Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 374241 times)

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4800 on: November 07, 2018, 07:29:11 AM »
I'm hearing a lot of disappointment about how the democrats performed last night, but they should be ecstatic that Florida has restored voting rights to felons. 

When it goes into effect, an estimated 1.5 million people in Florida who have completed felony sentences but have not been able to vote could show up to the polls, according to the nonprofit Sentencing Project.

Let's say 25% of those 1.5 million vote in 2020, and that they split 60/40 democrat/republican.  That would be a net gain of 75,000 votes.  If 50% of those felons vote, that would be a 150,000 vote gain.  Now let's review the vote difference in the Florida elections last night:

Rick Scott won the Senate by 34,000 votes
De Santis won the Governorship by 56,000 votes

And, in 2016, Trump beat Hillary in Florida by 113,000 votes. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/florida-felons-voting-rights/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2016

Those felons might have a dim view of the "law and order" party if they think that party's policies helped put them in jail or helped them make the mistakes that led to jail (examples: poor neighborhoods, unemployment, lousy educational options).

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4801 on: November 07, 2018, 07:31:15 AM »
I'm hearing a lot of disappointment about how the democrats performed last night, but they should be ecstatic that Florida has restored voting rights to felons. 


I haven't been following that voter initiative very closely, but I'm curious why people think this would necessarily help democrats in future elections.

FWIW, I've never the logic behind denying a convicted felon the ability to vote after they have served out their sentence.
It's not felons backing Democrats.  It's people who have been disenfranchised backing the party that worked to restore their rights.

toganet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
  • Location: Buffalo, NY
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4802 on: November 07, 2018, 07:31:49 AM »
I'm hearing a lot of disappointment about how the democrats performed last night, but they should be ecstatic that Florida has restored voting rights to felons. 


I haven't been following that voter initiative very closely, but I'm curious why people think this would necessarily help democrats in future elections.

FWIW, I've never the logic behind denying a convicted felon the ability to vote after they have served out their sentence.

The demographic groups who are disproportionately incarcerated tend to vote more for one party than another, historically.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4803 on: November 07, 2018, 07:49:05 AM »
I'm hearing a lot of disappointment about how the democrats performed last night, but they should be ecstatic that Florida has restored voting rights to felons. 


I haven't been following that voter initiative very closely, but I'm curious why people think this would necessarily help democrats in future elections.

FWIW, I've never the logic behind denying a convicted felon the ability to vote after they have served out their sentence.
It's not felons backing Democrats.  It's people who have been disenfranchised backing the party that worked to restore their rights.

More broadly, don't people tend to support the party that they feel benefits them? If one party's tax, trade, minimum-wage, or minimum wage policies would help you, then you support that party.  At times they're pretty transparent about it - e.g. "our ____ policy will be more money in your pocket, while the opposition will leave you with higher bills and less security"

As for reinstating felons who have served out their sentence - dunno. This benefits them once, but I think those people are going to be looking forward to see which party's platform will benefit them in the future.  in other words, giving them the right to vote is kindof a one-off - either party could potentially woo them as voters down the road.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3654
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4804 on: November 07, 2018, 08:40:11 AM »
Just heard Mitch McConnell choke while trying to get out the word "bipartisan".

Nicholas Carter

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4805 on: November 07, 2018, 09:14:45 AM »
I'm hearing a lot of disappointment about how the democrats performed last night, but they should be ecstatic that Florida has restored voting rights to felons. 

Let's say 25% of those 1.5 million vote in 2020, and that they split 60/40 democrat/republican.  That would be a net gain of 75,000 votes.  If 50% of those felons vote, that would be a 150,000 vote gain.  Now let's review the vote difference in the Florida elections last night:
As someone who votes Libertarian when he doesn't vote Democrat, I'm really glad that this happened. But it is my experience working with an offender population that offenders tend to be more politically conservative than their non-incarcerated peers. Especially on social issues that federal Democrats prefer to run on.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4988
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4806 on: November 07, 2018, 09:29:54 AM »
I think it is a little odd that people get so worked up about the "popular vote." Even though Republicans controlled the House through most of Obamas presidency. 'Oh, it was the gerrymandering.' Bull; lots of states have strong Democratic parties and representation, that is not all Republicans just working the system, they are just not that good.

Who knows, maybe D-districts are typically 90% for their party while R-districts are 55/45% because Democrats can only tolerate to be around one another while Republicans enjoy diversity. Just a thought.

bahahaha

That's so incredibly ironic given how they generally stomp on anyone who's not straight/white/etc.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4807 on: November 07, 2018, 09:33:33 AM »
I'm glad Florida voted to reinstate voting rights because it is the right thing to do. How it plays out for votes cast is TBD, but restoring constitutional rights is the primary upshot here.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4808 on: November 07, 2018, 09:35:27 AM »
I'm hearing a lot of disappointment about how the democrats performed last night, but they should be ecstatic that Florida has restored voting rights to felons. 

Let's say 25% of those 1.5 million vote in 2020, and that they split 60/40 democrat/republican.  That would be a net gain of 75,000 votes.  If 50% of those felons vote, that would be a 150,000 vote gain.  Now let's review the vote difference in the Florida elections last night:
As someone who votes Libertarian when he doesn't vote Democrat, I'm really glad that this happened. But it is my experience working with an offender population that offenders tend to be more politically conservative than their non-incarcerated peers. Especially on social issues that federal Democrats prefer to run on.

This is my interpretation as well.  As Glenstache just put it:
I'm glad Florida voted to reinstate voting rights because it is the right thing to do. How it plays out for votes cast is TBD, but restoring constitutional rights is the primary upshot here.

A much bigger deal IMO is the uprooted Puerto Ricans from hurricane Maria who are automatically eligible to vote wherever they live.  On net, roughly 200,000 have left Puerto Rico since 2016 so far, with the majority settling in Florida. Given how this demographic has skewed heavily towards Democrats, and given the president's hostility towards latinos in general and Puerto Rico in particular, this could be a net gain of many-tens-of-thousands to the Dems in 2020 in one of this closest of battleground states (seperated by just 105k votes in 2016, 75k in 2012, and ~500 in 2000)

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4809 on: November 07, 2018, 09:43:15 AM »
Who knows, maybe D-districts are typically 90% for their party while R-districts are 55/45% because Democrats can only tolerate to be around one another while Republicans enjoy diversity. Just a thought.

This is disingenuous horseshit. You'd have to be utterly ignorant of modern politics to believe this for an instant.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4810 on: November 07, 2018, 09:51:46 AM »
I think it is a little odd that people get so worked up about the "popular vote." Even though Republicans controlled the House through most of Obamas presidency. 'Oh, it was the gerrymandering.' Bull; lots of states have strong Democratic parties and representation, that is not all Republicans just working the system, they are just not that good.

Who knows, maybe D-districts are typically 90% for their party while R-districts are 55/45% because Democrats can only tolerate to be around one another while Republicans enjoy diversity. Just a thought.

Right, Republicans enjoy diversity and gerrymandering does not exist.  NC lines are very precisely drawn to pack expected D voters into a couple districts and dilute the votes of those remaining Ds.  The lines are nuts, I believe the courts stated they were drawn with "surgical precision".  That map has already been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts, but since it is still going before the Supreme Court we were stuck with it for 2018. 

Looking at the state overall, not counting Walter Jones district where he ran unopposed, gives us 12 districts.  D voter turnout over those 12 districts was 1,747,742 or 52% of the vote.  R voter turnout was 1,642,344 or 48% of the vote.  Yet with 52% of the vote, Ds only won 25% of the districts or 3.  The three D districts?  Downtown Raleigh with fingers into other areas, downtown Charlotte with fingers into other areas and one heavily gerrymandered district drawn to include as many African-Americans as possible.  Diluting votes, packing votes is why the 3 D districts won with an average of 73% of the vote and the 9 R districts won with 56% of the vote. The idea that Rs enjoy diversity is pure fantasy.   

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7353
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4811 on: November 07, 2018, 10:10:56 AM »
This is disingenuous horseshit. You'd have to be utterly ignorant of modern politics to believe this for an instant.

I don't believe h2r believes it for an instant.

One of the most valuable things I have learned from the MMM forums is that certain posters are only here to stir the shit, and h2r is one of those names that I just automatically assume is going to have said something woefully offensive whenever I see the username pop up. 

I'm not sure if it's trolling for lulz, or genuine douchebaggery, and honestly I'm not sure it matters anymore.  All of those dudes who marched in Charlottesville wearing Nazi armbands but who claimed they weren't really Nazis, they were just being ironic as they marched for free speech?  Yea, you're a fucking Nazi.  You don't get to appropriate the signs and symbols and behaviors of a racist ideology without admitting to being a racist.  H2r is in the same boat.  It's easier to just mentally accept that some posters are only trying to anger you, not have an honest conversation.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4812 on: November 07, 2018, 10:24:39 AM »
This is disingenuous horseshit. You'd have to be utterly ignorant of modern politics to believe this for an instant.

I don't believe h2r believes it for an instant.

One of the most valuable things I have learned from the MMM forums is that certain posters are only here to stir the shit, and h2r is one of those names that I just automatically assume is going to have said something woefully offensive whenever I see the username pop up. 

I'm not sure if it's trolling for lulz, or genuine douchebaggery, and honestly I'm not sure it matters anymore.  All of those dudes who marched in Charlottesville wearing Nazi armbands but who claimed they weren't really Nazis, they were just being ironic as they marched for free speech?  Yea, you're a fucking Nazi.  You don't get to appropriate the signs and symbols and behaviors of a racist ideology without admitting to being a racist.  H2r is in the same boat.  It's easier to just mentally accept that some posters are only trying to anger you, not have an honest conversation.

But what are the obligations of others in these circumstances? Not a rhetorical question. When people make postings that are blatantly false, ignore established facts or are downright racist do we ignore them (and let them stand seemingly unopposed in an open forum)? or do we make a counterargument so that others who stumble into the argument can see how disreputable it is?
One is to engage which, unfortunately, often encourages the behavior, the other is to let it go uncontested and unopposed.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4813 on: November 07, 2018, 10:47:34 AM »
This is disingenuous horseshit. You'd have to be utterly ignorant of modern politics to believe this for an instant.

I don't believe h2r believes it for an instant.

One of the most valuable things I have learned from the MMM forums is that certain posters are only here to stir the shit, and h2r is one of those names that I just automatically assume is going to have said something woefully offensive whenever I see the username pop up. 

I'm not sure if it's trolling for lulz, or genuine douchebaggery, and honestly I'm not sure it matters anymore.  All of those dudes who marched in Charlottesville wearing Nazi armbands but who claimed they weren't really Nazis, they were just being ironic as they marched for free speech?  Yea, you're a fucking Nazi.  You don't get to appropriate the signs and symbols and behaviors of a racist ideology without admitting to being a racist.  H2r is in the same boat.  It's easier to just mentally accept that some posters are only trying to anger you, not have an honest conversation.

But what are the obligations of others in these circumstances? Not a rhetorical question. When people make postings that are blatantly false, ignore established facts or are downright racist do we ignore them (and let them stand seemingly unopposed in an open forum)? or do we make a counterargument so that others who stumble into the argument can see how disreputable it is?
One is to engage which, unfortunately, often encourages the behavior, the other is to let it go uncontested and unopposed.
Engaging might encourage the behavior, but it cannot go unopposed.  I speak less to the trolling than to the Charlottesville example.

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 551
  • Location: Here & There
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4814 on: November 07, 2018, 11:27:08 AM »
This is disingenuous horseshit. You'd have to be utterly ignorant of modern politics to believe this for an instant.

I don't believe h2r believes it for an instant.

One of the most valuable things I have learned from the MMM forums is that certain posters are only here to stir the shit, and h2r is one of those names that I just automatically assume is going to have said something woefully offensive whenever I see the username pop up. 

I'm not sure if it's trolling for lulz, or genuine douchebaggery, and honestly I'm not sure it matters anymore.  All of those dudes who marched in Charlottesville wearing Nazi armbands but who claimed they weren't really Nazis, they were just being ironic as they marched for free speech?  Yea, you're a fucking Nazi.  You don't get to appropriate the signs and symbols and behaviors of a racist ideology without admitting to being a racist.  H2r is in the same boat.  It's easier to just mentally accept that some posters are only trying to anger you, not have an honest conversation.

But what are the obligations of others in these circumstances? Not a rhetorical question. When people make postings that are blatantly false, ignore established facts or are downright racist do we ignore them (and let them stand seemingly unopposed in an open forum)? or do we make a counterargument so that others who stumble into the argument can see how disreputable it is?
One is to engage which, unfortunately, often encourages the behavior, the other is to let it go uncontested and unopposed.




Too bad we don't have the little smiley faces here.  A quick negative face is all they deserve.  Wasting your time to type a paragraph or two in reply to them over & over makes them happy.   They're after negative reinforcement & getting it.  A simple one or two word reply is the best you can do without just ignoring them.  The rest of us can see trolls too, so you don't need to feed them.  ;)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4815 on: November 07, 2018, 12:20:13 PM »
This is disingenuous horseshit. You'd have to be utterly ignorant of modern politics to believe this for an instant.

I don't believe h2r believes it for an instant.

One of the most valuable things I have learned from the MMM forums is that certain posters are only here to stir the shit, and h2r is one of those names that I just automatically assume is going to have said something woefully offensive whenever I see the username pop up. 

I'm not sure if it's trolling for lulz, or genuine douchebaggery, and honestly I'm not sure it matters anymore.  All of those dudes who marched in Charlottesville wearing Nazi armbands but who claimed they weren't really Nazis, they were just being ironic as they marched for free speech?  Yea, you're a fucking Nazi.  You don't get to appropriate the signs and symbols and behaviors of a racist ideology without admitting to being a racist.  H2r is in the same boat.  It's easier to just mentally accept that some posters are only trying to anger you, not have an honest conversation.

But what are the obligations of others in these circumstances? Not a rhetorical question. When people make postings that are blatantly false, ignore established facts or are downright racist do we ignore them (and let them stand seemingly unopposed in an open forum)? or do we make a counterargument so that others who stumble into the argument can see how disreputable it is?
One is to engage which, unfortunately, often encourages the behavior, the other is to let it go uncontested and unopposed.

Too bad we don't have the little smiley faces here.  A quick negative face is all they deserve.  Wasting your time to type a paragraph or two in reply to them over & over makes them happy.   They're after negative reinforcement & getting it.  A simple one or two word reply is the best you can do without just ignoring them.  The rest of us can see trolls too, so you don't need to feed them.  ;)

As I understand it, this was discussed during the early days of the forum among the moderators and MMM, and it was decided that such emoticon responses were both out-of-character for what they wanted this forum to be and somehow used up too much server power to be implemented at the time without bogging things down (circa 2011).

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4816 on: November 07, 2018, 12:24:39 PM »
Anyways, getting back on topic.... speculating about the rest of the Trump presidency.
The house is going to the Democrats. Not much will change in the Senate. Based on that status, I expect:
1. Adam Schiff will revive the cursory investigations in the House.
2. Because Trump will be blocked from massive cuts to medicare, etc to pay for the GOP tax cuts, the deficit and debt is going to grow pretty damn fast. This will be consistent with previous GOP administrations. This will occur despite a booming economy, which is the best time to raise revenue and draw down the debt.
3. Trump will attempt some sort of bait and switch legislation with Dems and accuse them of doing a bait and switch. Not sure if that will be budget or immigration, but it will be ugly.
4. His thumbs will get calloused from Twitter-binging.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4817 on: November 07, 2018, 12:48:19 PM »
Anyways, getting back on topic.... speculating about the rest of the Trump presidency.
The house is going to the Democrats. Not much will change in the Senate. Based on that status, I expect:
1. Adam Schiff will revive the cursory investigations in the House.
2. Because Trump will be blocked from massive cuts to medicare, etc to pay for the GOP tax cuts, the deficit and debt is going to grow pretty damn fast. This will be consistent with previous GOP administrations. This will occur despite a booming economy, which is the best time to raise revenue and draw down the debt.
3. Trump will attempt some sort of bait and switch legislation with Dems and accuse them of doing a bait and switch. Not sure if that will be budget or immigration, but it will be ugly.
4. His thumbs will get calloused from Twitter-binging.

Despite the faux-crowing, I'm finding it hard to see how anything will be more favorable to the GOP, while much is better for the Dems
1) Senate - doesn't really matter whether they have 51 or 54 seats; with the lesser they were still able to appoint Kavanaugh, DeVos, Pruitt and a long list of other controversials. So they'll keep doing this.

2) House - Dems now control the house, which means they control the committees and (theorically) the power of the purse. They can investigate and decide which bills pass through committee. If they are stupid they'll grandstand, hold poorly-construed public hearings a-la-Benghazi and lose public support.  If they're smart they'll push popular bills and discretely investigate, holding public hearings only when they are well formulated and routed in evidence. I fear they'll do the former, but hope for the latter

3) SCOTUS - Will RGB and Breyer hold on til 2020? Or will one or both be replaced setting up a conservative court that will last two decades or more? To me this is the wildcard

4) State Governors - some nice pickups for Dems, and fewer state allies for Trump to draw on, particularly in the rust belt so important to his '16 victory. This will be important both for the 2020 census as well as the 2020 presidential election.

5) moderates - the GOP has lurched even further to the right, with many of the victors closely tied to Trumpism. Their big losses came in suburban districts. Dems have a choice for the next election - they can push a progressive agenda or nominate someone closer to the center that can continue to pick off center-right voters that are sick of Trump's rhetoric. The latter will certainly be an easier course for them but the temptation to strike with a far left candidate will be considerable, given the enthusiasm from that wing of their base.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4818 on: November 07, 2018, 12:53:16 PM »
... well that didn't take long.

Attorney General Jeff Beauregard Sessions has 'resigned' at Trump's request.

Can one really 'resign' if your boss requests it? Isn't that like voluntarily surrendering when held at gunpoint?

Sugaree

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 168
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4819 on: November 07, 2018, 01:10:42 PM »
At least we got Doug Jones out of the deal.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4820 on: November 07, 2018, 01:12:02 PM »
When do the newly elected people who won the midterms start their jobs? Is it immediately, December 1st, January 1st?

Louisville

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 478
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4821 on: November 07, 2018, 01:22:41 PM »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-cnn-jim-acosta-video-midterms-white-house-sarah-sanders-press-conference-a8622656.html

Trump's policies (if he has any beyond "everybody look at me") aside, this guy is just really shitbag person. Embarrassing, unprofessional, ignorant, narcissistic pig.
I'm a patriotic veteran. I think of myself as fairly moderate. I'm a registered Democrat, but I've voted Republican in the past in local elections.
It blows my mind and makes me very, very sad that more than 40% of people in the country are behind this guy. When I was young, I was cynical and I thought most people were stupid. Then I gained some maturity and realized my way of seeing things wasn't the only way of seeing things. Now, I'm starting to think I was right the first time.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4822 on: November 07, 2018, 01:29:16 PM »
When do the newly elected people who won the midterms start their jobs? Is it immediately, December 1st, January 1st?

The next congress will be sworn in on January 3rd at noon.  It's mandated to be the 3rd unless this falls on a weekend or unless the proceeding congress sets a different day.

The current Senate will go into recess on December 14th and the House on the 13th, so unless they hold a special session it's unlikely they will do anything after this date. Neither chamber is in session November 17th-25th.  All told, there's fewer than 20 days remaining when both chambers will be in session.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3350
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4823 on: November 07, 2018, 01:36:03 PM »
Welp, Sessions is out. Leaving Trump to appoint a new lapdog AG who will not recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.

Any bets? I'm thinking Lindsey Graham, by the end of the week.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4824 on: November 07, 2018, 01:39:50 PM »
Welp, Sessions is out. Leaving Trump to appoint a new lapdog AG who will not recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.

Any bets? I'm thinking Lindsey Graham, by the end of the week.

It's Matthew Whitaker, the guy who publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment of an AG could defund Mueller to the point where his "investigation grinds almost to a halt".  and wrote an OpEd saying that the GOP needed to 'limit the scope of [Mueller's] investigation"
Gee, now he's the guy.,..

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3350
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4825 on: November 07, 2018, 02:00:18 PM »
Welp, Sessions is out. Leaving Trump to appoint a new lapdog AG who will not recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.

Any bets? I'm thinking Lindsey Graham, by the end of the week.

It's Matthew Whitaker, the guy who publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment of an AG could defund Mueller to the point where his "investigation grinds almost to a halt".  and wrote an OpEd saying that the GOP needed to 'limit the scope of [Mueller's] investigation"
Gee, now he's the guy.,..

Ah, yes. And Lindsey can stay in the Senate.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4826 on: November 07, 2018, 02:05:53 PM »
Lindsey is looking for a new job it seems. Since the Kavanaugh hearings he has acted like he wants to be Trumps sidekick.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4827 on: November 07, 2018, 02:16:11 PM »
Kris Kobach.  He's out of a job and his past makes him an ideal choice for the "DOJ" under Trump.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4828 on: November 07, 2018, 02:19:39 PM »
Also, Rod Rosenstein is no longer overseeing the Mueller probe.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4829 on: November 07, 2018, 02:22:00 PM »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-cnn-jim-acosta-video-midterms-white-house-sarah-sanders-press-conference-a8622656.html

Trump's policies (if he has any beyond "everybody look at me") aside, this guy is just really shitbag person. Embarrassing, unprofessional, ignorant, narcissistic pig.
I'm a patriotic veteran. I think of myself as fairly moderate. I'm a registered Democrat, but I've voted Republican in the past in local elections.
It blows my mind and makes me very, very sad that more than 40% of people in the country are behind this guy. When I was young, I was cynical and I thought most people were stupid. Then I gained some maturity and realized my way of seeing things wasn't the only way of seeing things. Now, I'm starting to think I was right the first time.

Ehh not really. I kept hearing in exit polls that for many folks immigration was their top priority. I mean think about it. That means keeping brown skin people out of this country was more important than the economy, healthcare, jobs, the environment, etc for many. Commentators thought Trump was crazy choosing to focus on the "invaders" over the economy during his rallies. But Trump knows his followers well. Demagoguery is a hell of a thing. Trump does it well.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7353
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4830 on: November 07, 2018, 02:32:06 PM »
Ehh not really. I kept hearing in exit polls that for many folks immigration was their top priority. I mean think about it. That means keeping brown skin people out of this country was more important than the economy, healthcare, jobs, the environment, etc for many. Commentators thought Trump was crazy choosing to focus on the "invaders" over the economy during his rallies. But Trump knows his followers well. Demagoguery is a hell of a thing. Trump does it well.

I think you might have the cause and effect reversed.  I think lots of susceptible low-information voters think that immigration is their most pressing concern because Trump told them there was a caravan of murderers coming for their wives and daughters.  I do not think most Americans are inherently anti-immigration enough that Trump saw an opportunity to capitalize on their latent racism with blatant racism.

If Trump had made the economy or healthcare or jobs his top ad buy before the midterms, people would be riled up about that instead.  Vulnerable people are easily led, and they will believe whatever the squawk box tells them to believe.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4831 on: November 07, 2018, 02:45:46 PM »
I think it should be pointed out that Trump couldn't have done what you suggested he did regarding immigration and caravans without the complicity of a wide range of media outlets, mostly prominently Fox and Breitbart obviously, but also CNN, major newspapers, social networks. They all took a non-event* (raiding caravan of criminals hiding Middle Eastern terrorists) and trumpeted it loudly for weeks.

*The caravan itself, the idea of failed governments and societies with people looking for asylum is itself a real issue, but somehow that was just never the story.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2358

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4833 on: November 07, 2018, 05:13:28 PM »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4834 on: November 07, 2018, 10:13:37 PM »
Excellent, with the Democrats controlling the House, Drumpf will have an excuse for achieving nothing for the next two years, and thus be re-elected in 2020. Rock on!

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5783
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4835 on: November 08, 2018, 12:34:53 AM »
I liked the comment from one market commentator today that stocks went up because congress will be gridlocked for the next two years and unable to pass any laws, thus delivering some form of regulatory certainty for the time being.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4836 on: November 08, 2018, 05:02:01 AM »

It blows my mind and makes me very, very sad that more than 40% of people in the country are behind this guy. When I was young, I was cynical and I thought most people were stupid. Then I gained some maturity and realized my way of seeing things wasn't the only way of seeing things. Now, I'm starting to think I was right the first time.

Trump was the political equivalent of a brick through a window. People just decided "screw it, nothing is working right, might as well do as much damage as we can."

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4837 on: November 08, 2018, 05:09:50 AM »
Nice to see Trump threatening backlash if the Dems investigate him. Gee it's as if he is trying to hide something. I mean why care now? He could point blank admit to working with Russia at one his rallies and the crowd would erupt in applause.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4838 on: November 08, 2018, 06:34:18 AM »
I think it is a little odd that people get so worked up about the "popular vote." Even though Republicans controlled the House through most of Obamas presidency. 'Oh, it was the gerrymandering.' Bull; lots of states have strong Democratic parties and representation, that is not all Republicans just working the system, they are just not that good.

The heart of the argument is a core belief held by many that government should reflect the will of the will of the people.  It's reflected in the mantra " government of the people, by the people, for the people" first spoken by Abraham Lincoln.  The reality is that the method which was developed to select our leaders allows at times for those with minority support to obtain and retain power. When candidates win elections with a minority of votes repeatedly the question arises about whether this is truly a reflection of the will of the constituents. 

Who knows, maybe D-districts are typically 90% for their party while R-districts are 55/45% because Democrats can only tolerate to be around one another while Republicans enjoy diversity. Just a thought.
While possible (though I think unlikely based on personal experience) it is irrelevant to the issue above. From a representitive standpoint, it doesn't matter whether there are pockets where the populace will support only one candidate or party; what matters is whether government as a whole reflects the broader breakdown of its citizens.
We also do not have to 'guess' about how supportive various groups are of their party and of individual candidates. That information is readily available for all states, counties and districts, and can (and has) been dissected a hundred different ways. The short summary is that both parties enjoy regions where they have overwhelming support, and citizens within those regions are intolerant of the political contrarian view.

My point is when people see a result or district they do not like there is a lot of blame laid at gerrymandering; by Republicans. I think that is absurd. Democrats aren't that incompetent and Republicans are not that slick. Look for another reason this happens. My guess is people in large cities lean heavily democratic and though possible, there is just no way to split that with sub/ex-urban neighborhoods without absurd gerrymandering. Another guess, when looking at a map there are odd shaped elongated districts and we think they should be more uniform round or square looking, when in reality they likely follow roads and areas where people trade, work and live.

My 'intolerant/diversity' comment, somewhat humorous or thought provoking I admit, though does have some truth from my personal experience. Republicans would welcome anyone, of any shade, though finding they have a political disagreement would be quiet or ignore the subject. Democratic leaning people, they ones I personally encounter no less initially welcoming, tend to engage someone they disagree with to the point of making them feel unwelcome and unsafe.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1794
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4839 on: November 08, 2018, 07:26:26 AM »
Another guess, when looking at a map there are odd shaped elongated districts and we think they should be more uniform round or square looking, when in reality they likely follow roads and areas where people trade, work and live.




There's a whole book written by an investigative journalist about a republican strategist that used data and a new computer program to take gerrymandering to a whole new level right in time for the republican wave election of 2010. Consequently many districts were heavily gerrymandered - happened in many purple states, Michigan, North Carolina with surgical precision, etc.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12078
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4840 on: November 08, 2018, 07:34:04 AM »
This is disingenuous horseshit. You'd have to be utterly ignorant of modern politics to believe this for an instant.

I don't believe h2r believes it for an instant.

One of the most valuable things I have learned from the MMM forums is that certain posters are only here to stir the shit, and h2r is one of those names that I just automatically assume is going to have said something woefully offensive whenever I see the username pop up. 

I'm not sure if it's trolling for lulz, or genuine douchebaggery, and honestly I'm not sure it matters anymore.  All of those dudes who marched in Charlottesville wearing Nazi armbands but who claimed they weren't really Nazis, they were just being ironic as they marched for free speech?  Yea, you're a fucking Nazi.  You don't get to appropriate the signs and symbols and behaviors of a racist ideology without admitting to being a racistH2r is in the same boat.  It's easier to just mentally accept that some posters are only trying to anger you, not have an honest conversation.

'Sol makes posts here sometimes. Atheist Stalinist killed millions of people. Atheist Maoist killed millions of people. Both groups of communists are awful, awful human beings. I think Sol said he is an atheist, a point he has made that he has grief about and could have an axe to grind, not to mention he also leans heavily left, almost communist.'

Try harder Sol.

I'm not entirely sure that I follow your point here.  Sol (to my knowledge) has never supported communism, or those who appropriate the symbols of communism.  He is an atheist though.  Many (most?) atheists are both peaceful and benign.  By comparing them to Nazis, are you arguing that most Nazis are both peaceful and benign?  Because doing that is kinda what got Trump in trouble in the first place. . .

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
  • just want to see where this appears
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4841 on: November 08, 2018, 07:48:47 AM »
My satirical comment was a followup to Sol's comment of mentioning something about me then mentioning something about Nazis, including the sentence "Yea, your a fucking Nazis." An attempt to equivocate me to a Nazis. Make sense?

My comment, in a similar yet less hidden manner, equivocated Sol to a murdering Communist dictatorship of the mid 20th century. Then I state that both comments are blatant and therefore in poor taste.

Ugh, now my above comment has lost its satirical and entertainment value.


Gerrymandering:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-gerrymandering-project/

https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/avlon-gop-diversity/

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4842 on: November 08, 2018, 07:56:20 AM »
It's Matthew Whitaker, the guy who publicly mused on CNN that an interim appointment of an AG could defund Mueller to the point where his "investigation grinds almost to a halt".  and wrote an OpEd saying that the GOP needed to 'limit the scope of [Mueller's] investigation"
Gee, now he's the guy.,..

Just so everyone knows, there are protests planned today at 5PM in cities around the country to protest the Mueller investigation being "overseen" by someone who openly wants to sabotage it. If you were ever going to do something, this is a good time. I hope to see everyone out there with me.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4843 on: November 08, 2018, 07:58:10 AM »
Ehh not really. I kept hearing in exit polls that for many folks immigration was their top priority. I mean think about it. That means keeping brown skin people out of this country was more important than the economy, healthcare, jobs, the environment, etc for many. Commentators thought Trump was crazy choosing to focus on the "invaders" over the economy during his rallies. But Trump knows his followers well. Demagoguery is a hell of a thing. Trump does it well.
I didn't think anyone would fall for such openly obvious tactics.  Then I overheard two people in my building going on about immigration and the caravan.  They totally bought in.  Trump plays the race and xenophobe card like a master. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12078
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4844 on: November 08, 2018, 07:58:37 AM »
My satirical comment was a followup to Sol's comment of mentioning something about me then mentioning something about Nazis, including the sentence "Yea, your a fucking Nazis." An attempt to equivocate me to a Nazis. Make sense?

My comment, in a similar yet less hidden manner, equivocated Sol to a murdering Communist dictatorship of the mid 20th century. Then I state that both comments are blatant and therefore in poor taste.

Ugh, now my above comment has lost its satirical and entertainment value.

But you actively support someone who has called Nazis good people, which is why Sol mentioned it.  Are you claiming that Sol has done something similar with Communists?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4845 on: November 08, 2018, 08:05:29 AM »
I think it is a little odd that people get so worked up about the "popular vote." Even though Republicans controlled the House through most of Obamas presidency. 'Oh, it was the gerrymandering.' Bull; lots of states have strong Democratic parties and representation, that is not all Republicans just working the system, they are just not that good.

The heart of the argument is a core belief held by many that government should reflect the will of the will of the people.  It's reflected in the mantra " government of the people, by the people, for the people" first spoken by Abraham Lincoln.  The reality is that the method which was developed to select our leaders allows at times for those with minority support to obtain and retain power. When candidates win elections with a minority of votes repeatedly the question arises about whether this is truly a reflection of the will of the constituents. 

Who knows, maybe D-districts are typically 90% for their party while R-districts are 55/45% because Democrats can only tolerate to be around one another while Republicans enjoy diversity. Just a thought.
While possible (though I think unlikely based on personal experience) it is irrelevant to the issue above. From a representitive standpoint, it doesn't matter whether there are pockets where the populace will support only one candidate or party; what matters is whether government as a whole reflects the broader breakdown of its citizens.
We also do not have to 'guess' about how supportive various groups are of their party and of individual candidates. That information is readily available for all states, counties and districts, and can (and has) been dissected a hundred different ways. The short summary is that both parties enjoy regions where they have overwhelming support, and citizens within those regions are intolerant of the political contrarian view.

My point is when people see a result or district they do not like there is a lot of blame laid at gerrymandering; by Republicans. I think that is absurd. Democrats aren't that incompetent and Republicans are not that slick. Look for another reason this happens. My guess is people in large cities lean heavily democratic and though possible, there is just no way to split that with sub/ex-urban neighborhoods without absurd gerrymandering. Another guess, when looking at a map there are odd shaped elongated districts and we think they should be more uniform round or square looking, when in reality they likely follow roads and areas where people trade, work and live.

My 'intolerant/diversity' comment, somewhat humorous or thought provoking I admit, though does have some truth from my personal experience. Republicans would welcome anyone, of any shade, though finding they have a political disagreement would be quiet or ignore the subject. Democratic leaning people, they ones I personally encounter no less initially welcoming, tend to engage someone they disagree with to the point of making them feel unwelcome and unsafe.

The litmus test for whether a State's districts are representative (i.e. 'fair') is simple: do the number of representatives from each party roughly match votes cast? In the parlance - are they efficient in representing the voters?  It's worth noting that North Carolina has had one of the highest efficiency gaps in the country, where Hoping2retire35 lives; with 13 districts, 10 are GOP and 3 are Dems, despite vote totals that were ~54/46 (suggesting the true representation would be 7 to 6 or (to account for natural randomness) 8 to 5.

As for whether these non-compact districts are merely following roads (as you've suggested) or give an advantage to one party or another, we again look to the results. One could make the argument that the inefficiency in districts was entirely unintentional, but one cannot argue that they don't give a large advantage to one party.

ETA: it seems I made an error in where a forum member lives.  My apologies.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 09:55:58 AM by nereo »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3350
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4846 on: November 08, 2018, 08:35:12 AM »
Ehh not really. I kept hearing in exit polls that for many folks immigration was their top priority. I mean think about it. That means keeping brown skin people out of this country was more important than the economy, healthcare, jobs, the environment, etc for many. Commentators thought Trump was crazy choosing to focus on the "invaders" over the economy during his rallies. But Trump knows his followers well. Demagoguery is a hell of a thing. Trump does it well.
I didn't think anyone would fall for such openly obvious tactics.  Then I overheard two people in my building going on about immigration and the caravan.  They totally bought in.  Trump plays the race and xenophobe card like a master.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4847 on: November 08, 2018, 08:56:22 AM »
I think it is a little odd that people get so worked up about the "popular vote." Even though Republicans controlled the House through most of Obamas presidency. 'Oh, it was the gerrymandering.' Bull; lots of states have strong Democratic parties and representation, that is not all Republicans just working the system, they are just not that good.

The heart of the argument is a core belief held by many that government should reflect the will of the will of the people.  It's reflected in the mantra " government of the people, by the people, for the people" first spoken by Abraham Lincoln.  The reality is that the method which was developed to select our leaders allows at times for those with minority support to obtain and retain power. When candidates win elections with a minority of votes repeatedly the question arises about whether this is truly a reflection of the will of the constituents. 

Who knows, maybe D-districts are typically 90% for their party while R-districts are 55/45% because Democrats can only tolerate to be around one another while Republicans enjoy diversity. Just a thought.
While possible (though I think unlikely based on personal experience) it is irrelevant to the issue above. From a representitive standpoint, it doesn't matter whether there are pockets where the populace will support only one candidate or party; what matters is whether government as a whole reflects the broader breakdown of its citizens.
We also do not have to 'guess' about how supportive various groups are of their party and of individual candidates. That information is readily available for all states, counties and districts, and can (and has) been dissected a hundred different ways. The short summary is that both parties enjoy regions where they have overwhelming support, and citizens within those regions are intolerant of the political contrarian view.

My point is when people see a result or district they do not like there is a lot of blame laid at gerrymandering; by Republicans. I think that is absurd. Democrats aren't that incompetent and Republicans are not that slick. Look for another reason this happens. My guess is people in large cities lean heavily democratic and though possible, there is just no way to split that with sub/ex-urban neighborhoods without absurd gerrymandering. Another guess, when looking at a map there are odd shaped elongated districts and we think they should be more uniform round or square looking, when in reality they likely follow roads and areas where people trade, work and live.

My 'intolerant/diversity' comment, somewhat humorous or thought provoking I admit, though does have some truth from my personal experience. Republicans would welcome anyone, of any shade, though finding they have a political disagreement would be quiet or ignore the subject. Democratic leaning people, they ones I personally encounter no less initially welcoming, tend to engage someone they disagree with to the point of making them feel unwelcome and unsafe.

The litmus test for whether a State's districts are representative (i.e. 'fair'0 is simple: do the number of representatives from each party roughly match votes cast? In the parlance - are they efficient in representing the voters?  It's worth noting that North Carolina has had one of the highest efficiency gaps in the country, where Hoping2retire35 lives; with 13 districts, 10 are GOP and 3 are Dems, despite vote totals that were ~54/46 (suggesting the true representation would be 7 to 6 or (to account for natural randomness) 8 to 5.

As for whether these non-compact districts are merely following roads (as you've suggested) or give an advantage to one party or another, we again look to the results. One could make the argument that the inefficiency in districts was entirely unintentional, but one cannot argue that they don't give a large advantage to one party.

Actually, I don't think Republicans can make that argument anymore...

NC Republicans admit to partisan gerrymandering (part 1)
NC Republicans admit to partisan gerrymandering (part 2)
NC Republicans draw blatantly partisan gerrymander*

*Longer video including both of the previous videos for more context, but harder to hear what's being said.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1707
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4848 on: November 08, 2018, 09:21:43 AM »
My satirical comment was a followup to Sol's comment of mentioning something about me then mentioning something about Nazis, including the sentence "Yea, your a fucking Nazis." An attempt to equivocate me to a Nazis. Make sense?

My comment, in a similar yet less hidden manner, equivocated Sol to a murdering Communist dictatorship of the mid 20th century. Then I state that both comments are blatant and therefore in poor taste.

Ugh, now my above comment has lost its satirical and entertainment value.

But you actively support someone who has called Nazis good people, which is why Sol mentioned it.  Are you claiming that Sol has done something similar with Communists?

To be fair H2R is just one of many who doesn't understand this logic. Thus the rant about trying to link aethism with dictators. It's the classic Tu quoque fallacy.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #4849 on: November 08, 2018, 09:25:13 AM »
The litmus test for whether a State's districts are representative (i.e. 'fair'0 is simple: do the number of representatives from each party roughly match votes cast? In the parlance - are they efficient in representing the voters?  It's worth noting that North Carolina has had one of the highest efficiency gaps in the country, where Hoping2retire35 lives; with 13 districts, 10 are GOP and 3 are Dems, despite vote totals that were ~54/46 (suggesting the true representation would be 7 to 6 or (to account for natural randomness) 8 to 5.

It's beside the point, but I'm almost certain hoping2retire35 lives in South Carolina, not North Carolina. "Upstate" or "Upcountry" are terms commonly used by residents of the Palmetto State to refer to the northwest quadrant of the state, in the vicinity of Greenville and Spartanburg.