US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, LongRider said:

Well, the reviews are fun.  My favorite one star review

1.0 out of 5 stars

Are you serious?

By D. Smith on March 5, 2009

Format: Paperback

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

Just now, Rippounet said:

I loved this one:

 

Well, I can't wait for when Moore's next book comes out.

I think he's gonna call it "Pumped For Trump".

Although, I'm thinking:

Fool me once, shame on.........shame on you...

Fool me.......You can't get fooled again!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It...doesn't though. Boeing after being slammed donated $1m to the presidential inauguration. CNN changed their coverage and their policies. Cities are already starting to buckle on the notion that they'll lose massive federal funding to be sanctuary cities. He continues to call out CNN reporters by name at rallies. He's caused a union rep to start getting death threats. People have gone in to investigate a pizza place with an AR-15. And he's not even in office yet.

Boeing is covering its' ass in the face of potentially losing a 4 billion dollar contract. Fuck them if they don't have the principles to stand behind their words. How did CNN change its' coverage in regards to Trump? They just had Robert Reich on earlier calling Trump out directly...

 http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/robert-reich-just-brutally-smacked-down-petty-and-thin-skinned-trump-for-attacking-union-head-on-twitter/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im&utm_tracker=1737131x84899

 

The death threats are unfortunate, but I have a hard time taking them seriously. I've had people threaten to kick my ass on the internet. (big shocker, right?) I know that there have been isolated incidents where folks have actually carried out those threats, but they are so rare I'm not sure they merit true concern.

 How is the Comet Pizza thing directly related to Trump? Near as I can tell he had no connection to that story. 

 

 

 

 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You're working on a basis that if someone does a bad job they don't get re-elected or their party is punished. What we just witnessed completely puts that to a lie.

I'm not sure how this makes sense.  Since the 1970s, economic voting models have told us the incumbent party is rewarded when economy good, punished when economy bad.  Moreover, they suggest when an incumbent candidate is not on the ballot, voters tend to choose in a more prospective (as opposed to retrospective) manner.  Granted, these models have been tweaked and adapted over the years, but the point is the challenger (and their party) has never even been posited to be punished - and it's quite obviously impossible to characterize Trump as doing a "bad job" in any heuristic that equates performance to vote choice.  

Further, most economic voting models did indeed predict the incumbent party would lose this cycle.  In fact, I attended a talk in September wherein Georgetown professor Dennis Quinn presented one of such "tweaked" models - integrating states' loss of manufacturing jobs as an indicator - and he predicted a Trump victory.  In a room full of tenured professors, that portion of the presentation was not well received.  All of this is not to say that Trump's victory was presumed by many (or even any) academics, but more to emphasize the contextual headwinds the Democratic candidate was inherently facing before even accepting the nomination.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And again, what we've just seen about the US election system is that half of the nation will vote for whoever their party nominates. Period. Why would you think they'll change their mind because of a disaster?

Well, not quite "period."  We know that each party will receive at least around 45 percent of the vote (and we knew that beforehand).  Where the remainder ten percent goes is very much dependent upon turnout, third parties, and campaign effects.  Plus, that ten percent is quite the difference - it's (not even all of) the margin between Obama 2008 and Hillary 2016 or Kerry 2004.  And, actually yes, a disaster will be MOST likely to move the needle with those ten percent, as they are the least likely to hold their vote due to partisanship.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

They voted in change despite having some of the best results the US has ever witnessed, and voted against a person that would continue those policies. You think they're going to change?

I am an unabashed Obama supporter.  Worked for and gave money to the guy.  But I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to IRT "the best results the US ever witnessed."  And that certainly was not the case for the voters that switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, what i think is going to happen is massive voter suppression across the board that will make the results in NC, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Iowa, and likely Wisconsin basically permanent.

Voter suppression predominately affects minority voters - so it is true it will be seen in most of those states, to an extent.  But Hillary's Achilles heel unquestionably lied in the midwest.  Some of this, particularly in Michigan, was due to a relative lack of minority support.  Was that suppression?  I'm not sure.  But it's a fair assumption that was not the main issue in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, as well as Iowa and North Carolina.  The issue is poor white voters.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You won't see electoral college removal.

On that we can agree.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The bad outcome is a state of emergency that suspends elections for the foreseeable future, and people applaud it.

I don't see how this type of reaction is helping anybody - and this is the main reason I took the time to write out such a long response.  I don't mean to pick on you, but such rhetoric is rather silly and always makes me cringe.  It is great to be vigilant in dissent towards the emerging administration, but end-of-democracy talk is losing the forest for the trees.  Let's leave the hyperbole and "end times" hysteria to the other side.  Our democracy has survived far greater threats than the likes of Donald Trump.  Plus, did you see the latest X-Men movie?  The apocalypse is a huge let down anyway.  

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

I do not see any evidence for this degree of pessimism. First, we've had authoritarian populists as Presidents before (e.g. King Mob) and nothing of the sort happened. Second, making comments on Twitter is not the same thing as sending soldiers or police to arrest people. Third, what mainly protects the social order of the US is not so much democracy as a balance of power and that is very much in place.

Okay, first off, again - Trump isn't even POTUS yet and we're seeing issues. What makes you think that when he has actual power he'll be more restrained?

We did have authoritarian, populist presidents before - but they were largely held in check by both their party and the opposition party. That isn't the case here, not remotely. 

As to the 'balance of power' - what balance do you believe is in place? And again, you're arguing that Trump won't destroy the US democracy with one breath and then stating that you hope he does so it hastens the inevitable change. Both can't be true. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 How is the Comet Pizza thing directly related to Trump? Near as I can tell he had no connection to that story. 

It started with a leaked email stolen from Podesta, and was then giving more credence by Flynn's son. Flynn has also spread various fake stories about Clinton before. To be clear, when I say 'Trump' it's shorthand for 'The Trump Presidency and administration'. So it encompasses him, Bannon, Pence, DeVos, Flynn, and any of these others.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

 

Voter suppression predominately affects minority voters - so it is true it will be seen in most of those states, to an extent.  But Hillary's Achilles heel unquestionably lied in the midwest.  Some of this, particularly in Michigan, was due to a relative lack of minority support.  Was that suppression?  I'm not sure.  But it's a fair assumption that was not the main issue in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, as well as Iowa and North Carolina.  The issue is poor white voters.

 

I appreciate most of your post, but I think it is misleading to say the problem is "poor" White voters. Education seems to have been much more important than income in this election in predicting who White voters supported, with highly educated voters actually moving toward the Democrats (though not by enough to offset other factors.) Less educated voters are going to have lower incomes on the average and have "blue collar" occupations, but that is not at all the same thing as being "poor". 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

I'm not sure how this makes sense.  Since the 1970s, economic voting models have told us the incumbent party is rewarded when economy good, punished when economy bad.  Moreover, they suggest when an incumbent candidate is not on the ballot, voters tend to choose in a more prospective (as opposed to retrospective) manner.  Granted, these models have been tweaked and adapted over the years, but the point is the challenger (and their party) has never even been posited to be punished - and it's quite obviously impossible to characterize Trump as doing a "bad job" in any heuristic that equates performance to vote choice.  

Further, most economic voting models did indeed predict the incumbent party would lose this cycle.  In fact, I attended a talk in September wherein Georgetown professor Dennis Quinn presented one of such "tweaked" models - integrating states' loss of manufacturing jobs as an indicator - and he predicted a Trump victory.  In a room full of tenured professors, that portion of the presentation was not well received.  All of this is not to say that Trump's victory was presumed by many (or even any) academics, but more to emphasize the contextual headwinds the Democratic candidate was inherently facing before even accepting the nomination.

Yes, I agree with all of that. My counterpoint is that Trump was a singularly horrible candidate that won anyway. And the economy in 2016 is not at all 'bad'. It is possibly not super awesome, but it's as good as it was in 2000 (when Bush won) if not moreso. Furthermore, economic suffering failed to predict Trump's voters particularly well in this election. The best predictor was education, followed by race. 

And again, Trump has absolutely demolished any prior norms. The idea that things will otherwise be normal afterwards is fiction. 

Quote

Well, not quite "period."  We know that each party will receive at least around 45 percent of the vote (and we knew that beforehand).  Where the remainder ten percent goes is very much dependent upon turnout, third parties, and campaign effects.  Plus, that ten percent is quite the difference - it's (not even all of) the margin between Obama 2008 and Hillary 2016 or Kerry 2004.  And, actually yes, a disaster will be MOST likely to move the needle with those ten percent, as they are the least likely to hold their vote due to partisanship. 

Actually, the difference between Obama 2008 and Clinton 2016 is the same as the difference between Obama 2008 and Obama 2012. This election and its results are different than before, with very different voting patterns and values. The reason that poll aggregators missed so spectacularly in this election was because they did not understand that this was a very different election. Continuing to believe that it wasn't ignores the facts in favor of an outcome that makes more sense to you. 

Quote

I am an unabashed Obama supporter.  Worked for and gave money to the guy.  But I'm honestly not sure what you're referring to IRT "the best results the US ever witnessed."  And that certainly was not the case for the voters that switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016.

I said 'some of the best results'. And it absolutely was the case for those voters who switched. Many of those voters who voted for Trump have healthcare for the very first time, and actually love it. Many others were workers that have their job thanks to Obama's bailout of the auto industry. Others actually have a job, which is better than they were in 2008. 

The narrative has been that a lot of poor white people switched from Democrat to Trump. That is demonstrably untrue. What is true is that a number of midwest voters voted for Trump, who happened to be largely lower-educated (but not financially badly off, and decidedly not worse than before). Some of the states that did the best since 2008 - like Pennsylvania - voted for Trump more. Florida voted for Trump absurdly more than ever before, and that was also not explained by poor white voters. Economics did not decide this election. 

Quote

Voter suppression predominately affects minority voters - so it is true it will be seen in most of those states, to an extent.  But Hillary's Achilles heel unquestionably lied in the midwest.  Some of this, particularly in Michigan, was due to a relative lack of minority support.  Was that suppression?  I'm not sure.  But it's a fair assumption that was not the main issue in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, as well as Iowa and North Carolina.  The issue is poor white voters.

There was no relative lack of minority support. There might have been less turnout - hard to say, really - but exit polls indicate otherwise. The turnout issue that hurt Clinton the most was youth turnout - where (for example) 16% of 18-25 year olds that were eligible voted. Compare this to the 30% that voted for Obama, and you see the problem. As stated before, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. 

If that goes to Obama levels she wins handily in all the states you mentioned and likely in Ohio as well. She didn't. 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I appreciate most of your post, but I think it is misleading to say the problem is "poor" White voters. Education seems to have been much more important than income in this election in predicting who White voters supported, with highly educated voters actually moving toward the Democrats (though not by enough to offset other factors.) Less educated voters are going to have lower incomes on the average and have "blue collar" occupations, but that is not at all the same thing as being "poor". 

You are very right.  Once controlling for education, income has always had very little predictive value on vote choice - and education was even more important in 2016.  It was lazy writing on my part.  But, the two are obviously highly correlated.  In fact, here's a portion of a graph I made for my students the day after the election (we'll eventually get better numbers than the exit polls, and obviously the top rows have changed as more votes have come in)...

GROUP	PCT	DEM	GOP
2012	-	51.1%	47.2%
2016	-	47.7%	47.5%
2012	-	58.6%	Turnout
2016	-	55.6%	Turnout
INCOME                                   <$50,000	-5	-8	+3
$50,000-90,000	Same	Same	-2
$100,000 & over	+5	+3	-6
EDUCATION                            HS or less	-6	-8	+5
Some college	+3	Same	-3
College graduate	+3	+2	-6
Postgraduate study	Same	+3	-5
Exit Poll Source:                      CNN.com

 

Those are comparisons from 2012 to 2016.  As it shows, Hillary lost 8 points both among those making less than $50 grand and those with High School or less.  Of course, the turnout changes (the first column in black font) reveal a huge caveat indicating the exit polls were funky - particularly since minority turnout apparently remained relatively stable.

[Kalbear]

I don't see how this type of reaction is helping anybody - and this is the main reason I took the time to write out such a long response.  I don't mean to pick on you, but such rhetoric is rather silly and always makes me cringe.  It is great to be vigilant in dissent towards the emerging administration, but end-of-democracy talk is losing the forest for the trees.  Let's leave the hyperbole and "end times" hysteria to the other side.  Our democracy has survived far greater threats than the likes of Donald Trump.  

Poo-pooing fears of authoritarian control has always happened. No one wants to believe it. 

But no one wanted to believe that Trump would win the primary, and no one wanted to believe that he'd win the presidency. I didn't think so either. I was wrong. 

Here's the big issue: the US Democracy is protected from authoritarian control in a number of ways, but not by the actual President in power. The checks on this happening are largely based around getting that person elected in the first place. Between the primary system (which tends to get more centrist people that are fairly popular in-party), the actual election (which also tends to support centrists as well as a broadly popular person), to the impeachment process (which requires a strong party and the ability to compromise), Trump has already beaten the checks against an authoritarian control save the impeachment rule, and it is almost impossible to imagine a crime that Trump can commit which would result in the House actually voting to impeach him, as it would obliterate every single congressman's career that supported Trump. 

Furthermore, at no time in US history has the president had as much personal power as they do now. The possible exception to this being FDR, who was given basically a blank check - but that was also right at the Great Depression, and everyone was interested in righting that ship. Here's what he can actually do (which is different than, say, Andrew Jackson):

• The President currently has an open state of war thanks to the AUMF that can be used to justify any action in any country provided that you can demonstrate some vague relation to a terrorist organization or enemy nation, and this has existed for 15 years without opposition. If Trump wishes to bomb Syria, he can. If he wishes to bomb Iraq, he can. If he wishes to attack Yemen with ground troops, he can. If he wishes to use nuclear weapons, he can. Congress cannot stop this. They can, at best, defund it. 
• POTUS has the NSA and the department of Homeland Security. Both answer to him. Both have very little oversight. Both operate against domestic targets.
• POTUS has the Patriot Act. 

In addition to that, POTUS has a majority in the House and the Senate that are basically invulnerable for the next 4 years. They will not lose their re-election campaigns, and it's more likely that the Senate actually goes to a filibuster-proof majority in 2018 than it is that they flip to the democrats (8 Republican seats open, 25 dem seats open). 

In addition to that, POTUS has one SC slot open along with 4 fairly conservative judges on the bench already. 

In addition to that, Trump owes his party absolutely nothing at all. His political career begins and ends where he chooses it to. His financial ties are opaque and not particularly vulnerable for anything he does. There is very little leverage anyone can have on him, and there is plenty of leverage that he has on others (as Ryan found out).

So tell me - what does successful political opposition look like?

[Kalbear]

So that's why it's hard to oppose Trump. Now here's why he's an actual threat.

• Trump has recommended curtailing first amendment rights since day one. He hates protests. He hates news. He hates religious freedom. These are things he wants to stop.
• Trump has recommended reducing rights of citizens based on their views and their religion. In the name of safety. And doesn't care about its effectiveness.
• Trump instinctively attempts to repress or punish anyone speaking against him, and encourages his followers to do the same. And it works.
• Trump threatens US citizens with deportation and removal of citizenship for doing things that he doesn't like.
• Trump happily will take bribes for favors, and openly requests this of nations.
• Trump happily will encourage illegal actions by other countries that benefit him personally.
• Trump happily will threaten people with prison for opposing him. 

These are things that have already happened, that he has stated openly and directly. These aren't veiled, or subtle, or exaggerations. Now, I'd agree that if it were some random Republican - like, say, Romney - I wouldn't be worried. The problem is that Trump is an authoritarian by nature, and he has been given more power and less oversight than any other President in living memory.

The US has survived threats to its democracy, but not without massive bloodshed. If you're cool with the notion that a civil war is a good outcome, okay then.

[ThinkerX]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, first off, again - Trump isn't even POTUS yet and we're seeing issues. What makes you think that when he has actual power he'll be more restrained?

We did have authoritarian, populist presidents before - but they were largely held in check by both their party and the opposition party. That isn't the case here, not remotely. 

As to the 'balance of power' - what balance do you believe is in place? And again, you're arguing that Trump won't destroy the US democracy with one breath and then stating that you hope he does so it hastens the inevitable change. Both can't be true. 

You might be unduly pessimistic - or, perhaps, not pessimistic enough.

 

Put bluntly - and this is something I have repeated here multiple times - The other side does not go away.

 

Going from his cabinet picks and personality, Trumps reign promises misery for about half the country.  A significant percentage of those people will take action, be it through regular channels or other wise.

 

Trump and crew appear intent on regressing the US to the late 19th/early 20th century - a period of massive social turmoil.  Workers verses owners - the Union Movement.  Women's right to vote.  Massive white on black riots happening with regular frequency.  Combined, at times, this resembled almost a sort of second civil war.  Yet elections continued throughout this decades long process, and ultimately, the ordinary people won...mostly.

 

Today we have groups like Black Lives Matters and the Occupy Movement, along with the extremely ticked off younger followers of Sanders.  Probably, those groups will be acting in tandem, perhaps even merging to an extent, inside of a year.  Remember the demonstrations these groups pulled off individually? Imagine them combined and swollen ten fold.  Imagine a million plus demonstrators, no permits, swarming into DC or other major metropolises.  Now, imagine what response the Trump crowd can enact against events like this that won't make matters far worse.   

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

Trump and crew appear intent on regressing the US to the late 19th/early 20th century - a period of massive social turmoil.  Workers verses owners - the Union Movement.  Women's right to vote.  Massive white on black riots happening with regular frequency.  Combined, at times, this resembled almost a sort of second civil war.  Yet elections continued throughout this decades long process, and ultimately, the ordinary people won...mostly.

 

Today we have groups like Black Lives Matters and the Occupy Movement, along with the extremely ticked off younger followers of Sanders.  Probably, those groups will be acting in tandem, perhaps even merging to an extent, inside of a year.  Remember the demonstrations these groups pulled off individually? Imagine them combined and swollen ten fold.  Imagine a million plus demonstrators, no permits, swarming into DC or other major metropolises.  Now, imagine what response the Trump crowd can enact against events like this that won't make matters far worse.   

Yeah, I think this is an interesting point. The way we define "Civil War" changed pretty drastically between 1860 and 1960. I'm down for a round or two of Civil Discontent. I would hope that it would fall far short of massive bloodshed, as Kalbear posits.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Put bluntly - and this is something I have repeated here multiple times - The other side does not go away.

It does when things get hard.

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Going from his cabinet picks and personality, Trumps reign promises misery for about half the country.  A significant percentage of those people will take action, be it through regular channels or other wise.

Citation needed.

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Trump and crew appear intent on regressing the US to the late 19th/early 20th century - a period of massive social turmoil.  Workers verses owners - the Union Movement.  Women's right to vote.  Massive white on black riots happening with regular frequency.  Combined, at times, this resembled almost a sort of second civil war.  Yet elections continued throughout this decades long process, and ultimately, the ordinary people won...mostly.

So 30 years of unrest, riots, and a great depression, along with massive upheaval and 1 world war along with the beginnings of a second one. Oh yeah, and we interred an ethnic group along the way. Well, that's awesome. Tell me again why I'm pessimistic about Democracy surviving?

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Today we have groups like Black Lives Matters and the Occupy Movement, along with the extremely ticked off younger followers of Sanders.  Probably, those groups will be acting in tandem, perhaps even merging to an extent, inside of a year.  Remember the demonstrations these groups pulled off individually? Imagine them combined and swollen ten fold.  Imagine a million plus demonstrators, no permits, swarming into DC or other major metropolises.  Now, imagine what response the Trump crowd can enact against events like this that won't make matters far worse.   

I imagine that. Imagine Trump supporters coming out en masse, with AR-15s, shirts that say 'your black life doesn't matter' with a bulls-eye and being told by Trump himself that these people are rioters, looters, and criminals - and are likely being paid by the Left to riot or are illegal immigrants. Trump also, in this situation, controls the police and the military. You think those millenial Sanders supporters are going to hang around and get shot at?

And when a police officer who is videotaped shooting an unarmed black man in the back and then planting a gun on him walks free, do you think that people will care when a few rioters get shot?

Here's the thing - Trump making matters 'far worse' only makes his position better. Being able to enact states of emergency, being able to crack down via police state tactics, being able to arrest dissidents on the grounds that they were conspiring to riot and cause harm - these are all things that help him keep control. And do you think his supporters are going to shy away? They're asking for this. They're begging for it. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I think this is an interesting point. The way we define "Civil War" changed pretty drastically between 1860 and 1960. I'm down for a round or two of Civil Discontent. I would hope that it would fall far short of massive bloodshed, as Kalbear posits.

I don't think that it will result in civil war or massive bloodshed. Russia hasn't. I think that dissidence in an authoritarian regime where the government has absurdly powerful means of surveillance, the ability to make people disappear without rights in a number of prisons throughout the land and people believing strongly that if something bad happens 'they deserved it' means most people will either turn their eyes away or actively support the law and order to follow. 

That, to me, is a lot more scary. I am pessimistic in that I believe that the US citizens have shown they don't fucking care about things like repression as long as it isn't personally happening to people like them. Black people? LGBT? Muslims? Fuck them. White people will support those people as long as it isn't too painful, but if it means voting for Clinton? Sorry, that's WAY too far. If they won't turn their nose and vote for Clinton, what makes you think they'll stand in a protest with them? What makes you think they'll actually stand up if they see a Muslim get detained? 

[Kalbear]

Oh hey, look - Trump has already blocked the planned protest by women on the Lincoln Memorial. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So 30 years of unrest, riots, and a great depression, along with massive upheaval and 1 world war along with the beginnings of a second one. Oh yeah, and we interred an ethnic group along the way. Well, that's awesome. Tell me again why I'm pessimistic about Democracy surviving?

Because it survived ALL OF THAT. Surely you can't believe that Trump = The Great Depression, World Wars 1-2, Japanese Internment, The Civil Rights Movement all by himself? You aren't giving us enough credit and you're inflating his threat.

Look, I agree with like 97% of what you're saying. He is terrible. He is dangerous. But he's not a threat to democracy as a whole. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Here's the big issue: the US Democracy is protected from authoritarian control in a number of ways, but not by the actual President in power. The checks on this happening are largely based around getting that person elected in the first place. Between the primary system (which tends to get more centrist people that are fairly popular in-party), the actual election (which also tends to support centrists as well as a broadly popular person), to the impeachment process (which requires a strong party and the ability to compromise), Trump has already beaten the checks against an authoritarian control save the impeachment rule, and it is almost impossible to imagine a crime that Trump can commit which would result in the House actually voting to impeach him, as it would obliterate every single congressman's career that supported Trump.

How this encapsulates all the checks on the President exercising true authoritarian control is beyond me.  Even within the list we can quibble - the primaries do not act as a control for extremism.  In fact the case could be made for quite the opposite.  The actual election also, obviously, acts as a constrain in seeking re-election - and Trump's honeymoon period is already looking shoddy at this point.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Furthermore, at no time in US history has the president had as much personal power as they do now. The possible exception to this being FDR, who was given basically a blank check - but that was also right at the Great Depression, and everyone was interested in righting that ship. Here's what he can actually do (which is different than, say, Andrew Jackson)

This is true, but it overlooks the fact the power of the office has been virtually ever-increasing since FDR.  The fact Congress continues to capitulate and the President continues to employ more and more unilateral policymaking to exact his policy agenda is indeed an alarming trend.  But I fail to see how Trump is going to be the POTUS to blow this whole thing wide open - unilateral action is still a strategic calculus, requiring the president to determine how much they can get away with before Congress and the Courts are emboldened to act.  Much more importantly, executive orders also is wholly reliant implementation by the bureaucracy.  He is going to encounter incredible resistance among many if not most policy domains in this regard.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In addition to that, POTUS has a majority in the House and the Senate that are basically invulnerable for the next 4 years. They will not lose their re-election campaigns, and it's more likely that the Senate actually goes to a filibuster-proof majority in 2018 than it is that they flip to the democrats (8 Republican seats open, 25 dem seats open). 

 

Um, what?  I agree that the GOP probably has a stranglehold on the House at least until the next census, but are you at all aware of the general trends regarding the President's party in mid-term elections (i.e. the only time the President's party has increased seats was in 1998 [backlash to GOP overreach on Lewinsky] and 2002 [9/11])?  You are right that the Dems have a tough cycle coming up in 2018, but voters are incredibly fickle with unified government and the incumbent party in general has been getting the brunt of it by the electorate since 2006.  You honestly think Trump has the ability to override such trends?

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In addition to that, POTUS has one SC slot open along with 4 fairly conservative judges on the bench already. 

Right, so SCOTUS will revert back to what it was before Scalia died.  Not saying I'm a huge fan, but oh, the horrors!

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In addition to that, Trump owes his party absolutely nothing at all. His political career begins and ends where he chooses it to. His financial ties are opaque and not particularly vulnerable for anything he does. There is very little leverage anyone can have on him, and there is plenty of leverage that he has on others (as Ryan found out).

This is a fascinating aspect to his presidency, but I fail to see how it makes him more dangerous.  If anything it makes him less so.  One way or another, he is going to need the GOP's institutional support.  And their vast disagreement on a host of his apparent policy initiatives and preferences is a great reason to not be nearly this scared.

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So tell me - what does successful political opposition look like?

One that becomes the political majority ASAP?  I'm assuming this is rhetorical, but it seems to me the ability to do so will rest on politicians and activists that can deliver grounded critiques of the Trump administration that are compelling to the majority of the country, not those that's physical equivalent is setting one's hair on fire.

[Altherion]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, first off, again - Trump isn't even POTUS yet and we're seeing issues. What makes you think that when he has actual power he'll be more restrained?

We did have authoritarian, populist presidents before - but they were largely held in check by both their party and the opposition party. That isn't the case here, not remotely. 

As to the 'balance of power' - what balance do you believe is in place? And again, you're arguing that Trump won't destroy the US democracy with one breath and then stating that you hope he does so it hastens the inevitable change. Both can't be true. 

What do you think he is going to do when he has power? Tweet at more CEOs and union leaders? And he's limited by both his own party and courts. Not even FDR was able to push Congress into granting him as much power as he wanted -- and his party had more seats in Congress and no fear of the filibuster. Furthermore, the Constitution was pretty much designed to avoid executing power getting out of hand. Most executive actions can be challenged in court and while the courts are partisan to some extent, they are not unwilling to vote 9-0 or 8-0 when something is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Because it survived ALL OF THAT. Surely you can't believe that Trump = The Great Depression, World Wars 1-2, Japanese Internment, The Civil Rights Movement all by himself? You aren't giving us enough credit and you're inflating his threat.

Look, I agree with like 97% of what you're saying. He is terrible. He is dangerous. But he's not a threat to democracy as a whole. 

Prior to this election I wouldn't have given myself that much credence, no. But about half of the US voters willingly chose to vote for Trump. That makes me sell a lot of that credit very short, yes. 

As to inflating his threat - again, I ask - how? What have I stated that is actually incorrect, factually? What have I stated which can be opposed, and what does that opposition look like? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh hey, look - Trump has already blocked the planned protest by women on the Lincoln Memorial. 

You think that's going to stand? It sounds like they are planning to put up construction tape.