Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 297363 times)

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #400 on: December 12, 2019, 09:29:24 AM »
Thank you for the summary.

Good gosh - I don't share the beliefs of my parents and grandparents' generations - I'm sure as hell not worrying about Bible stories and ancient grudges.

The world is a weird place.

Sanitary Engineer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #401 on: December 12, 2019, 09:37:30 AM »
I don't know if I feel outrage from this article (I am only convinced it is real because what Trump is quoted saying is so ridiculous, therefore, likely true), but I am definitely ashamed that these words were said by the President of the United States.  It never occurred to me that I might want to verify that a leader supported conserving drinking water and electricity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/us/politics/trump-toilet-flushing.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR3umK8v0zGRA5rTawRk455BWu1x0IKgRAUR-0te0Bhoqn3_syz5w8qGrlM

I do appreciate that he clarified that he meant rain when he referenced water coming down, so we know he meant coming down out of the sky, so definitely worth mentioning and clarifying.

 

Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1037
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #402 on: December 12, 2019, 09:48:19 AM »
Perhaps I'm connected with an unusual group of practicing Jews, but they all basically tell me some variant of, "We know his tweets are dumb, but his daughter is Jewish, and it's clear he has Israel's back, so we're all in."

As a member of one of the largest congregations in the US and a 'knower-of-many-Jews", if that is common then I think you do know an unusual group. Most I know are vehemently opposed to Trump. Those who are in favor primarily seem to be those who solely focus on the economic side of politics and ignore social issues, with a smattering of fringe deep state conspiracy theory toting fox news zombies.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #403 on: December 12, 2019, 10:16:04 AM »
I don't know if I feel outrage from this article (I am only convinced it is real because what Trump is quoted saying is so ridiculous, therefore, likely true), but I am definitely ashamed that these words were said by the President of the United States.  It never occurred to me that I might want to verify that a leader supported conserving drinking water and electricity.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/us/politics/trump-toilet-flushing.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR3umK8v0zGRA5rTawRk455BWu1x0IKgRAUR-0te0Bhoqn3_syz5w8qGrlM

I do appreciate that he clarified that he meant rain when he referenced water coming down, so we know he meant coming down out of the sky, so definitely worth mentioning and clarifying.

I expect Trump will be seeking to rollback all residential efficiencies soon. High flow toilets, a return to incandescent bulbs, coal powered steam heat, and ice boxes. Milk delivery every morning... Leaded gasoline at the corner gas station. -eyes rolling-

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #404 on: December 12, 2019, 11:24:50 AM »
Beyond that, how would this even be logistically possible? Do you have a process in mind where he could plausibly end up on the ballot?

He'll just ignore all of that Constitutional BS. Blah-blah extenuating circumstances.

1) The GOP controlled states in the South and West will put him on the ballot. Numerous lawsuits follow, which he'll lose, but they'll be stayed until after the election.
2) He'll declare himself the winner with the highest electoral votes ever. Even if he loses, he'll declare himself a winner. The troll-bots will push the story.

The House will condemn it but the Senate will accept it. More importantly, the SC will accept his "win" with Kavanaugh writing the decision.

----
His support can't even win the Louisiana and Kentucky Governor's mansion and Virginia switched parties. I'm skeptical that it could happen though he might float the idea in 2023 if he wins in 2020.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #405 on: December 12, 2019, 11:39:44 AM »
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #406 on: December 12, 2019, 11:56:53 AM »
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.

Given Trump's need to win, getting a 3rd term would be ultra-winning. No one else has done that since FDR!
Given the GOP's die-hard support of Trump, I have no doubt that they would support him for a 3rd term. Look at Jordan and Graham. Total boot lickers.
Given the ignoring of the Emoluments Clause, as talltexan mentioned, why do we presume that other parts of the Constitution can't be ignored as well? Especially if the SC and Senate bless what he does (and I expect that the SC will side with him on taxes and Congressional subpoenas).

It could be a coup. A coup led by a buffoon but, still, one that could work.

But, yeah, very unlikely. We saw this same concern with Obama and Bush Cheney.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #407 on: December 12, 2019, 12:24:14 PM »
No, I was referring to his repeated predictions that he will be elected to a third and sometimes forth term.
Serious question, though: why is the two-term prohibition so much stronger than the Emoluments prohibition? Many Republicans seem content to support any candidate who is not a Democrat, provided that candidate can win an election.

I think a key difference between the emoluments and the 22nd amendment is that the latter requires active participation, and isn't open to interpretation (no matter how dubious and flawed the logic may be).  The GOP - like the Dems - have to select a nominee.  One really can't say "but this wouldn't be a third term".  The emoluments clause has all sorts of logical loopholes for people.  He'd be making these deals if he wasn't president. Trump Hotel is really a normal place for the Saudi's to stay when in Washington.  and perhaps the biggest logical fallacy of all: you can't prove he's change his mind based on any of these so-called emoluments violations.

I will own those predictions, and I began making them the day after he was elected in 2016. Indeed I have long thought that people underestimate the chances of Trump running for and winning a third term. I do not think this is a 50-50 thing.

We see FDR as a hero because he oversaw a successful WWII effort, and because the Great Depression ended on his watch. I see a lot of FDR in Trump. Not the good parts, but the bad parts. I cannot imagine anyone thought in early 1933 that the man who was President then would still be president ten years later. The more I study FDR--and this is hard because I was raised to revere him--the more I learn about his flouting of the rule of law, confiscation of everyone's gold, the outrage of the internment camps for Japanese citizens, and incoherence of his economic programs.

We can't deny you your prediction as anything is possible, but do you dispute nereo's reasoning? He gave a logical response to your question but you didn't acknowledge it.

I've spoken to Trump supporters who genuinely believe he's done nothing wrong in relation to his businesses. He tells them that he put everything in a blind trust and that takes care of any conflict of interest and they believe him. He can't use the same sort of hand waving justification to run for a third term. Will he tell them 8 years is actually 4? Will he tell them the 22nd amendment doesn't exist?

Beyond that, how would this even be logistically possible? Do you have a process in mind where he could plausibly end up on the ballot?

I think nereo's reasoning rests on the idea that Trump supporters will be able to be pinned down and admit that something logical is violated to allow Trump to seek that third term. Tell me how much luck you've had pinning them down on anything so far.

I spend most of my time working with economic data, and--when I show GDP growth numbers from 2014 that are higher than those in 2018--Trump supporters rationalize it as being in a different part of the economic cycle.

Should he win a second term, Trump will sell the GOP on letting him run for a third because--I promise you--it's still better in their view than having a President who's a Democrat.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #408 on: December 12, 2019, 12:37:40 PM »
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.

Given Trump's need to win, getting a 3rd term would be ultra-winning. No one else has done that since FDR!
Given the GOP's die-hard support of Trump, I have no doubt that they would support him for a 3rd term. Look at Jordan and Graham. Total boot lickers.
Given the ignoring of the Emoluments Clause, as talltexan mentioned, why do we presume that other parts of the Constitution can't be ignored as well? Especially if the SC and Senate bless what he does (and I expect that the SC will side with him on taxes and Congressional subpoenas).

It could be a coup. A coup led by a buffoon but, still, one that could work.

But, yeah, very unlikely. We saw this same concern with Obama and Bush Cheney.

Uhh no. There was no concern with Obama running for a 3rd term.

Is this the part of the story where Stormy comes back out and says that Trump was actually the best lover she ever had. And Eric magically becomes smart. And Kushner's dad then has all of his convictions vacated. Then the Senate decides to give the president it's first ever Triumph dedicated to Trump. Cause this all reads like a 8th grader writing presidential fan fiction. Cause this far more fantastical than even House of Cards ever went.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #409 on: December 12, 2019, 12:52:51 PM »
It assumes an awful lot. 
Including (but not limited to) Trump winning in 2020 (entirely possible), him living long enough to run again in 2023 (possible but quesitonable given his age/health), that he would actually want to run vs. calling himself the most sucessful president ever and retiring (debatable), that the senate will be controlled by the GOP in 2023 (debatable), that no other GOP contender will emerge and that the GOP will decide they want to stay on this merry-go-round (i find that doubtful), that five judges will contradict the constitution (i have to believe even conserviatives Thomas and Alito won't rubber stamp this).  There's another wonkish argument against (argued upthread, many pages back) that to get on the ballot requires the approval of the state governor.  Currently 24/50 states are controlled by Dems, including several battleground states and 'red' states.  In short there's currently no path (zero) to winning without these governors agreeing to put Trump on the ballot.  Short of winning the election the only option left seems to be a military coup - and Trump's done his damnest to piss off the military brass and the pentagon, so I doubt they'd follow him down that path.

In my reading so many improbable things would need to happen that the likelihood of every one of those occurring seems to be exceedingly small.

Given Trump's need to win, getting a 3rd term would be ultra-winning. No one else has done that since FDR!
Given the GOP's die-hard support of Trump, I have no doubt that they would support him for a 3rd term. Look at Jordan and Graham. Total boot lickers.
Given the ignoring of the Emoluments Clause, as talltexan mentioned, why do we presume that other parts of the Constitution can't be ignored as well? Especially if the SC and Senate bless what he does (and I expect that the SC will side with him on taxes and Congressional subpoenas).

It could be a coup. A coup led by a buffoon but, still, one that could work.

But, yeah, very unlikely. We saw this same concern with Obama and Bush Cheney.

Uhh no. There was no concern with Obama running for a 3rd term.


Fox and OANN types were very concerned with it.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #410 on: December 12, 2019, 01:18:16 PM »
Uhh no. There was no concern with Obama running for a 3rd term.

You need to hang around more 8chan users. ;-)

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/the-latest-conspiracy-theory-obama-will-seek
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/right-wing-conspiracy-theory-barack-obama-third-term/
Alex Jones
FreeRepublic.com
Rush Limbaugh

Quote from: motherjones
Our Kenyan-born, secret Muslim president has apparently cooked up a sneaky plot to subvert the 22nd Amendment.

Now, it was pearl clutching by conservatives that it would/could happen and it was promoted by alt-right sites (and a satirical story that was believed) but there was concern.

Quote
Is this the part of the story where Stormy comes back out and says that Trump was actually the best lover she ever had. And Eric magically becomes smart. And Kushner's dad then has all of his convictions vacated. Then the Senate decides to give the president it's first ever Triumph dedicated to Trump. Cause this all reads like a 8th grader writing presidential fan fiction. Cause this far more fantastical than even House of Cards ever went.

We have a President that is putting pressure on foreign governments to investigate political rivals. The Republicans in the House are dancing around the issue, with a changing defense, and there's a Republican controlled Senate that doesn't care and wants to subpoena Joe and Hunter instead.

Meanwhile, the President is BFFs with Putin and is working to weaken NATO and is mocked (or "mocked"?) by the other heads of state.

The President, self-identified as a master negotiator, has announced a trade deal with China at least 3 times but nothing has happened. His deal with Kim Jong-un failed to last more than a week. He put tariffs on Canada because it was a "national emergency" and his tariffs on soybeans has paid out more compensatory money to farmers in the midwest than the entire TARP bail out (net cost).

Finally, Trump took time off of negotiating deals and asking for email servers and suggested that toilets needed to be flushed "10 times, 15 times" and ordered a review of low-flow regulations.

You're right. It is far more fantastical than even House of Cards.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 01:21:30 PM by bacchi »

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #411 on: December 12, 2019, 01:24:38 PM »
...snip

I think nereo's reasoning rests on the idea that Trump supporters will be able to be pinned down and admit that something logical is violated to allow Trump to seek that third term. Tell me how much luck you've had pinning them down on anything so far.

I spend most of my time working with economic data, and--when I show GDP growth numbers from 2014 that are higher than those in 2018--Trump supporters rationalize it as being in a different part of the economic cycle.

Should he win a second term, Trump will sell the GOP on letting him run for a third because--I promise you--it's still better in their view than having a President who's a Democrat.
[/quote]

What does or does not qualify as emoluments and the reasons behind why the GDP is what it is are both far less concrete than 3 > 2. Note that they didn't argue 2% GDP is greater than 3%, they moved the goalposts.

Again, I'll acknowledge the possibility that it could happen but I don't think you can compare running for a third term with overlooking emoluments. Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.

Now they may be able to convince themselves that the constitution should be ignored due to extreme circumstances, but then you can no longer compare that scenario to their justification for why he is not guilty of accepting emoluments.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #412 on: December 12, 2019, 01:34:12 PM »
Again, I'll acknowledge the possibility that it could happen but I don't think you can compare running for a third term with overlooking emoluments. Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvdelong/2015/08/03/thinking-about-a-third-term/

(Note that the article is about Obama running for a 3rd term.)

Quote
These barriers are surprisingly flimsy, primarily because of the odd wording of Amendment XXII, which says “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice . . . .”

As discussed in RCP, this leaves open the possibility that a former President could resume the Presidency by a non-elected route. He might be elected Vice President, for example, or become a cabinet member and then ascend via the Presidential Succession Act. This is not an outlandish possibility; it was raised seriously in 1959 at the end of Eisenhower’s term.

Further,

Quote
The alternative route, a direct challenge to the two-term limit in which a major party simply nominated a President for a third term would present difficult legal issues. Some of the intricacies are addressed in RCP, but the big problem is that Amendment XXII contains no enforcement mechanism, and by the time the issue got to the courts it is likely that both the people and the Congress would have accepted the third term. The Supreme Court might be very reluctant to get involved, and leave the issue to the political processes.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #413 on: December 12, 2019, 01:51:31 PM »
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #414 on: December 12, 2019, 01:55:45 PM »
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.
Isn't this what Putin and Medvedev did a decade or so back?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #415 on: December 12, 2019, 02:33:50 PM »
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.

That would make Trump the oldest VP to ever serve by 8 years just starting out. Though it would be a great way to try and protect himself from the NY attorney general until he dies.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #416 on: December 12, 2019, 02:41:46 PM »

The more I study FDR--and this is hard because I was raised to revere him--the more I learn about his flouting of the rule of law, confiscation of everyone's gold, the outrage of the internment camps for Japanese citizens, and incoherence of his economic programs.

President  Franklin Delano Roosevelt  was a damnable, would-be autocrat.

The dispersion of power inherent in America's tripartite, checks-and-balances form of government saved the country from FDR's executive-power overreach.

In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "court-packing scheme."

The report's scathing, condemnatory  language is testamentary of the Senate Judiciary Committee's cognizance of FDR's threatening, unconstitutional, autocratic  tendency.

Judicial Reorganization Plan


Senate Judiciary Committee Adverse Report  June 7, 1937

[The Judicial Reorganization Plan] would subjugate the courts to the will of Congress and the President and thereby destroy the independence of the judiciary, the only certain shield of individual rights.

It contains the germ of a system of centralized administration of law that would enable an executive so minded to send his judges into every judicial district in the land to sit in judgment on controversies between the government and the citizen.

It points the way to the evasion of the Constitution and established the method whereby the people may be deprived of their right to pass upon all amendments of the fundamental law.

It stands now before the country, acknowledged by its proponents as a plan to force judicial interpretation of the Constitution, a proposal that violates every sacred tradition of American democracy.

Under the form of the Constitution it seeks to do that which is unconstitutional.

Its ultimate operation would be to make this government one of men rather than one of law, and its practical operation would be to make the Constitution what the executive or legislative branches of the government choose to say it is -- an interpretation to be changed with each change of administration.

It is a measure, which should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 02:57:24 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #417 on: December 12, 2019, 04:03:29 PM »
Suppose Pence were to run, declaring Trump as his running mate on day 1 of his campaign. Everyone would know that this would imply Pence were to be a figure head, without anyone saying it.

Same problems, and then some. The 12th amendment states that no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States Ad Trump would be ineligible to be president he would consequentially be ineligible to be VP.

So he can’t run for VP, nor can Obama or WJ Clinton or GW Bush.

Add to this that Pence would need to run and win.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1294
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #418 on: December 12, 2019, 04:11:34 PM »
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #419 on: December 12, 2019, 04:19:49 PM »
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.
Right. Which is perhaps the least likely scenario of all, as discussed earlier. Votes from 67 senators and 287 members of the house. Or 38 states. All threshold far beyond what either party has been able to obtain. Meaning it would need to be overwhelmingly bipartisan

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #420 on: December 12, 2019, 08:24:34 PM »
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.
Right. Which is perhaps the least likely scenario of all, as discussed earlier. Votes from 67 senators and 287 members of the house. Or 38 states. All threshold far beyond what either party has been able to obtain. Meaning it would need to be overwhelmingly bipartisan

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #421 on: December 12, 2019, 09:21:23 PM »
Perhaps I'm connected with an unusual group of practicing Jews, but they all basically tell me some variant of, "We know his tweets are dumb, but his daughter is Jewish, and it's clear he has Israel's back, so we're all in."

As a member of one of the largest congregations in the US and a 'knower-of-many-Jews", if that is common then I think you do know an unusual group. Most I know are vehemently opposed to Trump. Those who are in favor primarily seem to be those who solely focus on the economic side of politics and ignore social issues, with a smattering of fringe deep state conspiracy theory toting fox news zombies.

Most Jewish people like myself are liberal and vote for the Democrats*, even if financially we become worse off because of increased taxation.

Here's Paul Krugman's take on why that is from his column, "Donald Trump Is Bad for the Jews" https://nyti.ms/2sdp6mI

"Most of us, I think, know that whenever bigotry runs free, we’re likely to be among its victims.
The Trump administration is, beyond any reasonable doubt, an anti-democratic, white nationalist regime. And while it is not (yet) explicitly anti-Semitic, many of its allies are: “Jews will not replace us” chanted the “very fine people” carrying torches in Charlottesville, Va. You have to be willfully ignorant of the past not to know where all this leads. Indeed, it’s happening already: anti-Semitic incidents have soared (and my hate mail has gotten … interesting).
Jews aren’t the only people who have figured this out. Many Asian-American voters used to support Republicans, but the group is now overwhelmingly Democratic. Indian-Americans, in particular, are like American Jews: a high-income, high-education group that votes Democratic by large margins, presumably because many of its members also realize where white nationalism will take us.
In all of this, Republicans — not just Trump, but his whole party — are reaping what they sowed. Their strategy for decades has been to win votes from working-class whites, despite an anti-worker agenda, by appealing to racial resentment. Trump has just made that racial appeal cruder and louder. And one has to admit that this strategy has been quite successful."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/07/how-religious-groups-voted-in-the-midterm-elections/

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2273
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #422 on: December 12, 2019, 09:31:05 PM »
And the latest outrage of the Trump administration and the Republican party is the climate denialism even as a federal report that was released on Tuesday is showing the Arctic Ice is disappearing amidst the most dramatic warming ever.
Worse still is the thawing out of the Permafrost that is going to unleash a wave of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which will cause a positive feedback loop of yet more permafrost loss.

"Temperatures in the Arctic region remained near record highs this year, according to a report issued on Tuesday … The results are from the annual Arctic report card, a peer-reviewed assessment produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that takes a broad look at the effects of climate change in the region and compares current findings with the historical record. The Arctic is of interest to researchers because it is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, causing changes both in the ocean and on land."
Climate Change Is Ravaging the Arctic, Report Finds https://nyti.ms/2P9MwTl



nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #423 on: December 13, 2019, 04:57:27 AM »
Unless there's some asinine interpretation of the text of the 22nd amendment that I'm not creative enough to imagine, most of his supporters will not be able to convince themselves that a third term is constitutional.
Unless the constitution were changed.
Right. Which is perhaps the least likely scenario of all, as discussed earlier. Votes from 67 senators and 287 members of the house. Or 38 states. All threshold far beyond what either party has been able to obtain. Meaning it would need to be overwhelmingly bipartisan

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I don't see any real connection.  A Convention can be called, sure, but that's a far cry from getting an amendment passed (which would require 38 states). Certainly a Convention could be called ostensibly on a balanced-budget platform and then changed during the convention to repeal the 22nd, but then it would lose support during the final vote.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #424 on: December 13, 2019, 07:03:28 AM »
I actually wonder if a Constitutional Ammendment to end birthright citizenship wouldn't be the most likely thing to emerge.

I accept the skepticism of my third term plan. If Trump's second term is winding down, and some Democrat has managed to win the 2024 election, do you think he'd resign during the transition period so that a President Pence could pardon him?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16568
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #425 on: December 13, 2019, 07:25:06 AM »
I actually wonder if a Constitutional Ammendment to end birthright citizenship wouldn't be the most likely thing to emerge.

I'd support it as long as it's retroactive.  Get all those seventh generation anchor-baby white illegal immigrants out of the damned country.  They're clearly fucking it up.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #426 on: December 13, 2019, 08:02:20 AM »
Most countries gave up birthright citizenship decades ago - if they had it at all.  It fascinates me that so many in the US see it as an unmutable law.  Likewise, I cannot fathom how people can label individuals who were brought here at a very young age and who have lived here their entire lives as somehow ‘not American’.   Why is physical presence the standard at birth but not from ages 1-18?

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #427 on: December 13, 2019, 08:04:20 AM »
@GuitarStv is on fire this morning.

So I took my lumps with the whole "Third Term" thing. I think you guys pretty much dismantled me.

But then I happened to see Mike Huckabee tweeting that he would appear on "Hannity" to explain how Trump would be eligible for a third term...I don't believe that either Hannity or Huckabee have much credibility, but the President does listen to them...

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #428 on: December 13, 2019, 08:14:59 AM »
@GuitarStv is on fire this morning.

So I took my lumps with the whole "Third Term" thing. I think you guys pretty much dismantled me.

But then I happened to see Mike Huckabee tweeting that he would appear on "Hannity" to explain how Trump would be eligible for a third term...I don't believe that either Hannity or Huckabee have much credibility, but the President does listen to them...

Trump has been "joking" about getting a third term for quite a while now. I think he'll float it, quite honestly, provided he gets reelected. The guy is never, ever going to leave willingly.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #429 on: December 13, 2019, 08:22:37 AM »
.

But then I happened to see Mike Huckabee tweeting that he would appear on "Hannity" to explain how Trump would be eligible for a third term...I don't believe that either Hannity or Huckabee have much credibility, but the President does listen to them...
It’s click-bait. Die-hard supporters love to float delusional ideas as “a real possibility”
As the father of Sarah Sanders, Mike has lost all credibility to me. Hannity never had any, though he seems to fluctuate between “I am just an entertainer” and “I’m a real journalist with serious news” to allow him to say whatever debunked conspiracy BS while having no accountability

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #430 on: December 13, 2019, 09:56:01 AM »
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #431 on: December 13, 2019, 10:09:01 AM »

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I thought the tally of state legislatures  in support of an Article V Convention of States  was MUCH lower than just 3 states away from the required 34.

A few weeks ago  I heard a shouter on a radio show (Levin?) discuss CoS and  he put the tally of supportive state legislatures at 13 (I think).
« Last Edit: December 13, 2019, 10:46:40 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #432 on: December 13, 2019, 10:09:54 AM »
The “anti-anti-Semitism” EO explained:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-real-purpose-of-trumps-executive-order-on-anti-semitism

TL:DR: it’s all about punishing institutions (like colleges) that support the rights of Palestinians vs. illegal Israeli actions.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #433 on: December 13, 2019, 10:23:22 AM »

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I thought the tally of state legislatures  in support of an Article V Convention of States  was MUCH lower than just 3 states away from the required 34.

A few weeks ago  I heard a shouter on a radio show (Levin?) discuss this and  he put the tally of supporting state legislatures at 13 (I think).

It's only 13 for the Convention of States Resolution, but it's now officially at 31 after this past year for the Balanced Budget, from what I've seen... and that's the one that the Koch bros. have been pouring money into the past decade through ALEC and running mock convention simulations with and amending well beyond the scope of just budget. It could have already triggered this year if not for the rescinded applications.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #434 on: December 13, 2019, 10:38:51 AM »
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.

The impeachment show in Washington  is rife  with  expedient duplicity from both sides.

NY Times 11/18/19

No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News

Paying attention to the impeachment inquiry and other developments means having to figure out what is true, false or spin. Many Americans are throwing up their hands and tuning it all out.

But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive. The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.
 

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #435 on: December 13, 2019, 10:49:13 AM »

You do know that we're only three states away from a 2/3rds approved Article V Convention under the guise of a "balanced budget" and no protections to keep it from going off the rails with unrelated changes, right?

I thought the tally of state legislatures  in support of an Article V Convention of States  was MUCH lower than just 3 states away from the required 34.

A few weeks ago  I heard a shouter on a radio show (Levin?) discuss this and  he put the tally of supporting state legislatures at 13 (I think).

It's only 13 for the Convention of States Resolution, but it's now officially at 31 after this past year for the Balanced Budget, from what I've seen... and that's the one that the Koch bros. have been pouring money into the past decade through ALEC and running mock convention simulations with and amending well beyond the scope of just budget. It could have already triggered this year if not for the rescinded applications.

Noted.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #436 on: December 13, 2019, 11:01:49 AM »
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.
Fair enough.  I was using the term “credibility” in a more narrow construct of: what they claim to be true or likely to happen is generally upheld over time.  In that sense Hannity fails time and time again.

THat doesn’t mean they people don’t hold influence over some people - they absolutely do.  But just because they say it and their viewers believe it doesn’t make it true. And amending the constitution is such an intentionally high bar that it cannot be done without overwhelming support from a majority of states. Period. But Hannity knows he can get viewers by making such claims, and his viewers love the idea of ‘owning the libs’ seemingly forever. Actual knowledge of the constitution or any in-depth analysis is unnecessary.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5780
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #437 on: December 13, 2019, 11:27:46 AM »
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.

The impeachment show in Washington  is rife  with  expedient duplicity from both sides.

NY Times 11/18/19

No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News

Paying attention to the impeachment inquiry and other developments means having to figure out what is true, false or spin. Many Americans are throwing up their hands and tuning it all out.

But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive. The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.
BiB Same thing for the British and Brexit.  There will be some nasty shocks coming to them because of it.

six-car-habit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #438 on: December 14, 2019, 06:57:39 PM »
 In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5649
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #439 on: December 14, 2019, 08:02:22 PM »
In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....

They don’t even bother to try to hide it anymore.

GreenEggs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Location: Here & There
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #440 on: December 14, 2019, 09:54:29 PM »
In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....

They don’t even bother to try to hide it anymore.


I can't remember when they did. 


They're in my daily prayers.  ;) 

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3178
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #441 on: December 14, 2019, 11:07:14 PM »
In impeachement news, mitch mcconnel has stated [ Dec 13th ] he'll be working on "total co-operation" with white house lawyers in planning the senate phase of the impeachement trial....

They don’t even bother to try to hide it anymore.

He considers it a feather in his cap that he shut down the Senate for Obama's last two years.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #442 on: December 16, 2019, 09:47:25 AM »
I'm not even sure what "credibility" means anymore.

People with no "credibility" seem awfully able to shape public opinion.

The impeachment show in Washington  is rife  with  expedient duplicity from both sides.

NY Times 11/18/19

No One Believes Anything’: Voters Worn Out by a Fog of Political News

Paying attention to the impeachment inquiry and other developments means having to figure out what is true, false or spin. Many Americans are throwing up their hands and tuning it all out.

But just when information is needed most, to many Americans it feels most elusive. The rise of social media; the proliferation of information online, including news designed to deceive; and a flood of partisan news are leading to a general exhaustion with news itself.
BiB Same thing for the British and Brexit.  There will be some nasty shocks coming to them because of it.


A statement or series of them  can be unassailably true while the omission of a single, simple fact can lead someone to believe  the exact opposite of what they would have believed had the fact not been omitted.

I'm leery of Washingtonians' guileful ways.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13520
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #443 on: December 16, 2019, 10:00:11 AM »
Not Trump, but Lindsay Graham as it pertains to Trump.

He is on record now saying that he simply won’t read the transcript of the call at the heart of the investigation, he will not listen to any witness testimony and he has already made up his mind on how he will vote.  Mind you, he’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

He’s now said outright that he will not be impartial or list to the facts.  A big change from when was a senator during WJC’s impeachment trial, when he insisted on listening to all the testimony and weighing all the facts presented before rendering judgement.  Which he did:  Guilty of obstruction.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #444 on: December 16, 2019, 10:53:06 AM »
Not Trump, but Lindsay Graham as it pertains to Trump.

He is on record now saying that he simply won’t read the transcript of the call at the heart of the investigation, he will not listen to any witness testimony and he has already made up his mind on how he will vote.  Mind you, he’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

He’s now said outright that he will not be impartial or list to the facts.  A big change from when was a senator during WJC’s impeachment trial, when he insisted on listening to all the testimony and weighing all the facts presented before rendering judgement.  Which he did:  Guilty of obstruction.




Impeachment by the House and trial   by the Senate is not supposed to be devoid of politics: Politics serves to check each House member's vote to support articles of impeachment or not as well as  each senator's vote to acquit or convict.

Nevertheless, the Senate's trial of a high official  is a grave, quasi-judicial proceeding at which each senator present  is both judge and juror.

Graham's prejudgment, his self-declared prejudice,  could not be more inappropriate given his position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The etymology of "prejudice" is instructive.


Middle English (in prejudice (sense 2 of the noun)): from Old French, from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgement’.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2019, 11:00:37 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4990
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #445 on: December 16, 2019, 10:57:48 AM »
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings. If the GOP majority refuses to call in any D witnesses, and tries to make it about Clinton and Biden and Obama, could he alter the structure of the proceedings? I.e., give the Democrats more power to call witnesses?

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #446 on: December 16, 2019, 11:16:29 AM »
Not Trump, but Lindsay Graham as it pertains to Trump.

He is on record now saying that he simply won’t read the transcript of the call at the heart of the investigation, he will not listen to any witness testimony and he has already made up his mind on how he will vote.  Mind you, he’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

He’s now said outright that he will not be impartial or list to the facts.  A big change from when was a senator during WJC’s impeachment trial, when he insisted on listening to all the testimony and weighing all the facts presented before rendering judgement.  Which he did:  Guilty of obstruction.




Impeachment by the House and trial   by the Senate is not supposed to be devoid of politics: Politics serves to check each House member's vote to support articles of impeachment or not as well as  each senator's vote to acquit or convict.

Nevertheless, the Senate's trial of a high official  is a grave, quasi-judicial proceeding at which each senator present  is both judge and juror.

Graham's prejudgment, his self-declared prejudice,  could not be more inappropriate given his position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The etymology of "prejudice" is instructive.


Middle English (in prejudice (sense 2 of the noun)): from Old French, from Latin praejudicium, from prae ‘in advance’ + judicium ‘judgement’.
There is an argument to be made that the Senate GOP under McConnell is more broken (in a functional government sense) than the presidency.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #447 on: December 16, 2019, 11:36:21 AM »
What effect does Roberts have on the proceedings? He's faced with history watching the SC more so than any of the Congresslings.

It is well known that Chief Justice Roberts is quite concerned about the Supreme Court's institutional reputation so I think  he will  exert his authority to its maximum in the interest of conducting  a trial  that  is  scrupulously fair congressional politics notwithstanding.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #448 on: December 16, 2019, 11:40:12 AM »
A few points of clarification:

Lindsey Graham was a Representative during Clinton's impeachment, and one of several managers during the Senate trial. You could make the case that his role during that impeachment was to forcibly argue for the articles approved by the House, but it is still one of the heights of hypocrisy in this whole ordeal that he's taken the stance he currently has. I've recently learned that his career started as a military JAG, and then went into private practice; this makes his actions, in my eye, not only hypocritical, but also unprofessional and of interest to any bar for which he remains a member.

Technically the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS presides over the trial as judge, but the Senate, unlike a traditional jury, does have to set out beforehand the rules for how the trial will be conducted. Nevertheless, it is nearly unfathomable to me that Graham and McConnell would take the public stances that they have, seeing as they will have to serve as jurors at some point in this process if it plays out fully. Why make their declarations so public? Maybe to dissuade impeachment from moving beyond the House?

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3882
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #449 on: December 16, 2019, 11:54:09 AM »
I think the Democrats in the House have the eyes completely open about what kind of environment the Senate will give them.

They may pile up articles (beyond these first two) while getting Republicans on the record repeatedly denying reality. If Senate will fail to remove, there are still maneuvers to repeatedly put Senators on record about where they stand relative to Trump's actions as President.