American Politics Discussion Thread

[ipecac]

It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason. This should never happen again!

Come at the king, you best not miss

[darrelljs]

I just assumed he was talking about himself...

Darrell

[DaveV]

Come at the king, you best not miss

What?

1. Trump was not elected king, despite how desperately he wants to be or how much he likes to pretend he is. And the Justice Department and FBI are not his personal goon squad to persecute his detractors and cover up his many malfeasances.

2. The gulf between "not guilty" and "innocent" has rarely been wider. There is no question that the Trump campaign (and the candidate himself) welcomed Russian attacks on his opponent, and that Trump tried multiple times to undermine the Mueller investigation. The only thing that appears to have kept these efforts from crossing the line into criminality were a combination of incompetence and key minions showing some backbone and refusing to follow orders.

3. I'm appalled at Republican officials meekly bleating out the Trump propaganda. The Republican party has clearly sold its soul, and for what? Packing the courts with judges, and a big wet kiss to their fat cat donors in the form of the so-called tax reform bill.

[MJW (ya that one)]

1. It's not that Trump cannot make his minons attack. Obama can just deny guilt because it's too easy to justify the FISA. Team Blue got the FISA and then STFU. That's the key.

2. I agree expect that it isn't Trump's fault that Clinton was incredibly hostile to Russia.

3. GOP knows that Trump will be the nominee doesn't want to give DEMs free stuff. Left does this too with Obama's USA liking Cuba to avoid admitting the left can be wrong and Brazil failing to attack Venezuela, so this doesn't matter. DEMs would be doing the same thing (Virginia implosion).

[Mardoc]

1. Trump was not elected king, despite how desperately he wants to be or how much he likes to pretend he is. And the Justice Department and FBI are not his personal goon squad to persecute his detractors and cover up his many malfeasances.

Agreed...however note that ipecac's quote is Twitter.  I really don't think anything meaningful has ever been said on Twitter, especially by Trump.  I don't even think Trump Twitter is a good prediction of what Trump thinks or is trying to do, let alone any larger group.  I can't decide if Trump uses Twitter to test the waters on ideas, or just to give the News something to talk about, but it doesn't seem to have much relation to his policies.

Honestly, though - the FBI, NSA, et al, seem to be the most likely targets of Trump, not the likely goons.  I don't quite see how he would be able to make it happen, but this process has burned a lot of national security credibility.  Granted, a lot of it is people finally realizing what the ACLU and similar have been screaming about for decades, but late is better than never.

I'm appalled at Republican officials meekly bleating out the Trump propaganda. The Republican party has clearly sold its soul, and for what? Packing the courts with judges, and a big wet kiss to their fat cat donors in the form of the so-called tax reform bill.

I really don't understand your complaints here.  Three angles:  Does any party, anywhere in the world, have a soul?  The only examples that seem even slightly true are parties with no exposure to power and compromise.  Even the Libertarian party is starting to make compromises, and they can list all the offices they hold on two pages.  This seems inherent in actually being a political party, you either compromise your principles or you're not a party.  That also seems to have been true forever, you can read commentary by the Founding Fathers about party politics and it sounds awfully similar.

Second: These are in fact quite valuable important things.  Anymore, judges have more power than the president.  They can make wider-reaching changes to American society in the long run, and they have a lot of influence in the short run as well.  They'll be around for decades, while we know Trump's out no later than 2024.

I approve of the tax reform bill despite being not a fat cat at all - it both simplifies taxes and sets us on a path to simplify them further.  That ought to be helping the economy.  It being a macroeconomic question, we can never know causes for sure, but at least it's clear that the economy is currently in good shape.

Third:  what's your counterfactual?  How would an intra-Republican party war get more done?  The main reason the Republicans haven't gotten much done is that they haven't had enough party cohesion - they theoretically had the votes to get a lot more done before 2018, except that they couldn't agree with each other.  If they'd declared war on Trump too, well, they certainly never had a veto-proof majority.  I can't imagine Democrats voting with a never-Trump coalition to accomplish Republican goals.  Half a pie is better than nothing.

[DaveV]

Agreed...however note that ipecac's quote is Twitter.  I really don't think anything meaningful has ever been said on Twitter, especially by Trump.  I don't even think Trump Twitter is a good prediction of what Trump thinks or is trying to do, let alone any larger group.  I can't decide if Trump uses Twitter to test the waters on ideas, or just to give the News something to talk about, but it doesn't seem to have much relation to his policies.

Trump has used Twitter to fire cabinet members, impose tariffs, and ban transgender military personnel, off the top of my head. I think some of his stuff on Twitter is a trial balloon, as you say, some is just trolling, but some turns into actual policy.

I really don't understand your complaints here.  Three angles:  Does any party, anywhere in the world, have a soul?  The only examples that seem even slightly true are parties with no exposure to power and compromise.  Even the Libertarian party is starting to make compromises, and they can list all the offices they hold on two pages.  This seems inherent in actually being a political party, you either compromise your principles or you're not a party.  That also seems to have been true forever, you can read commentary by the Founding Fathers about party politics and it sounds awfully similar.

Second: These are in fact quite valuable important things.  Anymore, judges have more power than the president.  They can make wider-reaching changes to American society in the long run, and they have a lot of influence in the short run as well.  They'll be around for decades, while we know Trump's out no later than 2024.

I approve of the tax reform bill despite being not a fat cat at all - it both simplifies taxes and sets us on a path to simplify them further.  That ought to be helping the economy.  It being a macroeconomic question, we can never know causes for sure, but at least it's clear that the economy is currently in good shape.

Third:  what's your counterfactual?  How would an intra-Republican party war get more done?  The main reason the Republicans haven't gotten much done is that they haven't had enough party cohesion - they theoretically had the votes to get a lot more done before 2018, except that they couldn't agree with each other.  If they'd declared war on Trump too, well, they certainly never had a veto-proof majority.  I can't imagine Democrats voting with a never-Trump coalition to accomplish Republican goals.  Half a pie is better than nothing.

Of course, I meant: most members of the Republican party have sold their souls. There is a significant difference between cooperating with someone who shares your policy goals and turning into a boot licking sycophant who is happy to repeat blatant lies, and who is willing to confirm ex-lobbyists as cabinet secretaries (who were employed by the industries they're supposed to be policing). Consider Mike Pence: I can see how he would want to work for Trump to further his enormous political ambition, but he has turned into a fawning toady who takes every opportunity to gush over the man who is pretty much the embodiment of the antithesis of everything Pence supposedly stands for. Most of the other Republicans are no better, or worse (Devin Nunes, anyone?). The whole concept of checks and balances is anathema to the man who has spent his entire adult life as the head of a corporation where he could do anything he wanted, and job #1 for every employee was to make the boss look good. As I said at the outset: Trump is not king, and the Congress is supposed to curb his worst instincts. But the Republicans in Congress seem just as content as those Trump Corporation stooges to let Trump run amok.

[ipecac]

What?

1. Trump was not elected king

It's a proverb.

And the Justice Department and FBI are not his personal goon squad to persecute his detractors and cover up his many malfeasances.

Idealism hasn't stopped Obama from doing precisely that.

1. It's not that Trump cannot make his minons attack. Obama can just deny guilt because it's too easy to justify the FISA. Team Blue got the FISA and then STFU. That's the key.

If they all clam up, then they'll likely get away with it, but rats want off a sinking ship.

[Mardoc]

Of course, I meant: most members of the Republican party have sold their souls. There is a significant difference between cooperating with someone who shares your policy goals and turning into a boot licking sycophant who is happy to repeat blatant lies

I'll agree with everything here except 'most'.  I think the ones who agree firmly with Trump get to be in the news, while those who merely cooperate strategically don't, regardless of numbers.  Left-leaning media wants to portray Republicans as villains, while right-leaning media wants to portray Republicans as united, leaving no one to publicize nuance.  I suspect if one were to research Republican Congressmen systematically you'd find a handful of loud/publicized Trump evangelists, and a majority who are cooperating enough to get common policy goals enacted. If it were 'most', then there would have been a wall in 2017. Or 2018.

Most of the Trump-agreeing politicians are people I never heard about at all five years ago.  I suspect I won't hear about them again after Trump leaves office, either. One or two might manage to parlay this into lasting relevance.

The whole concept of checks and balances is anathema to the man who has spent his entire adult life as the head of a corporation where he could do anything he wanted, and job #1 for every employee was to make the boss look good. As I said at the outset: Trump is not king, and the Congress is supposed to curb his worst instincts. But the Republicans in Congress seem just as content as those Trump Corporation stooges to let Trump run amok.

I don't think this is any different than anything that's happened since at least FDR - and I haven't looked closely enough at pre-FDR history to rule it out before then.  I know Lincoln literally locked up the Maryland legislature in 1861 because he was concerned they would vote for secession...that doesn't sound like a successful check and balance to me.  The only time Congress ever opposes the president is when they are controlled by different parties, and even then Congress rarely tries to take away powers from the presidency, just temporarily block the use of said powers.  

The more I learn about history, the more optimistic I get in the trends, honestly.  Sure things are bad now, but they've been even worse in the past.

Edit:

Trump has used Twitter to fire cabinet members, impose tariffs, and ban transgender military personnel, off the top of my head. I think some of his stuff on Twitter is a trial balloon, as you say, some is just trolling, but some turns into actual policy.

Huh, really? That's depressing.

I guess the actual enactment happens via more official channels but I was really hoping to be able to ignore Twitter entirely.

[Brian Shanahan]

I just assumed he was talking about himself...

Darrell

He was, he doesn't talk about anybody else, except when he's perving on his daughter.

[Gavagai]

Mueller report demonstrates us the reason why prosecutors should speak in he language of indictments, not "reports". An indictment goes to court where witnesses get cross-examined and the defense gets a chance to present its objections and counter-evidence. Instead, we now have a biased, one-sided document... which is never going to get any external scrutiny and which we are somehow supposed to treat as a final official word on the matter.