US Politics: The 'In His Own Words' Edition

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Not sure if anyone else posted this up here. Don Jr. and Manafort are now off the Senate Judiciary Committees Public Testimony docket, and now, in its' place we get the head of Fusion GPS Glenn Simpson. So more misdirection and trying to blame the Dems for Trumpy's misadventures, I guess.

 http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-no-public-testimony-next-week-for-trump-1500678425-htmlstory.html

[DMC]

You're all nuts.  I don't come around for around three days, and - while I've only skimmed - it seems this thread goes full on "autocracy is imminent, woe is us, let's sound the alarms."  Why?  Because Trump laid his amateur groundwork to "combat" the Mueller investigation and stated some self-evident truths about his pardon power?

I thought after the healthcare debacle it would be clear that Republican MCs still retain their own electoral interests over Trump's.  Apparently not.  If Trump fires Mueller, that takes this scandal - which, objectively, has not defined anything yet thus far - into full on Saturday Night Massacre territory.  It's then a political shitstorm that Bob Corker has specifically characterized as unimaginable.  That's the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman - with members that include Flake, Gardner, and Portman.  Trump firing Mueller is such a monumentally stupid move anyone on the left should be hoping he does it.

Then we have the pardons.  If he pardons his family members - Kushner or Junior?  Same story.  If he pardons Manafort or Flynn?  Well, mostly the same story except he'd have to be more specific in the pardon because it's clear they're being investigated for crimes far beyond simple "collusion" or whatever the fuck.  If he pardons himself?  That would be a sight to see.

Point is, he makes any of these moves, the GOP legislative agenda reaches full stop.  Any significant executive action has to deal with that much more scrutiny.  It would be incredibly stupid to preemptively blow a presidency before you even know what Mueller has on you.  If Trump actually takes any of the actions, the sky isn't falling, his political future is - because it's tantamount to an admission of guilt to 60-65 percent of the country.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

^^^^^^^

It sure as hell looks like he's lining up his shot though, doesn't it? He trying his damnedest to push the Keebler Elf out. That's the first and easiest step. I think he's going to do it. He's clearly not listening to his legal team.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

^^^^^^^

It sure as hell looks like he's lining up his shot though, doesn't it? He trying his damnedest to push the Keebler Elf out. That's the first and easiest step. I think he's going to do it. He's clearly not listening to his legal team.

I don't know.  Trying to follow his logic takes at least some hallucinogens I haven't partook in quite a long time.  If he wants to fire Sessions, he can just do it.  That, technically, has nothing to do with Russia right?  But, Sessions has the backing of the Senate.  And who's he going to appoint in his place?  How are they going to get confirmed?  Why would he do so when Sessions is about as loyal an AG as you're going to find?  And, finally, why gum up the Senate with such another distraction when they actually have to start, ya know, govern pretty damn soon?

Those last four questions is presumably what his staff has been telling him, otherwise known as rational thought.  We'll see though, I think it'd be hilarious if he fires Sessions and then somehow gets an AG confirmed that promptly fires Mueller.  Straight talk - a lot of political behavior scholarship is informed by scholars pretentiously looking down upon and concluding that the american voter is very stupid.  But they're not that stupid, other than the true believers.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

You're all nuts.  I don't come around for around three days, and - while I've only skimmed - it seems this thread goes full on "autocracy is imminent, woe is us, let's sound the alarms."  Why?  Because Trump laid his amateur groundwork to "combat" the Mueller investigation and stated some self-evident truths about his pardon power?

I thought after the healthcare debacle it would be clear that Republican MCs still retain their own electoral interests over Trump's.  Apparently not.  If Trump fires Mueller, that takes this scandal - which, objectively, has not defined anything yet thus far - into full on Saturday Night Massacre territory.  It's then a political shitstorm that Bob Corker has specifically characterized as unimaginable.  That's the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman - with members that include Flake, Gardner, and Portman.  Trump firing Mueller is such a monumentally stupid move anyone on the left should be hoping he does it.

Then we have the pardons.  If he pardons his family members - Kushner or Junior?  Same story.  If he pardons Manafort or Flynn?  Well, mostly the same story except he'd have to be more specific in the pardon because it's clear they're being investigated for crimes far beyond simple "collusion" or whatever the fuck.  If he pardons himself?  That would be a sight to see.

Point is, he makes any of these moves, the GOP legislative agenda reaches full stop.  Any significant executive action has to deal with that much more scrutiny.  It would be incredibly stupid to preemptively blow a presidency before you even know what Mueller has on you.  If Trump actually takes any of the actions, the sky isn't falling, his political future is - because it's tantamount to an admission of guilt to 60-65 percent of the country.

With all due respect, I have to go with my standby:

'You cannot out-crazy Trump.' 

Therefor, while a *sane* politician would unlikely to do any of the things on your list, Trump might, because he is that arrogant and ignorant. 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Therefor, while a *sane* politician would unlikely to do any of the things on your list, Trump might, because he is that arrogant and ignorant. 

I do not disagree with that.  I'm disagreeing with the premise that if he does any of those things, it would lead to autocracy or anything of the sort.  Rather, if he fired Mueller or pardoned his relatives, it would lead to self-invited and unnecessary political peril for his administration.

ETA:  That's my response to the recent response on the thread, or at least what I gathered from limited reading.  Now, if what he is doing was laying the groundwork for delegitimizing Mueller's findings after he publicly reveals his findings, and then pardons whomever (except himself) down the road, then actually that's good politics.  And taken right out of the Clinton playbook.

[Toth]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I do not disagree with that.  I'm disagreeing with the premise that if he does any of those things, it would lead to autocracy or anything of the sort.  Rather, if he fired Mueller or pardoned his relatives, it would lead to self-invited and unnecessary political peril for his administration.

And yet the risk is there that this 'political peril' will be pulled under the rug by Rep's who are far more concerned with keeping 'their' president in office than with saving their own hides. Because as far as they are concerned, they have no hides to loose. Their base seems more concerned with the healthcare debacle than with having a guy in office who is corruption incarnate. Add to that the "collusion is not a crime" narrative and how his followers will accept that it is completely legal to pardon oneself and legality means that there is nothing fishy with it and we are just crying snowflakes who don't give him a chance because we are still sore about Hillary.

I don't say Trump pulling a Nixon will necessarily lead to autocracy. But the possibility is definitely there. Up until now I was clinging to the believe that this administration is too stupid to be Hitler (even though they behave cartoonishly evil), but this doesn't mean that Trump can't stumble into autocracy through sheer thick-headedness and the Republicans let it pass because they don't care. The possibility is there! And that's frightening enough!

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Toth said:

And yet the risk is there that this 'political peril' will be pulled under the rug by Rep's who are far more concerned with keeping 'their' president in office than with saving their own hides. Because as far as they are concerned, they have no hides to loose. Their base seems more concerned with the healthcare debacle than with having a guy in office who is corruption incarnate. Add to that the "collusion is not a crime" narrative and how his followers will accept that it is completely legal to pardon oneself and legality means that there is nothing fishy with it and we are just crying snowflakes who don't give him a chance because we are still sore about Hillary.

I don't say Trump pulling a Nixon will necessarily lead to autocracy. But the possibility is definitely there. Up until now I was clinging to the believe that this administration is too stupid to be Hitler (even though they behave cartoonishly evil), but this doesn't mean that Trump can't stumble into autocracy through sheer thick-headedness and the Republicans let it pass because they don't care. The possibility is there! And that's frightening enough!

I don't follow this logic at all.  So, first MCs are more concerned with keeping Trump in office than their own reelection ambitions (I fundamentally disagree with that, but ok).  Then, the "base" is more concerned with the healthcare failure than having a corrupt president, which in turn allows them to allow the fact Trump can pardon himself.  If this was was the case, wouldn't the base be more angry at Trump for failing on healthcare than willing to forgive him for pardoning himself?

The only point made in the second graph is Republicans won't care if Trump leads us into autocracy.  On the whole, I disagree.

[Toth]

10 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I don't follow this logic at all.  So, first MCs are more concerned with keeping Trump in office than their own reelection ambitions (I fundamentally disagree with that, but ok).  Then, the "base" is more concerned with the healthcare failure than having a corrupt president, which in turn allows them to allow the fact Trump can pardon himself.  If this was was the case, wouldn't the base be more angry at Trump for failing on healthcare than willing to forgive him for pardoning himself?

The only point made in the second graph is Republicans won't care if Trump leads us into autocracy.  On the whole, I disagree.

Okay, I have written it kinda weirdly. My train of thought was this:

Republican politicians care more about getting re-elected than ethics -> Republican voters care more about healthcare and a vague sense of 'winning' than having corruption incarnate in office and will swallow every excuse they can come up with -> therefore it is save to cling to Trump no matter what he does. As long as you don't admit that he is a failure, he isn't. Abandoning Trump means admitting defeat and they can't possibly do that without enraging their voters. So they have to keep handing out the koolaid and pray for the best.

I'm also not really thinking that the Republican base would ever get angry at Trump for screwing them over. He blames the Dems right now for the healthcare debacle and they believe it. And if that stops working, he will blame the 'traitorous' Republicans. Though I'm somewhat optimistic that the Republicans could become more inclined to give up on Trump the moment he does the latter.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Toth said:

<snip>

Ah, that's much more clear, thanks.  I don't really disagree with anything you said.  Instead, my point is if he makes any of the much-talked-about actions before Mueller concludes his investigation, he hardens the opposition - or virtually everyone outside his base.  And, with his base ranging from 35 to 40 percent, that spells peril for the midterms and certain defeat upon reelection, at the least.

[ThinkerX]

32 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ah, that's much more clear, thanks.  I don't really disagree with anything you said.  Instead, my point is if he makes any of the much-talked-about actions before Mueller concludes his investigation, he hardens the opposition - or virtually everyone outside his base.  And, with his base ranging from 35 to 40 percent, that spells peril for the midterms and certain defeat upon reelection, at the least.

I read the 'comments' sections of a great many political articles.  These tell me Trumps base falls into two categories: 'true, pro Trump' supporters, and the 'anybody but Hillary' crowd.  The first group will stick by Trump even after he's impeached.  But those in the second group are having serious second thoughts.  These are the ones that are worried about losing their health insurance and see tax cuts for the rich as ridiculous.  Trumps support of these schemes has many wavering. 

 

Again and again, I come across members of the 'anybody but Hillary' crowd going through the same tortured logic train: 1 - Obama was bad. 2 - Trump is far worse than Obama. 3 - but the alternative was Clinton, who just might have been (less bad than Trump).  They literally cannot bring themselves to finish that train of thought (the part in brackets.) 

 

Put bluntly, Trump is in grave danger of losing the support of the 'anybody but Clinton' crowd, who are already deserting in small numbers - and they account for about half his support. This bunch is already severely ticked off at the AHCA and includes military types disgusted wit Trumps handling of secrets.  Their patience wears thin.

 

 

[Toth]

40 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ah, that's much more clear, thanks.  I don't really disagree with anything you said.  Instead, my point is if he makes any of the much-talked-about actions before Mueller concludes his investigation, he hardens the opposition - or virtually everyone outside his base.  And, with his base ranging from 35 to 40 percent, that spells peril for the midterms and certain defeat upon reelection, at the least.

Of course he does. But my point is that he will only face repercussions if the Republicans turn against him and start an impeachment.

But come on, 35 to 40 percent is a hell of a base. And at this point, given the high polarization of being for Trump or against him, I imagine Republicans to be kinda cynic about the possibility to get votes from outside this base.

I imagine that as a Republican, you have to weigh two possible options and the repercussions felt by them:

1. Allow Trump to get impeached. This means admitting defeat, admitting that the whole Trump administration was the flaming trainwreck the left portrayed it as. Now given these 30 odd percent... There are two possible outcomes for them. Either they are hardcore Trumpists who don't accept that impeachment was necessary and blame the Republicans for betraying him or they are the 'anything but Hillary' crowd ThinkerX mentioned who will loose trust that the Republicans can get shit done. Either way, the Republicans loose the trust of both groups and reelection becomes haphazard without these voters, given that the Dems will feel vindicated.

2. Support Trump no matter what happens. This means that the hardcore Trumpists keep their koolaid and the 'anything but Hillary' crowd is allowed to think that they are at least trying to get shit done. The worst that could possibly happen is that Trump blames them themselves for his administration failures and throws them under the bus, pitting the Trumpists against them and getting primaried against ultra-right stooges. But opposed to option one, it is not a guaranteed funeral. The Dems will feel somewhat vindicated here as well if Trump completely axes his investigation, but given that they would feel vindicated by option 1 as well, it is a risk that the Republicans have to take.

From my perspective, it really doesn't look good if there isn't any factor I have missed...

[ThinkerX]

Kalbear and one or two others have brought this up before, but the republican 'base' is concerned about health care, SS, and a few other big government programs and can *almost* be described as 'conservative socialists.'  Their attitude is SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and a couple other things are not 'handouts' - which they utterly despise - but rather earned rights that they paid into.  More - and this is where they disagree with the republican leadership and the 'Freedom Caucus' - they view part of the republican parties job as to keep those programs solvent, period.  Hence growing agitation amongst the republican base over repeal of the ACA and the scaling back of Medicaid. 

 

That said, these 'republican socialists' do...imply...that SS, Medicaid, and whatnot should go only towards the 'right' kind of people. 

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Kalbear and one or two others have brought this up before, but the republican 'base' is concerned about health care, SS, and a few other big government programs and can *almost* be described as 'conservative socialists.'  Their attitude is SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and a couple other things are not 'handouts' - which they utterly despise - but rather earned rights that they paid into.  More - and this is where they disagree with the republican leadership and the 'Freedom Caucus' - they view part of the republican parties job as to keep those programs solvent, period.  Hence growing agitation amongst the republican base over repeal of the ACA and the scaling back of Medicaid. 

That said, these 'republican socialists' do...imply...that SS, Medicaid, and whatnot should go only towards the 'right' kind of people. 

We'll see. They're being lied to about all of that by the President, Vice President, Congressmen and Fox News so while they might agree with what you said, they might not actually understand any of that until it actually affects them. And that could be awhile. 

In the mean time, the Trump Administration is doing everything possible to make the ACA fail so that even if they can't pass health care, they'll be able to blame the Democrats for everything that is going wrong. They've removed call centers that provide assistance to people who want to sign up, they've created 30+ propaganda videos on all that is wrong with the ACA, they've changed the ACA links from the HHS that used to point to where to sign up and instead plastered propaganda all over it about how bad it is. I just don't see people getting the point until it's far too late, similar to what happened with Brexit and the money from the EU that was promised to go the NHS which was complete and utter bullshit. These people have zero moral qualms about using full scaled propaganda to get their way and they give zero fucks about who gets hurt on the way.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, Mexal said:

We'll see. They're being lied to about all of that by the President, Vice President, Congressmen and Fox News so while they might agree with what you said, they might not actually understand any of that until it actually affects them. And that could be awhile. 

In the mean time, the Trump Administration is doing everything possible to make the ACA fail so that even if they can't pass health care, they'll be able to blame the Democrats for everything that is going wrong. They've removed call centers that provide assistance to people who want to sign up, they've created 30+ propaganda videos on all that is wrong with the ACA, they've changed the ACA links from the HHS that used to point to where to sign up and instead plastered propaganda all over it about how bad it is. I just don't see people getting the point until it's far too late, similar to what happened with Brexit and the money from the EU that was promised to go the NHS which was complete and utter bullshit. These people have zero moral qualms about using full scaled propaganda to get their way and they give zero fucks about who gets hurt on the way.

Maybe more important it seems that some here have posited that the IRS is not enforcing the mandate with a penalty at this point. I'm not sure how true that is, but if it becomes public knowledge, it will likely kill the ACA. Without young healthy folks carrying Health Insurance, the whole ball of wax is going to melt.

[Inigima]

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

You're all nuts.  I don't come around for around three days, and - while I've only skimmed - it seems this thread goes full on "autocracy is imminent, woe is us, let's sound the alarms."  Why?  Because Trump laid his amateur groundwork to "combat" the Mueller investigation and stated some self-evident truths about his pardon power?

I thought after the healthcare debacle it would be clear that Republican MCs still retain their own electoral interests over Trump's.  Apparently not.  If Trump fires Mueller, that takes this scandal - which, objectively, has not defined anything yet thus far - into full on Saturday Night Massacre territory.  It's then a political shitstorm that Bob Corker has specifically characterized as unimaginable.  That's the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman - with members that include Flake, Gardner, and Portman.  Trump firing Mueller is such a monumentally stupid move anyone on the left should be hoping he does it.

Then we have the pardons.  If he pardons his family members - Kushner or Junior?  Same story.  If he pardons Manafort or Flynn?  Well, mostly the same story except he'd have to be more specific in the pardon because it's clear they're being investigated for crimes far beyond simple "collusion" or whatever the fuck.  If he pardons himself?  That would be a sight to see.

Point is, he makes any of these moves, the GOP legislative agenda reaches full stop.  Any significant executive action has to deal with that much more scrutiny.  It would be incredibly stupid to preemptively blow a presidency before you even know what Mueller has on you.  If Trump actually takes any of the actions, the sky isn't falling, his political future is - because it's tantamount to an admission of guilt to 60-65 percent of the country.

What I don't see in your posts on this subject is any reason to believe Republicans will do anything about it. Why would this be the straw that broke the camel's back when nothing so far is? Nothing I've seen makes me believe that if Trump literally pulled off a mask and revealed himself to be Putin the GOP wowould o anything about it except to tut tut and maybe tell us that being Vladimir Putin isn't a crime.

I understand the idea that they would have to or face electoral destruction, but it's not clear to me that that's true. What are the voters going to do, vote for a Democrat? They've been told for the last 30 years that Democrats are Satan incarnate by the right-wing noise machine.

[Dr. Pepper]

That's where I am.  It's constantly "Oh, this will be too much for Republicans."  It never is.  Admitted sexual assault isn't too much, outright and proven habitual lying isn't too much, inappropriately sharing intelligence isn't too much.  There will never be a point where it's too much.  Never.  Trump knows this.  He knows he can shoot a person in the middle of Times Square and nothing would happen to him.  He's said as much, everyone who voted for him agreed and that includes Republican lawmakers.   

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

What I don't see in your posts on this subject is any reason to believe Republicans will do anything about it. Why would this be the straw that broke the camel's back when nothing so far is?

18 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I thought after the healthcare debacle it would be clear that Republican MCs still retain their own electoral interests over Trump's.  Apparently not.  If Trump fires Mueller, that takes this scandal - which, objectively, has not defined anything yet thus far - into full on Saturday Night Massacre territory.  It's then a political shitstorm that Bob Corker has specifically characterized as unimaginable.  That's the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman - with members that include Flake, Gardner, and Portman.  Trump firing Mueller is such a monumentally stupid move anyone on the left should be hoping he does it.

 

2 hours ago, Inigima said:

What are the voters going to do, vote for a Democrat? They've been told for the last 30 years that Democrats are Satan incarnate by the right-wing noise machine.

18 hours ago, dmc515 said:

If Trump actually takes any of the actions, the sky isn't falling, his political future is - because it's tantamount to an admission of guilt to 60-65 percent of the country.

 

[Wethers]

I think the contention is that, even if 65% of the country thinks he's guilty, and even if they'd rather vote for the hated (as ensured by Fox and others) Dems, maybe only 40% of them will  vote.  And if 80% of the remaining Trump angry white jihadist base votes for Trump, and are concentrated in the swing states, Trump still wins.  And the few moderate Republicans who go against Trump get primaried out, again because Trump's base turns out disproportionately on Election Day.

I'm not certain that I agree with that contention, but I think it's possible, and it is what I fear.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Wethers said:

I think the contention is that, even if 65% of the country thinks he's guilty, and even if they'd rather vote for the hated (as ensured by Fox and others) Dems, maybe only 40% of them will  vote.  And if 80% of the remaining Trump angry white jihadist base votes for Trump, and are concentrated in the swing states, Trump still wins.

While it's true 40 percent turnout is about right in midterms, and Dems have a disadvantage in midterm turnout, 35-40% overall approval of the incumbent inexorably spells significant loss for the incumbent's party.  We'll know more, obviously, as the election approaches since (good) polling narrows down to likely voters.  That being said, if he's still at those rates come next year this time, the GOP is in big trouble.

12 minutes ago, Wethers said:

And the few moderate Republicans who go against Trump get primaried out, again because Trump's base turns out disproportionately on Election Day.

If moderate Republicans get primaried out in purple states/districts, that's an advantage to for the Dems.  This played out in 2010.  If moderate incumbent GOP members get ousted in solidly red states, well, that has no bearing on the composition of either chamber.