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

[DavidAnnArbor]

Trump is not absolved of racism because of his tokenism support for  the African American, John James, the Republican candidate for Michigan's US Senate seat.
Trump also appointed Ben Carson to his cabinet, but this too doesn't mean Trump doesn't harbor racist viewpoints and policies.
At a campaign rally when Trump pointed out the one black supporter in his sea of white supporters, and then said, "Look at my Black friend,"- this is the tip of an iceberg of ignorance and stupidity about race.

One example of a policy intended to harm the interests of African Americans is when the Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 decision weakened the Voting Rights Act, which then enabled Southern States to start closing down polling places in predominantly African American districts.

Trump plans to make the court even more conservative, so we should see even more decisions hurting the African American community.

[Roadrunner53]

Once again, let me remind you that the Muslim ban isn't about banning Muslims, or national security, or even immigration.  Trump doesn't care about any of that.  It's only a wedge issue he uses to excite voters and piss off opponents, just like abortion, guns, "lock her up", "build the wall", "repeal and replace", etc.  They are tools used by the rich and powerful to convince the poor to vote against their own self interest.

The only thing that Trump really cares about is making himself rich.  In order to profit, he needs power.  All of these other issues are just ways to get power, to him, not ideologies he actually cares about.  He literally laundered money for the Russian mob in order to get rich, you think he won't also send some crazy ass tweets?

The longer everyone argues about the details of the Muslim ban, the more power he amasses.  He just needs to be in the spotlight, so it doesn't really matter if the ban stands or is repealed, or works or doesn't work.  Doesn't matter.  The only point is to command the news cycle and divide the nation from itself.

Racism is a very effective tool in that game.

Sol is 100% correct in his observations.

Also, Trump has been bashing 'chain migration' and who gets citizenship but his wife's parents. Is that not chain migration?

[GuitarStv]

Once again, let me remind you that the Muslim ban isn't about banning Muslims, or national security, or even immigration.  Trump doesn't care about any of that.  It's only a wedge issue he uses to excite voters and piss off opponents, just like abortion, guns, "lock her up", "build the wall", "repeal and replace", etc.  They are tools used by the rich and powerful to convince the poor to vote against their own self interest.

The only thing that Trump really cares about is making himself rich.  In order to profit, he needs power.  All of these other issues are just ways to get power, to him, not ideologies he actually cares about.  He literally laundered money for the Russian mob in order to get rich, you think he won't also send some crazy ass tweets?

The longer everyone argues about the details of the Muslim ban, the more power he amasses.  He just needs to be in the spotlight, so it doesn't really matter if the ban stands or is repealed, or works or doesn't work.  Doesn't matter.  The only point is to command the news cycle and divide the nation from itself.

Racism is a very effective tool in that game.

Sol is 100% correct in his observations.

Also, Trump has been bashing 'chain migration' and who gets citizenship but his wife's parents. Is that not chain migration?

No.

His wife is white.  White people aren't immigrants, they're very good people.  Immigrants are bad.

It's all of those tanned and darker assholes (not orange tan, that's the mark of a very stable genius) that we have to be worried about.  They're not making America great again.  They're rapists from shithole countries who are simultaneously both lazy and stealing all our jobs.

[talltexan]

I'm going to speculate about the future of a Pence Presidency.  He is going to 1) pardon Trump; 2) get rid of the stupid tariffs, 3) lose the 2020 election.  In other words, a 21st century Gerald Ford.

I think Trump is more likely to win in 2024 than he is to not be running for President in 2020.

[OurTown]

The new Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019.  Shortly thereafter, they will receive the much anticipated report from the special counsel.  Schiff will start holding public hearings.  The evidence will be damning.  They will vote articles of impeachment out of the judiciary committee.  At that point, I think Senator Graham and a gang of survival conscious Republican Senators will come to an understanding with Pence and then they will present Trump with a choice:  impeachment and indictment, or resignation and pardon.  He will take the latter choice.

That's my narrative, others may think differently.

[Kris]

The new Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019.  Shortly thereafter, they will receive the much anticipated report from the special counsel.  Schiff will start holding public hearings.  The evidence will be damning.  They will vote articles of impeachment out of the judiciary committee.  At that point, I think Senator Graham and a gang of survival conscious Republican Senators will come to an understanding with Pence and then they will present Trump with a choice:  impeachment and indictment, or resignation and pardon.  He will take the latter choice.

That's my narrative, others may think differently.

Man. That's a mighty sane world you live in.

Not sure you're correct. I would hope so, but given the insanity of the last couple of years, I'm not convinced.

[sol]

The new Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019.  Shortly thereafter, they will receive the much anticipated report from the special counsel.  Schiff will start holding public hearings.  The evidence will be damning.  They will vote articles of impeachment out of the judiciary committee.  At that point, I think Senator Graham and a gang of survival conscious Republican Senators will come to an understanding with Pence and then they will present Trump with a choice:  impeachment and indictment, or resignation and pardon.  He will take the latter choice.

That's my narrative, others may think differently.

There's no way trump will take that deal.  He'd immediately get on Twitter and charge Pence with treason.  He might even declare martial law and try to rationalize it with something like "our democracy is under seige", and then call Putin for backup.

Trump never admits defeat, and that's why I think he's doomed.  He can't course correct, be can't admit mistakes, he only knows how to counter punch and to hell with the rules.  He'd order those "survival minded republicans" arrested and imprisoned.  He'd dissolve congress before resigning, and call on his supporters to take to the streets with pitchforks and assault rifles.  He'd going to ride this democracy destroying train all the way to the inevitable train wreck, until America is an unrecognizable mass of twisted metal and burning flesh.

[Roadrunner53]

The new Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019.  Shortly thereafter, they will receive the much anticipated report from the special counsel.  Schiff will start holding public hearings.  The evidence will be damning.  They will vote articles of impeachment out of the judiciary committee.  At that point, I think Senator Graham and a gang of survival conscious Republican Senators will come to an understanding with Pence and then they will present Trump with a choice:  impeachment and indictment, or resignation and pardon.  He will take the latter choice.

That's my narrative, others may think differently.

There's no way trump will take that deal.  He'd immediately get on Twitter and charge Pence with treason.  He might even declare martial law and try to rationalize it with something like "our democracy is under seige", and then call Putin for backup.

Trump never admits defeat, and that's why I think he's doomed.  He can't course correct, be can't admit mistakes, he only knows how to counter punch and to hell with the rules.  He'd order those "survival minded republicans" arrested and imprisoned.  He'd dissolve congress before resigning, and call on his supporters to take to the streets with pitchforks and assault rifles.  He'd going to ride this democracy destroying train all the way to the inevitable train wreck, until America is an unrecognizable mass of twisted metal and burning flesh.

Wow, what a crazy scenario that would be! LOL, pitchforks...What will he do with the kneeling NFL players though? Will he have them taken to Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp and waterboarded?

[OurTown]

Okay, say he doesn't take the deal.  House impeaches, Senate trial (with the chief justice presiding!).  The open question has always been, how do you get 17 or so Republican votes to convict?  If it gets that far, bear in mind all the facts will be out in the open, from the hearings and from the trial.  The gang of R senators who gave him the option to resign "for the good of the country" will now be free to "vote their conscience" (read, throw him under the bus for not resigning).  That vote is a lose-lose for them.  If they vote to convict they will face the wrath of their own primary voters.  If they do not vote to convict in the face of overwhelming evidence the fig leaf will be gone and they will be wiped out in the 2020 elections.  I don't think their party survives two more years of Trump as President in those circumstances after everyone has been exposed to the facts.  Instead, I think they would convict him "with a heavy heart" and try to start rebuilding their party.  You would then have the truly unprecedented spectacle of a criminal indictment, trial, conviction, and sentencing. 

I think he takes the deal and leaves the U.S.  It will be like having a deposed Roman Emperor in exile.

[talltexan]

The new Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019.  Shortly thereafter, they will receive the much anticipated report from the special counsel.  Schiff will start holding public hearings.  The evidence will be damning.  They will vote articles of impeachment out of the judiciary committee.  At that point, I think Senator Graham and a gang of survival conscious Republican Senators will come to an understanding with Pence and then they will present Trump with a choice:  impeachment and indictment, or resignation and pardon.  He will take the latter choice.

That's my narrative, others may think differently.

These senators will have to win GOP primaries in 2020 or 2022. They have no hope of winning those primaries if they turn on Trump. Graham will be a "no" vote on impeachment.

[OurTown]

BTW my narrative is essentially the Watergate scenario.

[FIRE@50]

Ever read Profiles in Courage?

[OurTown]

The new Congress convenes Jan. 3, 2019.  Shortly thereafter, they will receive the much anticipated report from the special counsel.  Schiff will start holding public hearings.  The evidence will be damning.  They will vote articles of impeachment out of the judiciary committee.  At that point, I think Senator Graham and a gang of survival conscious Republican Senators will come to an understanding with Pence and then they will present Trump with a choice:  impeachment and indictment, or resignation and pardon.  He will take the latter choice.

That's my narrative, others may think differently.

These senators will have to win GOP primaries in 2020 or 2022. They have no hope of winning those primaries if they turn on Trump. Graham will be a "no" vote on impeachment.

I think he will be a yes.  He has been a cheerleader for having the President "cleared" by the special counsel.  When that doesn't happen, surprise surprise, he will "reluctantly" vote to convict.  In reality, what that will mean is that the fat slob in the oval office is simply too much of a liability for the elected Rs to continue to carry, and they will throw him under the bus.

[talltexan]

I don't think their party survives two more years of Trump as President in those circumstances after everyone has been exposed to the facts. 

I have been immersing myself in conservative media for the last year, plus, and I'm seeing quite a different picture than this. It's one in which alternative facts--which is code for a narrative built by Trump's team--are the only salient ones.

As Russian conspiracy has begun to look more probable over the last two years, Trump's messaging has changed to--basically--"sure, colluding with Russia isn't great, but do you really want Clinton, Pelosi, Warren, Kamala Harris, or Ocasio-Ortiz in charge?"

Cynically, I think the capacity of primary voters in the GOP to simply ignore Mueller's end product is extraordinary. Another part of Trump's messaging strategy is to build onto a narrative that conservative media have built up over decades, which is that liberals cannot accept a Republican President as legitimate, thus this whole investigation is simply Democratic derangement over Trump winning an election. Lifelong conservatives will not willingly abandon this narrative.

[nereo]

I don't think their party survives two more years of Trump as President in those circumstances after everyone has been exposed to the facts. 

I have been immersing myself in conservative media for the last year, plus, and I'm seeing quite a different picture than this. It's one in which alternative facts--which is code for a narrative built by Trump's team--are the only salient ones.

As Russian conspiracy has begun to look more probable over the last two years, Trump's messaging has changed to--basically--"sure, colluding with Russia isn't great, but do you really want Clinton, Pelosi, Warren, Kamala Harris, or Ocasio-Ortiz in charge?"

Cynically, I think the capacity of primary voters in the GOP to simply ignore Mueller's end product is extraordinary. Another part of Trump's messaging strategy is to build onto a narrative that conservative media have built up over decades, which is that liberals cannot accept a Republican President as legitimate, thus this whole investigation is simply Democratic derangement over Trump winning an election. Lifelong conservatives will not willingly abandon this narrative.

Which is why I think a much better strategy for the Dems than impeachment would be a combination of investigation, exposure and censure (assuming they win a majority in at least one chamber). This administration has so many scandals they could easily spend the next two years revealing transgression after transgression. The lifelong conservatives may never leave his side, but few will want to join that party. Demographics are already a severe headwind for the GOP going forward.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm wondering how other potential factors might help push Trump out of office or might help reinforce his position.


What if the market crashes?  What if there's another major terrorist attack?  Maybe another Katrina hits at the right time? 


And I still can't believe there haven't been any assination attempts yet.  How would a failed assination attempt play out?   Or attacks on Trump properties?  I don't think I've even heard of Round Up waterballon bombings of his golf courses or resorts.  What are the liberal college kids up to these days?

[Glenstache]

I'm wondering how other potential factors might help push Trump out of office or might help reinforce his position.


What if the market crashes?  What if there's another major terrorist attack?  Maybe another Katrina hits at the right time? 


And I still can't believe there haven't been any assination attempts yet.  How would a failed assination attempt play out?   Or attacks on Trump properties?  I don't think I've even heard of Round Up waterballon bombings of his golf courses or resorts.  What are the liberal college kids up to these days?

They seem to be organizing and getting Dems elected. Much better than assasination attempts (!), or stunt theater like golf club defacement that would just rally Trumps supporters more firmly to his side.

[nereo]

I'm wondering how other potential factors might help push Trump out of office or might help reinforce his position.

What if the market crashes?  What if there's another major terrorist attack?  Maybe another Katrina hits at the right time? 

I think you've touched on the biggest - the economy. Right now Trump has dismal support levels despite a booming economy, which has been one of (if not the most) important factors in a president's popularity and re-electability. If the economy tanks, so will his support (at least as much as posisble given he is starting with only ~40% approval at present).

Major disasters, whether terrorist or natural in nature, depend on how the administraiton responds to them. So far Trump has boggled what has come his way, using natural disasters (e.g. California wildfires) and major attacks (e.g. several mass shootings) as wedge issues, attacking his perceived foes.  THis is in stark contrast to almost every other president who has taken the role of 'consolidator in chief' and gotten a bump in their support (thought it can work both ways, see "W''s response to 9/11 (highly praised) to his admin's failed response to Katrina).

Regardless, not many opinions are changed within 100 days of an election, so we're approaching the point where turnout is going to be more important than changing minds, at least ofr the mid-terms. Team Trump will doubtless try to rally their supporters to the polls, as will the Dems, but the question is 'how?'.  I'm expecting more manufactured crises, fear-mongering and class/race baiting by this admin.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm wondering how other potential factors might help push Trump out of office or might help reinforce his position.


What if the market crashes?  What if there's another major terrorist attack?  Maybe another Katrina hits at the right time? 


And I still can't believe there haven't been any assination attempts yet.  How would a failed assination attempt play out?   Or attacks on Trump properties?  I don't think I've even heard of Round Up waterballon bombings of his golf courses or resorts.  What are the liberal college kids up to these days?

They seem to be organizing and getting Dems elected. Much better than assasination attempts (!), or stunt theater like golf club defacement that would just rally Trumps supporters more firmly to his side.

I was thinking more about how the Venezuela president has been claiming there have been attacks on him so he can fight to protect himself.  It seems like something Putin would have suggested to Trump.


The golf course comment wasn't because I think it's a good idea, but because everybody that lives near a golf course knows they're a target for pranksters.  Dirt bikes, drones, and waterballoon cannons could destroy a golf course in a matter of minutes, and there are a lot of them with Trump's name on the gates, and a fair number are waterfront to boot for an easy getaway!

[partgypsy]

I think if it gets to the point where externally or internally via other Republicans Trump is pressured to resign and he takes it, he will say things like the election was rigged, Hillary, and lastly, I'm betting on this one, he didn't really want this job in the first place, and has better things to do like attend to his businesses.

I'm of two minds whether he would accept a resignation. It's better than 50%. For most of his views you can find video where he's esposing the opposite view, and contradicts himself constantly. As long as his handlers make it out that it is a win-win for him, he would take it.  He's settled many lawsuits against him, most recently the Trump University suit, so does have some degree of a survival instinct.

[Poundwise]

Breezing through with my usual non sequitur posting... don't know if these articles have been posted here before, but I thought they were very informative and might interest you guys.

1. Basically, don't expect Mueller to save us. Iran-Contra is probably a better model than Watergate for how Trump-Russia will go down, unless we can somehow both block Kavanaugh and flip Congress in the Nov 7 elections.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/10/how-to-kill-a-presidential-scandal-trump-russia-watergate-iran-contra/

2. Interesting discussion of ICE, its history, and immigration policy in the US. Wish I had been paying attention to this issue years before but unfortunately I had little clue about immigration until recently.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/trump-ice/565772/

[scottish]

Here's a Trump impact for you:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/11/opinion/sunday/brian-kemp-enemy-of-democracy.html

The republican nominee for governor of Georgia is a master at voter suppression.   Trump was key in his win of the republican nomination.

[sol]

don't expect Mueller to save us.

Has America really devolved so far that a person like Trump could flagrantly violate so many laws and still be completely free of consequences, as long as he's protected by his own party in the other two branches of government?  I mean this seems like a pretty severe perversion of the American experiment, if the interests of the nation are now truly secondary to the effort to preserve power for a specific political party.

Trump claimed he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it.  I'm afraid we've now gone much farther than that, with the help of congressional republicans shielding him.  He could openly collude with Russia and get away with it.  He could arrest and imprison his political opponents and get away with it.  He could embezzle from the government coffers and get away with it.  He could openly violate every Constitutional Amendment (i.e. take your guns! abolish every network except Fox!) and get away with. 

In this situation, what's left of America?  We've already abandoned any pretense of moral authority, and now we're just dissolving the rule of law as well?

[skp]

don't expect Mueller to save us.

Has America really devolved so far that a person like Trump could flagrantly violate so many laws and still be completely free of consequences, as long as he's protected by his own party in the other two branches of government?  I mean this seems like a pretty severe perversion of the American experiment, if the interests of the nation are now truly secondary to the effort to preserve power for a specific political party.

Trump claimed he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it.

I thought the quote was he could shoot somebody on times square and not lose voters.   I take that statement to be allegorical not literal.  I think it has to do with loss of trust in the press. If this was reported anywhere else but Fox News,  I don't think his voters would believe it.  I've said before that I'm slightly right, and didn't vote for Trump because he shoots his mouth off, I questioned why he wanted the office, and I questioned whether or not he really says what he means.  But I personally don't trust the press AT ALL.  I personally would be very skeptical.  He's an idiot that shoots his mouth off, but I don't see him shooting a person.  The press was out to get him from day one. I take that comment to mean that the press has lost all credibility= not that he is going to literally shoot someone in times square and get away with it.

[sol]

I take that comment to mean that the press has lost all credibility= not that he is going to literally shoot someone in times square and get away with it.

That seems like an unnecessarily convoluted interpretation.  I took it at face value; he considers himself above the law.

[nereo]

I take that comment to mean that the press has lost all credibility= not that he is going to literally shoot someone in times square and get away with it.

That seems like an unnecessarily convoluted interpretation.  I took it at face value; he considers himself above the law.

"When you are a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything." - Donald Trump.

[Davnasty]

don't expect Mueller to save us.

Has America really devolved so far that a person like Trump could flagrantly violate so many laws and still be completely free of consequences, as long as he's protected by his own party in the other two branches of government?  I mean this seems like a pretty severe perversion of the American experiment, if the interests of the nation are now truly secondary to the effort to preserve power for a specific political party.

Trump claimed he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it.

I thought the quote was he could shoot somebody on times square and not lose voters.   I take that statement to be allegorical not literal.  I think it has to do with loss of trust in the press. If this was reported anywhere else but Fox News,  I don't think his voters would believe it.  I've said before that I'm slightly right, and didn't vote for Trump because he shoots his mouth off, I questioned why he wanted the office, and I questioned whether or not he really says what he means.  But I personally don't trust the press AT ALL.  I personally would be very skeptical.  He's an idiot that shoots his mouth off, but I don't see him shooting a person.  The press was out to get him from day one. I take that comment to mean that the press has lost all credibility= not that he is going to literally shoot someone in times square and get away with it.

Where do you get your information?

I understand not liking the press. So much of it is designed around grabbing people's attention so that advertisers will pay for it rather than meaningful reporting. I also believe that's why they give Trump so much attention, it's not that they have an agenda, at least not other than getting viewers/readers/listeners. In fact I'm pretty confident that the media saturation of Trump is what got him the primary win, even if it was negative coverage. If they were trying to bring him down they went about it entirely wrong.

And sure, there are some outlets that I don't trust at all, but you really have to trust someone. Well, that or ignore the situation entirely. Do you believe what you read on Reuters for example?

[Kris]

don't expect Mueller to save us.

Has America really devolved so far that a person like Trump could flagrantly violate so many laws and still be completely free of consequences, as long as he's protected by his own party in the other two branches of government?  I mean this seems like a pretty severe perversion of the American experiment, if the interests of the nation are now truly secondary to the effort to preserve power for a specific political party.

Trump claimed he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it.

I thought the quote was he could shoot somebody on times square and not lose voters.   I take that statement to be allegorical not literal.  I think it has to do with loss of trust in the press. If this was reported anywhere else but Fox News,  I don't think his voters would believe it.  I've said before that I'm slightly right, and didn't vote for Trump because he shoots his mouth off, I questioned why he wanted the office, and I questioned whether or not he really says what he means.  But I personally don't trust the press AT ALL.  I personally would be very skeptical.  He's an idiot that shoots his mouth off, but I don't see him shooting a person.  The press was out to get him from day one. I take that comment to mean that the press has lost all credibility= not that he is going to literally shoot someone in times square and get away with it.

There was absolutely no reference to the press in those remarks. He was referring to the (blind) loyalty of his base.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fifth-avenue-comment/

[GuitarStv]

I take that comment to mean that the press has lost all credibility= not that he is going to literally shoot someone in times square and get away with it.

That seems like an unnecessarily convoluted interpretation.  I took it at face value; he considers himself above the law.

Remember when Nixon went to jail for his crimes?  Or when Regan had to defend his illegal Iran-Contra actions?  Or when Eisenhower was held accountable for the governments he toppled?  No?  That's because the law doesn't apply to presidents.  At best you can impeach them so they lose power, but they never face legal justice.

[talltexan]

... Maybe another Katrina hits at the right time? 

This happened last year in Puerto Rico. It doesn't seem to have done lasting political damage to Trump, despite it clearly being a horrific situation.

[nereo]

... Maybe another Katrina hits at the right time? 

This happened last year in Puerto Rico. It doesn't seem to have done lasting political damage to Trump, despite it clearly being a horrific situation.

Don't be too sure. Records are poor, but it appears that several hundred thousand Puerto Ricans permanently left the island for the mainland, with a majority settling in Florida. The biggest of battleground states.  Wonder how those neglected Americans will vote in future elections?
viewed obliquely, it seems the GOP is going out of hteir way to make future elections harder for them.

[talltexan]

You must mean aside from the gerrymandering, vote suppression of minorities, vote suppression of felons, and failure to safeguard our infrastructure from the attack of a foreign autocrat who admitted in a press conference that he "wanted Trump to win".

[Gondolin]

When you are a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything." - Donald Trump.

Trump's version of: "Cease quoting laws to we that have swords girt about us! -Pompey"

[Glenstache]

Backing off to the big picture, I listened to Preet Bharara's interview longtime Republican strategist Steve Schmidt this morning. Steve Schmidt has been deep in the trenches on many high-profile GOPers, and recently left the GOP over his disgust with the current state of the party. He offers some very clear articulations of "how we got here" and "what are the problems with Trumpism".

He makes several predictions about the future of a Trump presidency including how it will play out in political discourse in the years following the end of his term. It is a highly-recommended listen (as are most of Bharara's podcast episodes).

The podcast is at:
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/551791730/stay-tuned-with-preet
Why I Quit the GOP (with Steve Schmidt)

[sol]

The podcast is at:
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/551791730/stay-tuned-with-preet
Why I Quit the GOP (with Steve Schmidt)

Can you summarize for those of us who can't listen to podcasts?

[wenchsenior]

Backing off to the big picture, I listened to Preet Bharara's interview longtime Republican strategist Steve Schmidt this morning. Steve Schmidt has been deep in the trenches on many high-profile GOPers, and recently left the GOP over his disgust with the current state of the party. He offers some very clear articulations of "how we got here" and "what are the problems with Trumpism".

He makes several predictions about the future of a Trump presidency including how it will play out in political discourse in the years following the end of his term. It is a highly-recommended listen (as are most of Bharara's podcast episodes).

The podcast is at:
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/551791730/stay-tuned-with-preet
Why I Quit the GOP (with Steve Schmidt)

Thanks!  I've been wondering over the past few months what his take on all this was.

[Glenstache]

The podcast is at:
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/551791730/stay-tuned-with-preet
Why I Quit the GOP (with Steve Schmidt)

Can you summarize for those of us who can't listen to podcasts?

It was pretty wide-ranging, but the short version is:
- Through Reagan, the GOP was the party of expansion and the west. The party is now the party of the evangelical south. Mix that with the divisiveness incubated by the likes of gingrich, and things look pretty bad.
- He repeatedly called the current GOP congress mostly cowards who prize self preservation over insitutions (democracy, party, congress, and norms in general). He sees this as damnable and literally said that the current party of Trump needs to be annihilated before we can  get back to normal.
- He spoke about the difference between being enemies as opposed to opponents. Opponents = okay. enemies = destructive to democracy.
- one interesting take, was that he saw the time during which Democrats held branches of gov't as the window in which Fox news (and similar right wing echo chambers) grew and shifted the political dynamic in the GOP. Because there was no GOP authority in charge in the public sphere, it gave the news outlets like Limbaugh a window for a larger voice in conservative politics. In short, to be big in the GOP you had to be sensational and play well in the press. I personally think this is a bit too generous, but it is an interesting line of thought in how media took over political discourse. Having recently revisited the OJ Simpson trial circus, I think that it has more to do with the concurrent rise of 24 hour news frenzy.
- He sees Trump as a demagogue without any real ideals of his own, but a like for power. Bannon and Miller used him to drive their own ideologies, and it has worked well for Trump. [/li][/list]

There is a lot there and it is worth listening to the podcast.

[nereo]

You must mean aside from the gerrymandering, vote suppression of minorities, vote suppression of felons, and failure to safeguard our infrastructure from the attack of a foreign autocrat who admitted in a press conference that he "wanted Trump to win".

True.
I meant that the GOP seems to be fighting demographic shifts which keep moving the country further from their older white base. Rather than attempt to appeal to younger voters and minority voters they’ve been hard at work building the walls you mentioned above. This holds them in power for another election cycle or two, but it won’t build trust in the groups they’ll need in the decades to come.

[sui generis]

You must mean aside from the gerrymandering, vote suppression of minorities, vote suppression of felons, and failure to safeguard our infrastructure from the attack of a foreign autocrat who admitted in a press conference that he "wanted Trump to win".

True.
I meant that the GOP seems to be fighting demographic shifts which keep moving the country further from their older white base. Rather than attempt to appeal to younger voters and minority voters they’ve been hard at work building the walls you mentioned above. This holds them in power for another election cycle or two, but it won’t build trust in the groups they’ll need in the decades to come.

I would have equivocated on the last piece before.  Knowing that people in general get more conservative as they get older, they always have some people (theoretically) lined up to join.  But I'd read about the studies that show that groups of people start considering themselves more white, the longer they've been here.  Not just how Irish and Italians are accepted as white now, but that many, e.g., 4th generation latinos might identify as partially or fully white.  I had honestly started to think that the future mocha-colored populace would just all start siding with "the white people party" because they would feel pretty much white.  However, it seems that the GOP is, in some ways, rejecting even those groups that were starting to become pretty "white" in the general psyche.  Like with the increase of anti-Semitism, Jews may not be included in whiteness in whatever ways they have been in recent decades.  Same with certain groups of Cubans and Arabs.  If folks are more strictly policing the boundaries of whiteness, then perhaps groups that would otherwise consider themselves basically white will not actually be able to do so because they are actively being excluded as opposed to tolerated.  So yeah, I'm starting to get more on board with that statement, that the GOP might be policing itself out of existence, even if they can stop legal immigration tomorrow.

[RetiredAt63]

I'm older and I'm less religious and less conservative than when I was younger. Not all of us get more conservative (except maybe with our money) as we age. Of course I'm Anglophone Quebecer Canadian, so I grew up with the Quiet Revolution.

This was an interesting piece:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2018/08/13/stephen-miller-is-an-immigration-hypocrite-i-know-because-im-his-uncle-219351?__twitter_impression=true

[talltexan]

You must mean aside from the gerrymandering, vote suppression of minorities, vote suppression of felons, and failure to safeguard our infrastructure from the attack of a foreign autocrat who admitted in a press conference that he "wanted Trump to win".

True.
I meant that the GOP seems to be fighting demographic shifts which keep moving the country further from their older white base. Rather than attempt to appeal to younger voters and minority voters they’ve been hard at work building the walls you mentioned above. This holds them in power for another election cycle or two, but it won’t build trust in the groups they’ll need in the decades to come.

Note: The Democrats used several of these same tools to keep control of the House of Representatives for forty years.

[JLee]

You must mean aside from the gerrymandering, vote suppression of minorities, vote suppression of felons, and failure to safeguard our infrastructure from the attack of a foreign autocrat who admitted in a press conference that he "wanted Trump to win".

True.
I meant that the GOP seems to be fighting demographic shifts which keep moving the country further from their older white base. Rather than attempt to appeal to younger voters and minority voters they’ve been hard at work building the walls you mentioned above. This holds them in power for another election cycle or two, but it won’t build trust in the groups they’ll need in the decades to come.

Note: The Democrats used several of these same tools to keep control of the House of Representatives for forty years.

And this is relevant to today how, exactly?

[sol]

Note: The Democrats used several of these same tools to keep control of the House of Representatives for forty years.

Sure, the democrats historically have also stoked racial animus to support Jim Crow laws.  And it was just as despicable then as it is today when republicans do it.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue.  When democrats were racists that was wrong.  When republicans are racists that's wrong.  Tools like gerrymandering and voter restrictions are just the way they implement their racism.

But I can't go back in time and fight dead democrats.  What I CAN do, and what I think every single American should be doing today, is fight against racists in the republican party today.  Vote them out.

"The President of the United States is a racist" is not a sentence that we should just quietly accept anymore.  Just because it's been true for most of American history does not mean that America does our should embrace those values.

[nereo]

Note: The Democrats used several of these same tools to keep control of the House of Representatives for forty years.

Sure, the democrats historically have also stoked racial animus to support Jim Crow laws.  And it was just as despicable then as it is today when republicans do it.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue.  When democrats were racists that was wrong.  When republicans are racists that's wrong.  Tools like gerrymandering and voter restrictions are just the way they implement their racism.

But I can't go back in time and fight dead democrats.  What I CAN do, and what I think every single American should be doing today, is fight against racists in the republican party today.  Vote them out.

"The President of the United States is a racist" is not a sentence that we should just quietly accept anymore.  Just because it's been true for most of American history does not mean that America does our should embrace those values.

Agreed.  This whole excuse of "...but the other side did/does it too!" is the worst defense imaginable. It reminds me of elementary school kids who get caught and argue "but Timmy did it too!" 

[Glenstache]

Note: The Democrats used several of these same tools to keep control of the House of Representatives for forty years.

Sure, the democrats historically have also stoked racial animus to support Jim Crow laws.  And it was just as despicable then as it is today when republicans do it.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue.  When democrats were racists that was wrong.  When republicans are racists that's wrong.  Tools like gerrymandering and voter restrictions are just the way they implement their racism.

But I can't go back in time and fight dead democrats.  What I CAN do, and what I think every single American should be doing today, is fight against racists in the republican party today.  Vote them out.

"The President of the United States is a racist" is not a sentence that we should just quietly accept anymore.  Just because it's been true for most of American history does not mean that America does our should embrace those values.

Agreed.  This whole excuse of "...but the other side did/does it too!" is the worst defense imaginable. It reminds me of elementary school kids who get caught and argue "but Timmy did it too!"

It also ignores the demographics and history of why racists have accumulated in one party or another. The south was populated by democrats for a long time because, guess what, Lincoln was a Republican who was the leader of that "war of northern aggression." So, what finally tipped the scales towards being Republicans? Johnson signed the civil rights act in 1964. As Steve Schmidt said in his interview, the GOP has become the party of southern evangelicals. (note, I am not saying that all evangelicals are racists, but there is a lot of overlap in that venn diagram). Similarly, the GOP of today doesn't look all that much like the GOP of 1975. Things change and there should be a statute of limitations on the use of apparent hypocrisy in party platforms. For example, the GOP under Reagan probably wouldn't have been pushing to make the party platform more friendly to Russia during the convention as we saw in 2016.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/08/republicans-russia-platform-fight-244672

[GuitarStv]

Note: The Democrats used several of these same tools to keep control of the House of Representatives for forty years.

Sure, the democrats historically have also stoked racial animus to support Jim Crow laws.  And it was just as despicable then as it is today when republicans do it.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue.  When democrats were racists that was wrong.  When republicans are racists that's wrong.  Tools like gerrymandering and voter restrictions are just the way they implement their racism.

But I can't go back in time and fight dead democrats.  What I CAN do, and what I think every single American should be doing today, is fight against racists in the republican party today.  Vote them out.

"The President of the United States is a racist" is not a sentence that we should just quietly accept anymore.  Just because it's been true for most of American history does not mean that America does our should embrace those values.

+1

There's pretty good evidence that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist and pedophile.  That doesn't (at least shouldn't) legitimatize rape and pedophilia among leaders today.  It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.  The difference is that we don't have to just accept it as something that happened today.

[Glenstache]

This actually surprised me. Manafort's defense rested today... without calling any witnesses. Closing arguments go tomorrow.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/401748-manafort-defense-rests-without-calling-witnesses

I mean, does he think that there are no witnesses to call that would not sink him deeper, that closing arguments are where the case will be made, that a pardon is on the horizon, or that he's just sunk but won't make a deal regardless? I'm intrigued in how this plays out.

[sol]

does he think that there are no witnesses to call that would not sink him deeper, that closing arguments are where the case will be made, that a pardon is on the horizon, or that he's just sunk but won't make a deal regardless? I'm intrigued in how this plays out.

I suspect that Manafort was smart enough to know he was cooked from the outset.  His only viable options were to be acquitted on a technicality if the prosecution ducked up somewhere, or to secure his assets while he visits jail and waits for his inevitable pardon.

Otherwise, he would have rolled by now.  Instead he went all in on the riskiest possible play, taking his chances on a probable life in prison because that was better than his alternatives.  Maybe he was afraid of a Russian nerve agent attack.  Or maybe he figured that admitting treason on trump's behalf would scuttle his chance of a pardon.

The electoral campaign of a sitting American President was run by a Russian foreign operative, a man who was literally working for a foreign hostile power, in secret, while sitting at the heart of our democracy.  Just let that sink in for a second, and then consider that the man this Russian agent got elected has refused to disclose his own financial ties to Russia. 

I'm pretty sure history is going to judge this whole episode as one of the darkest hours of our nation.

[talltexan]

You must mean aside from the gerrymandering, vote suppression of minorities, vote suppression of felons, and failure to safeguard our infrastructure from the attack of a foreign autocrat who admitted in a press conference that he "wanted Trump to win".

True.
I meant that the GOP seems to be fighting demographic shifts which keep moving the country further from their older white base. Rather than attempt to appeal to younger voters and minority voters they’ve been hard at work building the walls you mentioned above. This holds them in power for another election cycle or two, but it won’t build trust in the groups they’ll need in the decades to come.

Note: The Democrats used several of these same tools to keep control of the House of Representatives for forty years.

And this is relevant to today how, exactly?

It's possible my post was confused for what-aboutism, and this was not my intent. Nereo's post made the claim that GOP might win one or two additional elections because of these tactics. I think the example of the Democrats doing it for much of the twentieth century shows that you can keep control for a generation through these tactics.

[NewPerspective]

I' m reading a really interesting book right now called Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean.

I've only just started it but it is really interesting so far.  From the book review:

"Behind today’s headlines of billionaires taking over our government is a secretive political establishment with long, deep, and troubling roots. The capitalist radical right has been working not simply to change who rules, but to fundamentally alter the rules of democratic governance. But billionaires did not launch this movement; a white intellectual in the embattled Jim Crow South did. Democracy in Chains names its true architect—the Nobel Prize-winning political economist James McGill Buchanan—and dissects the operation he and his colleagues designed over six decades to alter every branch of government to disempower the majority".

She talks about the Koch brothers and how they have been funding all of this more covert activity for a long time.  And how the Republican party has changed in fundamental ways because of this.  She says there is a long term strategic plan involved.

I know someone who describes himself as a Libertarian.  He would never vote for a democrat.  I've always been really confused by this because he is also gay. We run in a very liberal circle, so it has just never made sense to me.    It is really interesting to see his mindset and values described in this book!  I get it now (and I still totally disagree).  (he didn't vote for Trump, he was/is a big Ted Cruz fan).

Has anyone read this book?