democratic" but at a cost to systemic stability.

You sure? The state legislatures are often filled with crazy people, and a large majority are Republican controlled. The last number I saw was 32. That’s 64 Republican Senators.

That doesn’t equ “systemic stability” to me.

This is probably not the right question. That'd be the outcome if we repealed the 17th right now. Would the country be in this state if Senators were not beholden to money politics directly? Would we see the decline in quality in the political class due to extremists pushing reasonable people out in the right? All unknowable but a portion of that is traceable back to the 17th.

IMO the problem in a nutshell is that the system and the fixes we put in didn't scale with the increase in population and how people naturally distributed themselves. We set most of these rules down before the country industrialized and haven't modernized them since. And this system is breaking. Fast.

[Holman]

IMO the problem in a nutshell is that the system and the fixes we put in didn't scale with the increase in population and how people naturally distributed themselves. We set most of these rules down before the country industrialized and haven't modernized them since. And this system is breaking. Fast.

And of course people didn't even "naturally distribute themselves" into newer states at all. The new early-nineteenth-century states were created in pairs in order to keep the slave/free balance in the senate; they were hardly the states of the original constitution, which had over many generations developed as competing polities with disparate and sometimes competing economies and interests.

In the later nineteenth century, many states were created as fiefdoms of the mineral and/or railroad industries. The big empty states of today were even emptier then, but they had their sweet two senators all the same.

[Chaz]

Less than 24 hours after the WH indicated that there were no plans to call Putin to congratulate him on his "election" victory, Trump called Putin to congratulate him.

This makes complete sense. There are never any plans. The answer was truthful because there probably were no plans to call, then Trump decided to give his buddy a jingle, and here we are.

[Rip]

As the New York Times reported earlier in the week, there are serious charges that Putin rigged the election: "A day after claiming an overwhelming victory in Russia’s presidential election, Vladimir V. Putin on Monday faced a range of challenges to his legitimacy, including charges of fraud from international observers and a defiant opposition that vowed to keep him from serving his full six-year term."

Even the State Department called for an investigation into the election earlier in the week.

Yet with President Obama reportedly calling to congratulate Putin, apparently the White House isn't too concerned with the fraudulent election--or even its worrisome outcome.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-cal ... cle/633368

[Enough]

As the New York Times reported earlier in the week, there are serious charges that Putin rigged the election: "A day after claiming an overwhelming victory in Russia’s presidential election, Vladimir V. Putin on Monday faced a range of challenges to his legitimacy, including charges of fraud from international observers and a defiant opposition that vowed to keep him from serving his full six-year term."

Even the State Department called for an investigation into the election earlier in the week.

Yet with President Obama reportedly calling to congratulate Putin, apparently the White House isn't too concerned with the fraudulent election--or even its worrisome outcome.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-cal ... cle/633368

Yeah and more flexibility after the election, am I right? You're hilariously insufferable.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[pr0ner]

A) Don't copy/paste entire articles and post them in the forum, Rip.

B) Trump's national security advisers told him NOT to congratulate Putin in the call today. Trump ignored them.

[milo]

"There are serious charges that Putin rigged the election: "A day after claiming an overwhelming victory in Russia’s presidential election, Vladimir V. Putin on Monday faced a range of challenges to his legitimacy, including charges of fraud from international observers and a defiant opposition that vowed to keep him from serving his full six-year term."

Well, all of those statements are also true about Trump, and I'm pretty sure Obama congratulated him as well.
So there you go. Thanks, Obama.

[Pyperkub]

There's a big difference between needs in Wyoming and needs in California. If you make the Senate conform to population, you may as well remove any influence from small population states. The Senate and House are balanced between place and population for a good reason. I still believe in that reason.

Expand the house. Leave the Senate alone (unless it's new states ripped from the big states or smashed together from the little ones).

Though if we are talking crazy anyway...I'd support adding a third senator, but only in states with 1 mil+ people. Balance that with requiring one Representative per x number of people (preferably x would be small, say 300,000) and put a cap of say 30 CongressCritter per state to encourage breakups. I suspect small population states would never agree to combine otherwise and I doubt large ones would split without an incentive.

Why do small population states deserve disproportionate representation? The difference between needs in Wyoming and those in California supports greater devolution of powers to the states, but I don't see how it supports greater representation in Congress for low population states.

Mostly because the founders felt that small population/rural states needs needed to be addressed in order to pass the Constitution. It would not have passed without it - think of it as a (more perfect) Union prerequisite.

There is value in maintaining that as a check on large population states. Whether that value "Trumps" McConnellism and the tyranny of the minority in the age of misinformation and FUD is the question.

[malchior]

IMO the problem in a nutshell is that the system and the fixes we put in didn't scale with the increase in population and how people naturally distributed themselves. We set most of these rules down before the country industrialized and haven't modernized them since. And this system is breaking. Fast.

And of course people didn't even "naturally distribute themselves" into newer states at all. The new early-nineteenth-century states were created in pairs in order to keep the slave/free balance in the senate; they were hardly the states of the original constitution, which had over many generations developed as competing polities with disparate and sometimes competing economies and interests.

In the later nineteenth century, many states were created as fiefdoms of the mineral and/or railroad industries. The big empty states of today were even emptier then, but they had their sweet two senators all the same.

I was more referring to how people are more or less deciding to live in cities. Mostly coastal cities. But still generally in cities. The Republicans have used that concentration to target their gerrymanders. That this concentration of population substantially dilutes their political representation is a real problem.

[malchior]

There is value in maintaining that as a check on large population states. Whether that value "Trumps" McConnellism and the tyranny of the minority in the age of misinformation and FUD is the question.

This system delivered Bush and Trump in the last 20 years by minority votes. The outcome was huge amounts of political and economic damage to our nation and the world. That probably indicates reform is a little overdue.

[Pyperkub]

There is value in maintaining that as a check on large population states. Whether that value "Trumps" McConnellism and the tyranny of the minority in the age of misinformation and FUD is the question.

This system delivered Bush and Trump in the last 20 years by minority votes. The outcome was huge amounts of political and economic damage to our nation and the world. That probably indicates reform is a little overdue.

Electoral College, perhaps, but I'm looking more at the Senate in particular, and having one Congressional House which allows better representation of smaller population areas still has significant value, IMHO.

The bigger problem is actually that the House of Representatives for each of the Presidencies you've mentioned, has been populated with more extreme minority views which have enabled the worst of those Presidencies (I'd argue in large part due to gerrymandering, but there are a lot of other factors). Bush and Trump would not be able to do anywhere near the damage they did (are doing) without the House Majorities they received upon swearing in.

[malchior]

There is value in maintaining that as a check on large population states. Whether that value "Trumps" McConnellism and the tyranny of the minority in the age of misinformation and FUD is the question.

This system delivered Bush and Trump in the last 20 years by minority votes. The outcome was huge amounts of political and economic damage to our nation and the world. That probably indicates reform is a little overdue.

Electoral College, perhaps, but I'm looking more at the Senate in particular, and having one Congressional House which allows better representation of smaller population areas still has significant value, IMHO.

Sure - if you have a party that doesn't weaponize every rule and/or advantage. It functioned pretty fine until one side pretty much decided to go off the rails. Is that a structural issue? Maybe not but it sure as heck doesn't help that this system gives so much power to a minority that has decided to abuse it over and over again.

[$iljanus]

A) Don't copy/paste entire articles and post them in the forum, Rip.

B) Trump's national security advisers told him NOT to congratulate Putin in the call today. Trump ignored them.

No one puts Donnie in a corner!

[Holman]

From the WaPo article linked above:

Trump also chose not to heed talking points from aides instructing him to condemn Putin about the recent poisoning of a former Russian spy in the United Kingdom with a powerful nerve agent, a case that both the British and U.S. governments have blamed on Moscow.

And he also didn't bring up Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.

[LawBeefaroni]

From the WaPo article linked above:

Trump also chose not to heed talking points from aides instructing him to condemn Putin about the recent poisoning of a former Russian spy in the United Kingdom with a powerful nerve agent, a case that both the British and U.S. governments have blamed on Moscow.

And he also didn't bring up Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.

Of course he didn't.

The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.

[El Guapo]

There is value in maintaining that as a check on large population states. Whether that value "Trumps" McConnellism and the tyranny of the minority in the age of misinformation and FUD is the question.

This system delivered Bush and Trump in the last 20 years by minority votes. The outcome was huge amounts of political and economic damage to our nation and the world. That probably indicates reform is a little overdue.

Electoral College, perhaps, but I'm looking more at the Senate in particular, and having one Congressional House which allows better representation of smaller population areas still has significant value, IMHO.

The bigger problem is actually that the House of Representatives for each of the Presidencies you've mentioned, has been populated with more extreme minority views which have enabled the worst of those Presidencies (I'd argue in large part due to gerrymandering, but there are a lot of other factors). Bush and Trump would not be able to do anywhere near the damage they did (are doing) without the House Majorities they received upon swearing in.

So you've said a couple times that giving smaller states disproportionate representation "has value", but you haven't actually said what that value is.

[LordMortis]

The bigger problem is actually that the House of Representatives for each of the Presidencies you've mentioned, has been populated with more extreme minority views which have enabled the worst of those Presidencies (I'd argue in large part due to gerrymandering, but there are a lot of other factors). Bush and Trump would not be able to do anywhere near the damage they did (are doing) without the House Majorities they received upon swearing in.

This. So much this!

[LordMortis]

So you've said a couple times that giving smaller states disproportionate representation "has value", but you haven't actually said what that value is.

The value is that in order to have a strong federation of states the states need to be represented as such. There are Michigan way to do things and Massachusetts ways to do things but even together they don't matter much if California expects everyone to do things the California way. Checks and balances. The problem is checks and balances are broken. We run all phases of government like the senate, when the senate should literally hold 1/6th of the equation.

[LawBeefaroni]

It does seem dumb, but Fedex doesn't ask for ID when you drop a package as I recall. One interesting thing - the location it was originally sent from in Austin is very close to the location where the trip-wire bomb was that went off yesterday. Does it mean the person lives around there? No idea, but it seems they were consistently operating in that part of town yesterday or the day before.

Sounds like the found him and he blew himself up in his car as SWAT was closing in. If it was him and if he was working alone, a good resolution. Especially with no major SWAT injuries.

Still may be packages out there though, stay safe.

[GreenGoo]

As the New York Times reported earlier in the week, there are serious charges that Putin rigged the election: "A day after claiming an overwhelming victory in Russia’s presidential election, Vladimir V. Putin on Monday faced a range of challenges to his legitimacy, including charges of fraud from international observers and a defiant opposition that vowed to keep him from serving his full six-year term."

Even the State Department called for an investigation into the election earlier in the week.

Yet with President Obama reportedly calling to congratulate Putin, apparently the White House isn't too concerned with the fraudulent election--or even its worrisome outcome.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/obama-cal ... cle/633368

I would have preferred that Obama not make that call, but I assume this was during the "reset", so good diplomatic manners kind of requires it.

Plus, Putin did help Obama get elected, so it's only polite to congratulate Putin on his own farce of a democratic election.