So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[Unique User]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

[nereo]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

apparently she broke three ribs; i'll donate another.  Do we have a third?

[ysette9]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

apparently she broke three ribs; i'll donate another.  Do we have a third?

I’m sure I can spare one for the notorious RBG.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

apparently she broke three ribs; i'll donate another.  Do we have a third?

I’m sure I can spare one for the notorious RBG.

I think she will recover, but it's an illustration of the challenges of getting elderly, balance becomes increasingly more difficult.

[MasterStache]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

apparently she broke three ribs; i'll donate another.  Do we have a third?

I’m sure I can spare one for the notorious RBG.

I think she will recover, but it's an illustration of the challenges of getting elderly, balance becomes increasingly more difficult.

Ha, my grandfather tried to climb a ladder the other day and broke 7 ribs and screwed up his shoulder. He is 90.

[sol]

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?

Sure, for the House.  Looking at the math on national scale, they look pretty good.  In this election democrats got about 52% of the vote, and they will hold about 52% of the seats.  It's close, on a national scale.

The Senate is an entirely different level of fucked up, which I realize is by design.  57% of Americans voted for a democratic senate candidate, and yet democrats will only hold 44% of senate seats in the coming congress.  That's a 13 point spread!  I don't think anyone argues that state lines are gerrymandered on purpose, but they are indisputably inefficient at representing the country and they definitely give a large advantage to one party.  Some of our more stubborn founding fathers made absolutely certain that rural people would have a deliberately disproportionate voice in our government, and we are suffering for their ignorance to this day.

[OurTown]

Those stats include two Dems running against each other in California, so it's a little skewed.  But even so, I get the point.

[nereo]

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?

Sure, for the House.  Looking at the math on national scale, they look pretty good.  In this election democrats got about 52% of the vote, and they will hold about 52% of the seats.  It's close, on a national scale.

Except the only relevant scale for House races is at the State level. Why? Because each State sets its own districts, and no state can influence the votes of another state.

The Senate is an entirely different level of fucked up, which I realize is by design.  57% of Americans voted for a democratic senate candidate, and yet democrats will only hold 44% of senate seats in the coming congress.  That's a 13 point spread!  I don't think anyone argues that state lines are gerrymandered on purpose, but they are indisputably inefficient at representing the country and they definitely give a large advantage to one party.  Some of our more stubborn founding fathers made absolutely certain that rural people would have a deliberately disproportionate voice in our government, and we are suffering for their ignorance to this day.

The Senate has its own quarks, but it isn't due to Gerrymandering.  By definition you can't gerrymander a senate race, because the entire state gets to vote for one candidate, and for all states except Maine whomever gets the most votes wins.

But you've highlighted the inherent unfairness with the US Senate - we've got California with ~39MM people and two Senators, and then we've got about 19 states that combined have fewer people but collectively have 38 senators. With the odd exception of tiny Rhode Island these are extremely rural states, which means rural voters and rural issues are grossly overrepresented in the Senate.  The GOP has held power by appealing to rural voters who are a minority in this country (~19% US citizens live in rural areas) but hold a huge amount of political power.

AS you said, it was by design, but not what the founders envisioned.  In 1800, shortly after 'the great compromise' was struck, only about 8% of people lived in urban areas. Now it's about 80%.


*Maine uses ranked-choice voting for federal elections.

[Luke Warm]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

apparently she broke three ribs; i'll donate another.  Do we have a third?

I’m sure I can spare one for the notorious RBG.

I think she will recover, but it's an illustration of the challenges of getting elderly, balance becomes increasingly more difficult.

SHE WAS TRIPPED!

[sol]

But you've highlighted the inherent unfairness with the US Senate - we've got California with ~39MM people and two Senators, and then we've got about 19 states that combined have fewer people but collectively have 38 senators.

I was watching election returns and was struck by the discrepancies in the voter turnout between these states.  I watched a republican from Wyoming win a senate seat with only a few tens of thousands of total votes, then I watched Beto O'Rourke get 4 million votes in Texas and still lose.  He gets nothing.

And the House of Representatives, which ostensibly represents the popular vote, has the exact same problem.  Even though big states have more reps than small states, they don't have anywhere near as many reps as they should, based on their populations, because of the hard cap at 435 passed by Republicans in 1911/1929 for the stated purpose of disenfranchising urban voters and still in effect today.  As a result of these shenanigans, Wyoming's meager population not only gets an equal say in the Senate, it also gets ~30% more representation in the House of Representatives per person than does New York's population. 

How's that for nationwide gerrymandering?

Then, in 1920, the Republicans removed the Democrats from power as the Whigs had done in 1838, taking the presidency and both houses of Congress. Due to increased immigration and a large rural-to-urban shift in population from 1910 to 1920, the new Republican Congress refused to reapportion the House of Representatives with the traditional contiguous, single-member districts stipulations because such a reapportionment would have redistricted many House members out of their districts.

[scottish]

Did you notice that Trump looked noticeably unhappy with Acosta's questions?    And he's threatened congress to investigate their unlawful activity if they keep investigating him?      The scent of something new is in the air.

[Glenstache]

Did you notice that Trump looked noticeably unhappy with Acosta's questions?    And he's threatened congress to investigate their unlawful activity if they keep investigating him?      The scent of something new is in the air.

...but if he knows of unlawful activity in congress, shouldn't he be investigating that anyways? Or is he just saying that he's okay with it as long as they don't investigate him?

[nereo]

Did you notice that Trump looked noticeably unhappy with Acosta's questions?    And he's threatened congress to investigate their unlawful activity if they keep investigating him?      The scent of something new is in the air.

I say investigate everything and everyone in the federal government.  Throw back the drapes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.   Those who have broken no laws get to stay, the rest get tossed out with the garbage.

I wonder about anyone who wants to keep the truth hidden.

[cliffhanger]

You're comparing the midterm election vote to the total composition of the Senate. There were only 35 seats up for election and democrats are looking to win 23, that's 66% of seats for 57% of vote.

Now, I'd never make a argument that the number is skewed in favor of democrats. The senate was designed specifically to give equal representation to each State, not the populous of each state. Using a popular vote for everything is dumb. Federalist papers are a good source for reasoning of the founding fathers.

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?

Sure, for the House.  Looking at the math on national scale, they look pretty good.  In this election democrats got about 52% of the vote, and they will hold about 52% of the seats.  It's close, on a national scale.

The Senate is an entirely different level of fucked up, which I realize is by design.  57% of Americans voted for a democratic senate candidate, and yet democrats will only hold 44% of senate seats in the coming congress.  That's a 13 point spread!  I don't think anyone argues that state lines are gerrymandered on purpose, but they are indisputably inefficient at representing the country and they definitely give a large advantage to one party.  Some of our more stubborn founding fathers made absolutely certain that rural people would have a deliberately disproportionate voice in our government, and we are suffering for their ignorance to this day.

[GuitarStv]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

apparently she broke three ribs; i'll donate another.  Do we have a third?

I’m sure I can spare one for the notorious RBG.

I think she will recover, but it's an illustration of the challenges of getting elderly, balance becomes increasingly more difficult.

SHE WAS TRIPPED!

Nobody can prove that Kavenaugh did it.





And even if someone could, it's not like it would be investigated anyway.

:P

[NorthernBlitz]

Ugh - this could get a whole lot worse.  I'd donate a rib to keep her on the Supreme Court for two more years. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075262/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-hospital-age

apparently she broke three ribs; i'll donate another.  Do we have a third?

I’m sure I can spare one for the notorious RBG.

I think she will recover, but it's an illustration of the challenges of getting elderly, balance becomes increasingly more difficult.

I think it also illustrates that it's stupid for supreme court positions to be for life.

Maybe appointments wouldn't be such shit shows if terms were 8-10 years or something.

Also, I think it's a bit silly to think that there isn't a 30-50 year old that would do a much better job than any 85 year old in a job that requires a significant amount of cognitive ability.

I think it's equally ridiculous when you have to pick between two presidential candidates that should both have been retired for at least half a decade or so. The president of the US must be a crazily demanding job. Maybe we should pick someone that isn't in the part of their life where people have dramatic declines in their physical and mental ability.

[NorthernBlitz]

Did you notice that Trump looked noticeably unhappy with Acosta's questions?    And he's threatened congress to investigate their unlawful activity if they keep investigating him?      The scent of something new is in the air.

I say investigate everything and everyone in the federal government.  Throw back the drapes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.   Those who have broken no laws get to stay, the rest get tossed out with the garbage.

I wonder about anyone who wants to keep the truth hidden.

This. I'd love to have Mueller type scrutiny on every politician in Washington. It would be way too expensive, but I think most people probably believe that the vast majority (probably all) of them are corrupt.

[MasterStache]

Did you notice that Trump looked noticeably unhappy with Acosta's questions?    And he's threatened congress to investigate their unlawful activity if they keep investigating him?      The scent of something new is in the air.

...but if he knows of unlawful activity in congress, shouldn't he be investigating that anyways? Or is he just saying that he's okay with it as long as they don't investigate him?

Hilarious isn't it. If Trump has dirt he absolutely would be investigating. Dems should call his bluff.

[PathtoFIRE]

Now, I'd never make a argument that the number is skewed in favor of democrats. The senate was designed specifically to give equal representation to each State, not the populous of each state. Using a popular vote for everything is dumb. Federalist papers are a good source for reasoning of the founding fathers.

Similar arguments could have been made against the 17th Amendment requiring direct election of Senators. I think the point that is being made is that individual state's interests are no way as nearly divergent now as they were back in the 1780s. If the purpose of the Senate was originally to temper popular power and grant an (even more) narrower slice of the citizens outsized control, then we need to decide
1. Is this even a legitimate goal for our national government today?
2. Is there a better way to accomplish this or something like it?

I think it's rather silly to argue that states individually need special representation in Congress, it seems very arbitrary these days with so much immigration and movement of people, commerce, services across state lines. I'd certainly be open to considering abolishing the Senate or replacing it with a body created by a different means, even if it was proportional like the House but with longer terms. The "popular vote for everything is dumb" argument is, well frankly, rather dull itself.

[nereo]

Did you notice that Trump looked noticeably unhappy with Acosta's questions?    And he's threatened congress to investigate their unlawful activity if they keep investigating him?      The scent of something new is in the air.

I say investigate everything and everyone in the federal government.  Throw back the drapes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.   Those who have broken no laws get to stay, the rest get tossed out with the garbage.

I wonder about anyone who wants to keep the truth hidden.

This. I'd love to have Mueller type scrutiny on every politician in Washington. It would be way too expensive, but I think most people probably believe that the vast majority (probably all) of them are corrupt.

It would only be prohibitively expensive with the way that most departments currently run their day-to-day operations.

The key is verifiable transparency coupled with clear-cut rules. Tax returns, personal holdings and business dealings should be disclosed to highlight any COI. Expenses (already tracked by accounting) should be public knowledge and not disclosed only after multiple onerous FOIA requests. Nepotism laws need to be strengthened and enforced (e.g. you cannot hire a close relative to upper management, period) and private contributions disclosed. Salaried positions must have minimum qualifications, including time spent working within that particular department or industry.

All of these things are common place among many large companies. The more transparent these companies are, the fewer problems they have with nepotism and fraud. Investigations are only expensive when these practices don't exist or aren't followed.

Reducing corruption and fraud isn't rocket science*, and it almost always comes down to verifiable transparency.

*except at NASA (bad pun).

[Johnez]

Seems Republicans in Florida don't really need gerrymandering, just accuse the other side of fraud and try to stop vote counting. Giving up on the idea of democracy so easily...

Disgusting!

[nereo]

Seems Republicans in Florida don't really need gerrymandering, just accuse the other side of fraud and try to stop vote counting. Giving up on the idea of democracy so easily...

"There's definitely NO NEED to count all these ballots! That's just a waste of time and money!"

[turketron]

Seems like they have the same playbook in Arizona: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/415894-cindy-mccain-rips-arizona-gop-for-suing-over-counting-mail-in-ballots-i-am

I'm certainly glad Cindy McCain is speaking up, but she, and her husband when he was alive, were content to support (or at least not actively speak out against) voter suppression tactics by their party until now. As always seems to be the case with Republicans, they only say anything once it affects them personally.

[Roadrunner53]

Seems Trump has been a raging bull in the White House since the mid term election. Now, he has to give back Acosta's pass to the White House...LOVE IT!

[nereo]

Seems Trump has been a raging bull in the White House since the mid term election. Now, he has to give back Acosta's pass to the White House...LOVE IT!

Another interesting example of how our democracy has sustained a constant barrage of attacks from the executive branch, yet keeps soldering on. Acosta gets his press pass back, recounts continue following State law despite efforts to halt them, voters ultimately get to say who represents them.

[Roadrunner53]

Love Trumps theory of people voting then going out to their cars and putting on different hats, shirts to disguise themselves so they can go and vote again. OMG, SERIOUSLY!

Even if that happened, how many people were doing it to make any difference on the outcome of a huge election?

Where does this guy come up with these outrageously stupid theories?

[nereo]

Love Trumps theory of people voting then going out to their cars and putting on different hats, shirts to disguise themselves so they can go and vote again. OMG, SERIOUSLY!

Voter fraud is a federal offense punishable by 5 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine, in addition to state penalties.  It's hard for me to imagine anyone except for a few nutzo-crazy types risking this level of punishment, particularly when even 'close' federal elections typically have winning margins of tens-of-thousands of votes. A person would risk incarceration for something that would almost certainly not change the outcome.

Also notable that after each election cycle most states prosecute exactly zero people for voter fraud.  If this were a widespread problem one would expect dozens-to-hundreds of convictions in each state every election cycle, particularly since there are so many people from various organizations watching out for exactly this sort of crime.

Where does this guy come up with these outrageously stupid theories?

 
Fox News, the Daily Caller, Breitbart.  All have run stories on allegations of wide-spread voter fraud, and all are organizations that Trump has been known to watch.

[Crease]

Love Trumps theory of people voting then going out to their cars and putting on different hats, shirts to disguise themselves so they can go and vote again. OMG, SERIOUSLY!

Even if that happened, how many people were doing it to make any difference on the outcome of a huge election?

Where does this guy come up with these outrageously stupid theories?

I don't even understand how this would work. In New York, you show up to the polling center for your election district, go to your assigned table, and sign next to a copy of the signature on your driver's license. Then you're allowed to vote.

[Roadrunner53]

Funny, they are trying to prepare Trump for the written Muller questions. They were saying that Trump has so many stories for every incident that they have to get him on the right path for him remembering what story he told on what day! They are scared that the questions are trick questions. Hahaha! If you don't lie, you shouldn't have trouble remembering the truth.

Anyone know what the heck happened with Avenatti and his arrest? Why are there so few details?

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Love Trumps theory of people voting then going out to their cars and putting on different hats, shirts to disguise themselves so they can go and vote again. OMG, SERIOUSLY!

Even if that happened, how many people were doing it to make any difference on the outcome of a huge election?

Where does this guy come up with these outrageously stupid theories?

I don't even understand how this would work. In New York, you show up to the polling center for your election district, go to your assigned table, and sign next to a copy of the signature on your driver's license. Then you're allowed to vote.

Seriously. In Georgia, you have to present photo ID. You don't need to understand how "this would work", you just need to understand that the president is a pathological liar, and half the people in our country think that's awesome.

[nereo]

Love Trumps theory of people voting then going out to their cars and putting on different hats, shirts to disguise themselves so they can go and vote again. OMG, SERIOUSLY!

Even if that happened, how many people were doing it to make any difference on the outcome of a huge election?

Where does this guy come up with these outrageously stupid theories?

I don't even understand how this would work. In New York, you show up to the polling center for your election district, go to your assigned table, and sign next to a copy of the signature on your driver's license. Then you're allowed to vote.

Laws vary from state-to-state and proceedures from precinct to precinct.  About a dozen(ish) states do not require a government ID to vote, including mine.

In our precinct you give your name to the front table when you come in, and they mark off your name and hand you a ballot - your name is only listed on the voter roles if you are a registered voter for the precinct.  To vote multiple times you'd need to give multiple different names that are registered at the precinct, and then hope that the real person doesn't show up to vote (which would expose your fraud). In any case it would involve going up to the same group of people and claiming to be a different person each time.

The likelihood of being recognized/caught seems extraordinarily high, while the time involved and potential jail time you could serve are sizable deterrents.

[Luke Warm]

i'm not sure how i feel about the acosta thing. it seems to me like 2 assholes in a room arguing with each other.

[nereo]

i'm not sure how i feel about the acosta thing. it seems to me like 2 assholes in a room arguing with each other.

I don't think legality should be determined on whether a person is likable.

[Roadrunner53]

Acosta asks questions Trump doesn't want to hear. He was RUDE to other people at that same press conference. He thinks he is above the law and can twist the law however he wants it.

[nereo]

Funny, they are trying to prepare Trump for the written Muller questions. They were saying that Trump has so many stories for every incident that they have to get him on the right path for him remembering what story he told on what day! They are scared that the questions are trick questions. Hahaha! If you don't lie, you shouldn't have trouble remembering the truth.

Yep - you only commit perjury if you intentionally lie under oath.

Speaking of which, this comment by DJT about his answers to Mueller's quesitons has me scratching my head:

“My lawyers aren’t working on it. I’m working on it,” Trump said. “My lawyers don’t write the answers.”

THis is weirdly possessive of him and could bite him in the ass later. It basically eliminates any future defense of: "that answer was supplied by my council / I didn't write that response."  Even when people (his lawyers) are trying to protect him, his ego puts him even more in jeopardy.

[Roadrunner53]

“My lawyers aren’t working on it. I’m working on it,” Trump said. “My lawyers don’t write the answers.”

THis is weirdly possessive of him and could bite him in the ass later. It basically eliminates any future defense of: "that answer was supplied by my council / I didn't write that response."  Even when people (his lawyers) are trying to protect him, his ego puts him even more in jeopardy.

I doubt there is any truth to this statement. He probably has 10 lawyers pulling apart every word to analyze it to death. If he is doing it by himself, GOOD, because you know he will step in deep doo doo. He will just say it is rigged and a witch hunt and blah, blah, blah...his usual rhetoric.

[nereo]

I doubt there is any truth to this statement. He probably has 10 lawyers pulling apart every word to analyze it to death. If he is doing it by himself, GOOD, because you know he will step in deep doo doo. He will just say it is rigged and a witch hunt and blah, blah, blah...his usual rhetoric.

Oh absolutely I believe that every word has been vetted by several lawyers, but what's important is that he has claimed publicly that these are HIS answers and that HE wrote them. Later on he'll have trouble back-tracking on that, as it will evoke the question "are you lying now or were you lying then?"

As for the lawyers vetting all his statements, they (the lawyers) are dependent on what Trump has told them is true. Throughout his entire career Trump has never been shy about lying or contradicting himself, even to his inner circle and family members. I expect that dishonestly extends to what he tells his own lawyers about what did and didn't happen.

[Roadrunner53]

Sooner or later his lying has got to catch up with him! I can't wait till that day comes.

[Samuel]

Another interesting example of how our democracy has sustained a constant barrage of attacks from the executive branch, yet keeps soldering on. Acosta gets his press pass back, recounts continue following State law despite efforts to halt them, voters ultimately get to say who represents them.

It has been gratifying to see the checks and balances in action as courts rein in the worst of the administration's questionable power plays.

No surprise then that Trump and company are working hard to remake the judiciary into something much more friendly to their agenda. Yet more dangerous corrosion to the democratic norms that glue our country together, executed quietly while Trump's verbal and twitter shit throwing draws all the attention and outrage.
 

Prior to the Trump administration, there was plenty of tit for tat in the escalating partisan wars over judicial nominations. But these tactics were aimed at blocking nominees. Since Trump was sworn in, however, the GOP Senate leadership has moved aggressively to speed confirmation of new judges, casting aside long-existing practices and traditions that ensured some consensus in picking the judges who sit on the federal courts of appeal.

Gone, for all practical purposes, is the tradition that prevented action on a judicial nominee who was not approved by his or her home state senators. Gone is the practice of not holding a confirmation hearing until the American Bar Association has completed its professional evaluation of the nominee. Gone is the general practice of not piling up multiple nominees in one hearing. And now, for the first time, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings during a Senate recess, over the objections of the minority party.

...

The GOP-controlled Senate has confirmed 29 Trump nominees to federal appeals courts, compared with the confirmation of just two
nominees over the last two years of the Obama presidency. In all, Trump-appointed judges now represent an astonishing one-sixth of the sitting, active federal appeals court judges in the country.

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/27/660643999/trump-republicans-continue-remaking-the-federal-courts-even-as-senate-on-recess

[accolay]

Gone, for all practical purposes, is the tradition that prevented action on a judicial nominee who was not approved by his or her home state senators. Gone is the practice of not holding a confirmation hearing until the American Bar Association has completed its professional evaluation of the nominee. Gone is the general practice of not piling up multiple nominees in one hearing. And now, for the first time, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings during a Senate recess, over the objections of the minority party.[/i]
The GOP-controlled Senate has confirmed 29 Trump nominees to federal appeals courts, compared with the confirmation of just two
nominees over the last two years of the Obama presidency. In all, Trump-appointed judges now represent an astonishing one-sixth of the sitting, active federal appeals court judges in the country.

It's angering that the wheels of our democracy turn so slowly at times to correct these ills, maddening that the GOP wouldn't confirm Obama justices and now stacking everything in their favor. It'll work out in the end- I'm betting that many of the Trump judges will end up either behind bars or permanently disgraced in some way. I wish the Democrats would come out for blood, but I already know they'll let me down as a whole.

[Johnez]

If anything this provides notice to Democrats to get their shit in gear for 2020. Read an article about a West Virginia former paratrooper who lost in a congressional race but is attempting a presidential run. Guy had a good head on his shoulders and isn't "make fun-able" or able to be demonized like Clinton or Warren. I wish these Dems would throw Trump some punches. Rich greedy coward, how fricken hard can he be to beat?

[Roadrunner53]

On the news they were discussing the possibility of Trump throwing Pence under the bus and may run for the 2020 election with a more desirable running mate such as a woman to get those votes. Trump is also questioning Pence's loyalty. OMG, Pence drools all over Trump.

[nereo]

On the news they were discussing the possibility of Trump throwing Pence under the bus and may run for the 2020 election with a more desirable running mate such as a woman to get those votes. Trump is also questioning Pence's loyalty. OMG, Pence drools all over Trump.

Interesting hypothesis.  Even if Trump elevated a woman to be his VP I could see it backfiring on him fantastically.  He's routinely undercut Pence and thrown him under the bus several times.  WHen Trump does that to another privileged white male Pence just comes off as a chump.  But if he did this to a woman the optics affirm him as misogynistic bully.  Somehow I don't see educated suburban women flocking back to Trump after he makes a habit of speaking over his female running mate, contradicting her and talking about himself while announcing his new runningmate (all things he's done with Pence standing next to him).

[Roadrunner53]

Nicky Haley's name was thrown in as food for thought for VP. However, when they televised her with Trump when her resignation was announced, he said she would be welcome back to the WH. She had that look on her face like she was ready to upchuck.

It may not work for Trump to take on a woman VP but in his twisted mind he will do anything to win the vote. He has no loyalty toward anyone but expects everyone to be loyal to him.

Now there is talk that Hillary might consider running again. What a nightmare and a mud slinging contest. Let us not forget "lock her up". Getting really OLD, OLD, OLD.

[Johnez]

I really really hope Hilary doesn't run. I won't vote if she does, and bet Trump would win by a landslide. Democrat party has learned nothing if Pelosi gets Speaker and Clinton goes for run #3....

[Roadrunner53]

Trump wants the forests raked to prevent forest fires. Maybe that is his answer to creating employment. Since there are millions of acres of forest, just think how many jobs that would create! Lots of Federal Jobs too! BWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH, hilarious!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-says-raking-would-help-prevent-forest-fires_us_5bf0d578e4b0f32bd58a1aba

[EscapeVelocity2020]

It's a bit sad, but I was reminded how quiet the local news is about Trump while I'm living in France.  I was using the rail system to get to the airport and on the RER B line, they have some key equations used in climate modelling on the wall of the station.  I would imagine Obama was in the news quite favorably and often back then.

Then I read that Trump is fussing about needing to rake California forests  more often and nothing is changing his mind on climate change.  I'm sure Trump thinks he is saying something important and impactful, but the rest of the world is figuring out how to get on with life without needing to listen to him.  It's too bad Americans aren't allowed this wonderful luxury of being able to, for the most part, ignore him.  After some terrible Tweets last week (following somber Armistice Day memorials) about France needing the US to bail them out in WWII, Macron dismissed the fuss as being meant for his US audience.  And since then it has been back to the usual local issues like the fact diesel prices are too high (because the government is pricing in the 'negative externality' economic costs to offset climate change and need to offer support to low income families) and if Brexit will happen.

Also reading that World Trade is on edge following an Asia trade summit (that Pence attended in lieu of Trump).  Next week could be another interesting one for the world markets.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

By the way, if you too want to ignore Trump for a while, I highly recommend Paul Taylor's short videos about France on YouTube.  Here's a good starter (note - language is not work friendly):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz0XgAKR9Oc

[sequoia]

Trump wants the forests raked to prevent forest fires. Maybe that is his answer to creating employment. Since there are millions of acres of forest, just think how many jobs that would create! Lots of Federal Jobs too! BWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH, hilarious!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-says-raking-would-help-prevent-forest-fires_us_5bf0d578e4b0f32bd58a1aba

Finnish President doesn't recall telling Trump Finns do a lot of 'raking' to prevent forest fires. It is pathetic that he is just making $*** up as he goes. What a disgrace...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/finnish-president-trump-raking-forest-fires/index.html

[Inaya]

While I hate to say it, he's not 100% wrong about the raking. Although I think he stumbled on it by accident than any conscious thought. One contributing factor in the fires (heat and drought being the other major factors) is the fact that for 100 years, we've just been too good at fire suppression. So now all the flammable undergrowth that would have been consumed by semi-regular, comparably small fires has just piled up and dried out, becoming tinder. Resulting in huge infernos that are damn near uncontrollable. Clearing out that undergrowth ("raking") would be a huge step toward making those fires more controllable--but at this point how do you even do that? Controlled burns are pretty much out of the question at this point without more rain, and the manpower and money required to do it manually are pretty monumental.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2016/10/24/wildfire-management-vs-suppression-benefits-forest-and-watershed/

https://www.hcn.org/issues/49.21/wildfire-what-fire-researchers-learned-from-northern-california-blazes