Trump outrage of the day

[Travis]

I don't see how Trump can possibly win in November. He's screwed up in so many respects, surely no one will vote for him.

He will get enough of the vote that I will still be disappointed in my countrymen even if Biden wins. There are still a lot of people out there that truly believe he is a great president and all that comes with that. It makes me want to day drink if I think about it too much.

I’ll be very happily surprised if he doesn’t win. No one thought he would win in 2016. I don’t put any stock in the polls for that reason. He’s an incumbent and they rarely lose.

Even he didn't think he'd win first time around. The polls and the insider talk is that he's going to lose big and he thinks he's going to get crushed, but it only matters after the votes are counted.

[Dancin'Dog]

I don't see how Trump can possibly win in November. He's screwed up in so many respects, surely no one will vote for him.

He will get enough of the vote that I will still be disappointed in my countrymen even if Biden wins. There are still a lot of people out there that truly believe he is a great president and all that comes with that. It makes me want to day drink if I think about it too much.

I feel the same way.  It's like I'd be better off moving to a foreign country, where I don't speak the language, so I don't know how stupid & greedy 1/2 the people around me are.  Having Trump has opened my eyes about what kind of small minded & selfish people live here.  Even if Trump isn't reelected the people that liked him will still be living here. 


Day drinking sounds like an option, until you consider what that really means. 

[Bloop Bloop]

The thing is that Trump's recent failures are different from his past political blow-ups. They're a whole different dimension of populist/near-fascist conduct. So I would think many of the swing voters who might have been persuaded by his policies would now be repelled by his new conduct which has nothing to do with his policies. I have faith that Americans aren't complete populists and that it wasn't solely populism which got him over the line in the first place.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I don't see how Trump can possibly win in November. He's screwed up in so many respects, surely no one will vote for him.

He will get enough of the vote that I will still be disappointed in my countrymen even if Biden wins. There are still a lot of people out there that truly believe he is a great president and all that comes with that. It makes me want to day drink if I think about it too much.

I feel the same way.  It's like I'd be better off moving to a foreign country, where I don't speak the language, so I don't know how stupid & greedy 1/2 the people around me are.  Having Trump has opened my eyes about what kind of small minded & selfish people live here.  Even if Trump isn't reelected the people that liked him will still be living here. 


Day drinking sounds like an option, until you consider what that really means.

I guess it means that you have to choose between sober evenings of misery or being an alcoholic...  yeah, everyone for themselves!  We're all f'ed

[talltexan]

Since WWII, four Presidents have made it sound like they wanted to serve longer than the voters would permit them:

LBJ won convincingly in 1964, but announced he would not run after Eugene McCarthy and RFK won Democratic Primaries in 1968
Gerald Ford lost a close election in 1976 (240 Electoral votes, this exceeds Clinton's or Romney's losing totals)
Jimmy Carter in 1980 (80-ish electoral votes)
George H.W. Bush in 1992 (168 electoral votes)

I can't help but feel like today's polarized society makes the Bush total from 1992 Trump's absolute floor this year.

[rab-bit]

I can't help but feel like today's polarized society makes the Bush total from 1992 Trump's absolute floor this year.

I agree with you, but on the other hand, Biden's floor looks to be about 222. Once again I think it probably really comes down to this: whoever wins Florida will be the next president.

[brandon1827]

I'm not sure about Florida deciding it. There are a handful of states that will decide it this time around, Florida among them, but even if Florida goes to Trump, Biden can still win. He seems to have a much easier path to 270 than Trump does currently

[Dancin'Dog]

I don't see how Trump can possibly win in November. He's screwed up in so many respects, surely no one will vote for him.

He will get enough of the vote that I will still be disappointed in my countrymen even if Biden wins. There are still a lot of people out there that truly believe he is a great president and all that comes with that. It makes me want to day drink if I think about it too much.

I feel the same way.  It's like I'd be better off moving to a foreign country, where I don't speak the language, so I don't know how stupid & greedy 1/2 the people around me are.  Having Trump has opened my eyes about what kind of small minded & selfish people live here.  Even if Trump isn't reelected the people that liked him will still be living here. 


Day drinking sounds like an option, until you consider what that really means.

I guess it means that you have to choose between sober evenings of misery or being an alcoholic...  yeah, everyone for themselves!  We're all f'ed

There's been enough of those in my life.  I'd rather try the expat option, it has to be better than being a drunk. 


I've been browsing the yachtworld.com ads, but doubt I'll be able to get DW "on board" with the idea.  I keep mentioning tropical sunsets & cocktails in paradise. But she keeps reminding me of needing to help our aging parents, and after that DD will eventually be getting married & making grand-babies.  My dreams are doomed! 


Maybe drinking IS the only escape...  ;)

[rab-bit]

I'm not sure about Florida deciding it. There are a handful of states that will decide it this time around, Florida among them, but even if Florida goes to Trump, Biden can still win. He seems to have a much easier path to 270 than Trump does currently

Agreed, there are plausible scenarios where Biden can win without Florida, but probably none for Trump. So if Biden wins Florida, he probably wins the election.

[brandon1827]

I'm not sure about Florida deciding it. There are a handful of states that will decide it this time around, Florida among them, but even if Florida goes to Trump, Biden can still win. He seems to have a much easier path to 270 than Trump does currently

Agreed, there are plausible scenarios where Biden can win without Florida, but probably none for Trump. So if Biden wins Florida, he probably wins the election.

Yes...in that sense, I totally agree. Trump cannot win without Florida this time around

[talltexan]

I happen to think Biden is particularly vulnerable in Florida. Old people like him, sure, but the Latinx voters there are more reliable republicans than in most other places.

[Kris]

I happen to think Biden is particularly vulnerable in Florida. Old people like him, sure, but the Latinx voters there are more reliable republicans than in most other places.

Florida could really break either way this time around. I agree with you on the above. But I also want to throw in that Biden is Catholic, and that is well-known. We haven't had very many Catholic nominees. And the Latinx voters in Florida are overwhelmingly Catholic.

[talltexan]

Many of them have Cuban or Venezuelan backgrounds and are spooked by labelling the other guy a "Socialist".

[Glenstache]

I happen to think Biden is particularly vulnerable in Florida. Old people like him, sure, but the Latinx voters there are more reliable republicans than in most other places.

Florida could really break either way this time around. I agree with you on the above. But I also want to throw in that Biden is Catholic, and that is well-known. We haven't had very many Catholic nominees. And the Latinx voters in Florida are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Also remember how Trump treated Puerto Rico following hurricane Maria. Doesn't 2017 seem like an eternity ago?

[sherr]

Many of them have Cuban or Venezuelan backgrounds and are spooked by labelling the other guy a "Socialist".

But Biden is clearly not a "Socialist", except insomuch as Republicans call everyone else in every election "Socialist". I'm not making a specific call in Flordia, but people are capable of wising up to that tactic.

[Kris]

I happen to think Biden is particularly vulnerable in Florida. Old people like him, sure, but the Latinx voters there are more reliable republicans than in most other places.

Florida could really break either way this time around. I agree with you on the above. But I also want to throw in that Biden is Catholic, and that is well-known. We haven't had very many Catholic nominees. And the Latinx voters in Florida are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Also remember how Trump treated Puerto Rico following hurricane Maria. Doesn't 2017 seem like an eternity ago?

Yep. Another wild card -- how much Puerto Ricans and other Latinx remember how Trump treated PR. You'd think they would have a long memory about something like this, but who knows?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Many of them have Cuban or Venezuelan backgrounds and are spooked by labelling the other guy a "Socialist".

But Biden is clearly not a "Socialist", except insomuch as Republicans call everyone else in every election "Socialist". I'm not making a specific call in Flordia, but people are capable of wising up to that tactic.

That's a sad truth, even when Biden wins, Trump will have pre-tainted his Presidency so much that the US will remain in decline and the US has been forever changed.  It's not like President Biden will wave a wand and undo all of the catastrophe that Trump will inevitably leave behind (unimaginable debt, a raging pandemic, and polarization such that Americans basically hate themselves).

[GuitarStv]

Many of them have Cuban or Venezuelan backgrounds and are spooked by labelling the other guy a "Socialist".

But Biden is clearly not a "Socialist", except insomuch as Republicans call everyone else in every election "Socialist". I'm not making a specific call in Flordia, but people are capable of wising up to that tactic.

That's a sad truth, even when Biden wins, Trump will have pre-tainted his Presidency so much that the US will remain in decline and the US has been forever changed.  It's not like President Biden will wave a wand and undo all of the catastrophe that Trump will inevitably leave behind (unimaginable debt, a raging pandemic, and polarization such that Americans basically hate themselves).

Don't forget the court nominations, dismantling of various federal agencies, weakening of government oversight in many areas, difficulties re-hiring the many people who have left government jobs en-masse, damage to world standing, and the long lasting impacts of wide-spread nepotism/corruption.

[RetiredAt63]

Many of them have Cuban or Venezuelan backgrounds and are spooked by labelling the other guy a "Socialist".

But Biden is clearly not a "Socialist", except insomuch as Republicans call everyone else in every election "Socialist". I'm not making a specific call in Flordia, but people are capable of wising up to that tactic.

That's a sad truth, even when Biden wins, Trump will have pre-tainted his Presidency so much that the US will remain in decline and the US has been forever changed.  It's not like President Biden will wave a wand and undo all of the catastrophe that Trump will inevitably leave behind (unimaginable debt, a raging pandemic, and polarization such that Americans basically hate themselves).

Harper was in for a few terms, but he didn't do his worst until he got a majority government.  Most but not all of the legislative damage has been undone (you know things are weird when people get upset about the loss of the mandatory long census form) but a lot of the social malaise from how far right he took a right wing party lingers.  WTH are bugaloo (or whatever the term is) doing here?  It is totally irrelevant to our history.

So yes, Biden will be able to fix some things but not others.  And it will be a long time before US allies have much trust in American foreign policy reliability.

I'm really wondering what Canadian tourist numbers to places like Florida will look like this winter.  We are a big boost to Florida's economy, but between the infection rates, and that Canadians were trapped on the cruise ship docked in Floida for quite a while, I wonder how many will head to the various Caribbean Islands instead?

[OtherJen]

Yep, this is helpful:

NY Times: Trump Threatens to Cut Funding if Schools Do Not Fully Reopen

[talltexan]

Many of them have Cuban or Venezuelan backgrounds and are spooked by labelling the other guy a "Socialist".

But Biden is clearly not a "Socialist", except insomuch as Republicans call everyone else in every election "Socialist". I'm not making a specific call in Flordia, but people are capable of wising up to that tactic.

That's a sad truth, even when Biden wins, Trump will have pre-tainted his Presidency so much that the US will remain in decline and the US has been forever changed.  It's not like President Biden will wave a wand and undo all of the catastrophe that Trump will inevitably leave behind (unimaginable debt, a raging pandemic, and polarization such that Americans basically hate themselves).

I do see the trajectory in which control of the government will careen between extremes, from left to right, from know-nothing ideologues to technocrats who will demand that the know-nothings from the previous administration be jailed. The long-term way out is somehow to de-program the other side, to get people who disagree with you to somehow see that you're just a little more reasonable than they thought.

[Glenstache]

Many of them have Cuban or Venezuelan backgrounds and are spooked by labelling the other guy a "Socialist".

But Biden is clearly not a "Socialist", except insomuch as Republicans call everyone else in every election "Socialist". I'm not making a specific call in Flordia, but people are capable of wising up to that tactic.

That's a sad truth, even when Biden wins, Trump will have pre-tainted his Presidency so much that the US will remain in decline and the US has been forever changed.  It's not like President Biden will wave a wand and undo all of the catastrophe that Trump will inevitably leave behind (unimaginable debt, a raging pandemic, and polarization such that Americans basically hate themselves).

I do see the trajectory in which control of the government will careen between extremes, from left to right, from know-nothing ideologues to technocrats who will demand that the know-nothings from the previous administration be jailed. The long-term way out is somehow to de-program the other side, to get people who disagree with you to somehow see that you're just a little more reasonable than they thought.

One way to do it is to re-establish the guardrails and constraints on the presidency and return more control and responsibility to congress. Executive power has grown substantially over time, and especially following WWII and the cold war. One approach to reducing political volatility, for lack of a better term, is to make people go back to governing through negotiation and compromise. While there is certainly blame to go around, Mitch McConnell has certainly gone above and beyond in recent years in party/power over the duties to country and democracy.

[sherr]

One way to do it is to re-establish the guardrails and constraints on the presidency and return more control and responsibility to congress. Executive power has grown substantially over time, and especially following WWII and the cold war. One approach to reducing political volatility, for lack of a better term, is to make people go back to governing through negotiation and compromise. While there is certainly blame to go around, Mitch McConnell has certainly gone above and beyond in recent years in party/power over the duties to country and democracy.

And before him it was Newt Gingrich, which Newt proudly points out to anyone who will listen.

[talltexan]

But why should responsible Liberals have to unilaterally disarm?

It's not realistic to expect them to win power without getting to enjoy using the levers of power to hold it the way Republicans so blatantly do.

[Glenstache]

But why should responsible Liberals have to unilaterally disarm?

It's not realistic to expect them to win power without getting to enjoy using the levers of power to hold it the way Republicans so blatantly do.

1. because life isn't fair.
2. If the GOP loses the Senate majority, then those levers of power won't necessarily leave the hands of the left with a narrowed executive. However, that will also involve somehow getting congress to be more functional than it is right now. For that we need people who are actually good politicians who can work with others.

I probably want something as a democratic process that may be unrealistic in the near future in our current political environment.

[Tyler durden]

Re establish guardrails, yes great idea!

 Remember when harry Reid used the nuclear option in 2013 to forever change the rules of the filibusters in the senate.

Good times. Good times.

( just adding this to balance the conversation a little )

[Just Joe]

The thing is that Trump's recent failures are different from his past political blow-ups. They're a whole different dimension of populist/near-fascist conduct. So I would think many of the swing voters who might have been persuaded by his policies would now be repelled by his new conduct which has nothing to do with his policies. I have faith that Americans aren't complete populists and that it wasn't solely populism which got him over the line in the first place.

Trump almost makes me believe the GOP is probing to see how far he/they can take things to the right.

No, Trump is still a danger. The Trumpers I know are still planning to vote for him. Many are still quite enthusiastic about Trump and parrot whatever his fiction he is selling that week. A few of the Trumpers I know have gotten quiet about Trump - they know they can't defend him - but they still support him for reasons they don't want to discuss. I know b/c they still parrot the messages without ever mentioning Trump. They are never critical of Trump.

The one I heard today from one supporter who has grown quiet: "isn't it convenient that the Chinese have created this pandemic and now they are selling us PPE" as if this was all intentional. Followed by America needs to make our own goods. Then a statement about how Sam Walton would have never sold Chinese goods in his stores. 

I don't publicly take sides on politics at work nor in some of social situations b/c I am very much outnumbered. I just listen. That seems to encourage some folks to talk my ears off.

[Just Joe]

Yep, this is helpful:

NY Times: Trump Threatens to Cut Funding if Schools Do Not Fully Reopen

So clearly Wall Street needs their profits. Must get the kids back to school so parents can get back to work.

And people can get back to spending. COVID deaths are irrelevant.

[OtherJen]

No, Trump is still a danger. The Trumpers I know are still planning to vote for him. Many are still quite enthusiastic about Trump and parrot whatever his fiction he is selling that week. A few of the Trumpers I know have gotten quiet about Trump - they know they can't defend him - but they still support him for reasons they don't want to discuss. I know b/c they still parrot the messages without ever mentioning Trump. They are never critical of Trump.

Same here. They know he and their position are indefensible so they've stopped talking about it, but I doubt they're planning to vote for Biden. Their politics haven't changed.

This is why I will be happily shocked if Biden wins. I usually love Election Day and spend the evening watching the returns come in (2018 was really great). I'm planning to work the polls this year, so I won't be tempted to torment myself by watching the map turn red shortly by 9 pm.

[Psychstache]

I happen to think Biden is particularly vulnerable in Florida. Old people like him, sure, but the Latinx voters there are more reliable republicans than in most other places.

Florida could really break either way this time around. I agree with you on the above. But I also want to throw in that Biden is Catholic, and that is well-known. We haven't had very many Catholic nominees. And the Latinx voters in Florida are overwhelmingly Catholic.

Also remember how Trump treated Puerto Rico following hurricane Maria. Doesn't 2017 seem like an eternity ago?

Yep. Another wild card -- how much Puerto Ricans and other Latinx remember how Trump treated PR. You'd think they would have a long memory about something like this, but who knows?

2nd wild card, the recent re-emancipation of people formerly convicted of felonies. Not sure what kind of voting block this could be in terms of size, but in Florida it seems like any number of voters swinging in one direction or the other is important (this assumes there is some discernable advantage to one party or the other of the 'former felon' voting block, which may or may not be the case.)

[MDM]

(this assumes there is some discernable advantage to one party or the other of the 'former felon' voting block, which may or may not be the case.)

Might depend on the political party of the prosecuting attorney. ;)

[Travis]

But why should responsible Liberals have to unilaterally disarm?

It's not realistic to expect them to win power without getting to enjoy using the levers of power to hold it the way Republicans so blatantly do.

Reid and Pelosi did that the last time they regained both chambers. They went on a two year victory lap and didn't do nearly as much as they could have.

[Norioch]

For most of those two years, the Republican minority in the Senate just filibustered everything Democrats tried to do. Democrats had the ability to actually pass legislation for less than two months.

[Norioch]

Trump Ordered CIA to Share Intel with Russia ‘Despite No Discernible Reward’

[LennStar]

The long-term way out is somehow to de-program the other side, to get people who disagree with you to somehow see that you're just a little more reasonable than they thought.

The Left has tried that for half a century now.

And people can get back to spending.

One of my favorite sentences of the last time:
The past month have been terrible. There were only targeted buys, no laisure or spontanous ones.

Fuck yeah! Finally people only buy what they need, and everyone whines about it!
Bloody hell, you still have not heard of climate change and resource scarcity???

[talltexan]

But why should responsible Liberals have to unilaterally disarm?

It's not realistic to expect them to win power without getting to enjoy using the levers of power to hold it the way Republicans so blatantly do.

Reid and Pelosi did that the last time they regained both chambers. They went on a two year victory lap and didn't do nearly as much as they could have.

During 2007-2008, they took an honest swing at immigration reform, and Bush even tried to whip votes on the GOP side for that (it failed). By late 2007, though, the mortgage crisis was already crystallizing into view. We had no idea it would cause the worst financial shock in eighty years at that point, yet.

[Travis]

But why should responsible Liberals have to unilaterally disarm?

It's not realistic to expect them to win power without getting to enjoy using the levers of power to hold it the way Republicans so blatantly do.

Reid and Pelosi did that the last time they regained both chambers. They went on a two year victory lap and didn't do nearly as much as they could have.

During 2007-2008, they took an honest swing at immigration reform, and Bush even tried to whip votes on the GOP side for that (it failed). By late 2007, though, the mortgage crisis was already crystallizing into view. We had no idea it would cause the worst financial shock in eighty years at that point, yet.

Could be my limited perspective at the time or just highlighting what bugs me, but I remember Reid doing his fair share of stonewalling running the Senate like McConnell has been doing the last few years, and Pelosi becoming Speaker was the first I'd seen of her rhetoric style. It still comes off to me as looking for petty headlines most of the time.

[talltexan]

@Travis a lot of people use this kind of "both-sides-ism" as a shorthand to conclude they don't need to worry about this or that issue in politics. My guess is that--like many of us here--you want to take a thoughtful approach to the issues and allow yourself to be persuaded by whichever side seems to have the more coherent argument in each case.

Part of that is attempting to stake yourself in advance to a position based on the logic and principles you wish to bring into these discussions...so, when the dust settles and we have a 2021 government (whoever that may be), which do you prefer: a Senate that serves as the lapdog to our executive, or a Senate that will supervise and check the executive? And why?

[OtherJen]

Orange Foolius is melting down on Twitter in the aftermath of this morning's SCOTUS ruling on his financial records.

He'd have lost regardless, but it must sting that both of his appointees sided with the majority.

[OtherJen]

Also, here's his statistical logic on increasing COVID-19 case numbers from this morning:

For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!

(Source: Twitter)

Seriously, just put his photo on the Wikipedia page for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

[nereo]

Here the marriage itself was restricted to the legally required minimum - the spouses, the government worker doing the ceremony/paperwork and the witness.
Which was already more than the "only one person from a different household" rule normally in place.

In an interview yesterday, July 1, Trump said:

“I think we’re gonna be very good with the coronavirus,” he said. “I think that at some point that’s going to sort of just disappear, I hope.”

He is totally right. You are very good with the virus, leading the world in infection rates. If that goes on, at the end of the year you will be the only country with herd immunity!

I realize this is said in jest, but people hoping for quick ‘herd immunity’ sans virus don’t have a great understanding of how many people are in this country.

Even with infection rates of 100k/day (double our yesterday’s high-water mark of 50k) it would take over 8 years to get there.  To reach heard immunity by ‘the end of the year’ infection rates would need to exceed 1MM/day - at which point we’d simply be measuring ‘thousands of deaths per hour’.

Compound interest. Without any measures the number of infections can easily double each week (I think it was 3.2 days in Italy) One million per day is only a month away.

I believe you misunderstood the purpose of my post.
A not-uncommon refrain among the political 'Right' here is that lock-down measures only delay us achieving herd immunity, and the sooner we reach herd immunity the sooner everything goes back to "pre-Covid normal."

That argument falls apart when one looks at how many people would need to become infected in a relatively short period of time (e.g. several months).    While 1MM+ cases per day might be mathmatically possible with exponential growth (not "compound interest") - Bloop Bloop is probably correct that such calculations ignores human behavior; even without public orders most people will go into complete lockdown with anything approaching those numbers. More to the point, though, is that at those levels we would so thoroughly overwhelm our systems top-to-bottom that the whole system would shut down.  In short: wishing for quick herd immunity is absurd, and dangerous.

[Glenstache]

Also, here's his statistical logic on increasing COVID-19 case numbers from this morning:

For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!

(Source: Twitter)

Seriously, just put his photo on the Wikipedia page for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

His idiocy would be funny if it wasn't also at least partly responsible for hundreds of thousands of Americans dying. Sadly, many people continue to believe the chaff that comes out of Trump regarding the virus and we are paying a collectively high toll. The toll from Covid was going to be high no matter what, but it just didn't have to be this bad in so many ways.

[ixtap]

Also, here's his statistical logic on increasing COVID-19 case numbers from this morning:

For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!

(Source: Twitter)

Seriously, just put his photo on the Wikipedia page for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

So glad he only said it 1/100th of a time.

[OtherJen]

Also, here's his statistical logic on increasing COVID-19 case numbers from this morning:

For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc. NOT REPORTED!

(Source: Twitter)

Seriously, just put his photo on the Wikipedia page for the Dunning–Kruger effect.

So glad he only said it 1/100th of a time.

Truly, it's covfefe logic. Tremendous.

[talltexan]

I guess I don't see what there is to celebrate about the SCOTUS ruling today. Did SCOTUS basically limit the ability of Congress to oversee its own taxation powers?

[sherr]

I guess I don't see what there is to celebrate about the SCOTUS ruling today. Did SCOTUS basically limit the ability of Congress to oversee its own taxation powers?

I assume you mean "subpoena powers".

It resoundingly rejected the argument that the President is untouchable while in office (worth celebrating from purely a rule-of-law perspective), but then in both of Trump's cases remanded the issue back down the the lower courts for further consideration. Which will give Trump plenty of opportunity to stall until the election is over. It was a punt until after the election. SCOTUS doesn't want to look like it's playing favorites apparently (well, 7/9 anyway). Also the fact that both of Trump's appointees voted against him is hopeful from a rule-of-law perspective.

So while it's perhaps not worth "celebrating", it's also not nearly as bad as it could have gone.

[brandon1827]

The SDNY can move forward with their investigations and Deutsche Bank has said that they will comply and turn over the documents they have. Congress won't get to see the returns any time soon as they hoped, but SDNY will have them pretty soon. It's a political "win" for Trump in the short term, but a legal loss in that he can be prosecuted once he leaves office.

[Glenstache]

The SDNY can move forward with their investigations and Deutsche Bank has said that they will comply and turn over the documents they have. Congress won't get to see the returns any time soon as they hoped, but SDNY will have them pretty soon. It's a political "win" for Trump in the short term, but a legal loss in that he can be prosecuted once he leaves office.

At least Trump pre-emptively strongly signaled to the SDNY that there will be retaliation from the white house if you pursue cases inconvenient to them. When do we think that Barr will step in to say that the investigation is not worth pursuing?

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

But why should responsible Liberals have to unilaterally disarm?

It's not realistic to expect them to win power without getting to enjoy using the levers of power to hold it the way Republicans so blatantly do.

1. because life isn't fair.
2. If the GOP loses the Senate majority, then those levers of power won't necessarily leave the hands of the left with a narrowed executive. However, that will also involve somehow getting congress to be more functional than it is right now. For that we need people who are actually good politicians who can work with others.

I probably want something as a democratic process that may be unrealistic in the near future in our current political environment.

I 110% agree with this general principle. The pendulum will swing with greater and greater intensity to the right and left as long as extreme power is held in the executive branch. This is above and beyond unilateral disarmament. I'm not talking about things like eliminating the filibuster in the Senate or others like that that make it easier for one party with control of the presidency and the Senate or both houses to get things done. This could be argued as the Democrats have to do this to keep up with Republicans when they do it or whatnot - at least they're doing it unified between the legislative and executive branches. I'm specifically talking about the incredible increases in executive power that have only increased from Bush through Obama and now to incredible levels with Trump. It's insanely risky for one person to hold power like that. People talk about what Trump has exposed in his supporters or this or that, and a lot has come out. If nothing else, though, Trump has exposed the need to remove the almost absolute power from the hands of a single person, and someone's got to take the first step.

[talltexan]

If Trump were to win re-election, would this truly be exposed? Would it mean that a governing coalition of states approved this remarkable amassment of power?