U.S. Politics: Houston Avoids Second Disaster

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

There's a difference between 'not eligible' and 'banned for no good reason'.

Not even banned, literally kicked out is what they were attempting. Cause these people were already serving. They were never not eligible till now.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Why didn't that happen last time? Yes, he won by slim margins, but why will those margins change? The people that voted for him are going to be energized by the anti-trump crowd. Anti-Trump isnt' going to win. It's going to have to be genuine support of a strong candidate, and probably someone who distances themselves from a lot of the stances of the current left wing of the party.

His numbers are a disaster right now. Check this recent Pew Poll:

Quote

Polling Donald Trump is one of the most difficult and confusing exercises in modern politics. In Trump, we have a guy who won the presidency by surprisingly beating the polls in key Rust Belt states, of course. We also have a guy who maintains the loyalty of his base despite major flaws that this base readily acknowledges. As I wrote in June 2016, nearly half of Trump supporters — 46 percent — said one or more of the following: He had made a racist comment, was prejudiced and/or was unqualified to be president. Not half of all voters; half of his supporters.

I wouldn't be the first to argue that those voters stuck by Trump because of rank partisanship, distaste for Hillary Clinton and emphasizing other priorities. But a new poll from the Pew Research Center shows just how conflicted Trump voters are these days about as well as any poll I've seen. And despite all those hot takes about how Trump's penchant for controversy represents some kind of multidimensional chess game, the poll shows the damage continues to be done. Trump's base clearly has reservations about him, and those reservations are causing it to deteriorate slowly — albeit more slowly than people perhaps thought.

Pew asked American adults how they felt about Trump's conduct in office: Whether they “liked” it, had “mixed feelings” or “didn't like it.” It won't surprise you to see about 6 in 10 (58 percent) don't like it; that tracks with the number of Americans who disapprove of Trump overall.

The other two pieces of the pie are where things get interesting. According to Pew, another 25 percent of American adults say they have “mixed feelings,” and just 16 percent “like” it. Only about 1 in 6 voters say they like the way Trump has conducted himself as president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/29/a-new-polling-low-for-trump-just-16-percent-like-his-conduct-as-president/?utm_term=.5a599f27952b

[aceluby]

34 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I think the reasons given are good enough for present purposes: to show that others have good faith opinions, and that by insulting them you lose the argument.

And, no.  I don't know that it's true that anyone who supports a transgender ban is a "bigot".  

But they aren't good faith opinions, which is the crux of your argument.  You've also simply stated that insults mean you lose the argument, which is just simply wrong.  If someone says the earth is flat and I call them a dumbass, it doesn't make the earth flat.

And yes, being intolerant of transgenders in the military is kind of the definition of bigotry.  You have yet to provide a single plausible reason on why that is not the case and have instead chosen to troll anyone who dares to question your statements which you refuse to back up with any actual arguments.

[DMC]

13 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Can you clarify? Will SCOTUS shut down the EO, or will it shut down any legal challenge to the EO?

Sorry - meant shut down any legal challenge.  Remember DADT survived a number of court challenges and even lower courts did not specifically rule against it until repeal legislation was already in the process of being implemented.    

What I think will happen is the the memo will be placed under strict scrutiny, requiring the DoD to articulate a compelling government interest for the ban (this may happen before the case ever gets to SCOTUS).  Which will of course be bullshit, but will probably throw the same platitudes about cohesion and readiness that the GOP used during the DADT debate.  This line of argument, by the way, has already been refuted by those involved with Obama's effort last year to allow transgender individuals to openly serve:

Quote

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, and very quickly, I understand you looked at the experiences of, I think, 18 other countries?

AGNES GEREBEN SCHAEFER: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Did any of those other nations have a problem that they felt they needed to get transgender service members out of their services?

AGNES GEREBEN SCHAEFER: So, we didn’t find any readiness or cohesion implications.

There were anecdotal concerns about bullying, but they were able to deal with that through policy changes.

The court (and, namely, Kennedy) is conservative in more ways than one.  Hopefully, in a few years whatever "compelling gov't interest" the DoD comes up with can be demonstrated more clearly to be false.  Along with increased public approval and pressure (which is already ~55-60%), SCOTUS will get around to doing the right thing eventually.  But for now I think they will defer to the military.

47 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Not even banned, literally kicked out is what they were attempting. Cause these people were already serving. They were never not eligible till now.

This is not accurate - Trump's memo appears to leave discretion (for the time being) on what to do with already serving members up to the DoD and Mattis, which has yet to be decided:

Quote

The order requires Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to determine in the coming months how to handle transgender individuals currently serving in the military using criteria including “military effectiveness and lethality,” budget constraints and law.

A White House official who briefed reporters about the memo declined to specify whether transgender service men and women who are currently active in the military could continue to serve based on such criteria.

 

[LongRider]

44 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Jesus fucking Christ... 

Don't get sucked into this as this is neither a good faith argument or poster. 

[aceluby]

13 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

No, but it might mean that your party loses the next election.

Losing an argument doesn't make a proposition false.  But it does mean you lose the argument.

Okay.  Be that way.  Let's see how it goes.

Who was talking about elections?  What kind of nonsensical shit is this anyway?  Winning arguments even though you're wrong?  Bigotry decided based on popularity?  WTF?

[Shryke]

24 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

 

This is not accurate - Trump's memo appears to leave discretion (for the time being) on what to do with already serving members up to the DoD and Mattis, which has yet to be decided:

 

It is accurate. It's what he wanted to do. The memo is the shit that ended up falling from the asshole that is the White House staff. But the original tweet is crystal clear:

Quote

After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to  serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you

This is absolutely a call to kick soldiers out because they are trans.

[aceluby]

12 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

It's not enough to be right.  You have to convince others.  And you can't convince others by insulting them, or assuming the bad faith of everyone who disagrees with you.

Assuming that the person you're arguing with always assumes "the bad faith of everyone of disagrees with" them, you are assuming they are always arguing in bad faith.  Therefore you will never convince others and have already lost the argument.

So how about stopping the charade and actually present the argument you want to present and both parties can then assume good faith in the people presenting the arguments?  I know.... novel idea.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It is accurate. It's what he wanted to do.

These are contradictory statements.  What Trump wants to do in a Tweet is not official policy - which the military made abundantly clear - and thus is literally not what the administration is attempting (although thankfully, just as with the travel ban, his tweets can be used to demonstrate Trump's intent in court).  The memo is, and it plainly states:

Quote

I am directing the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the U.S. Coast Guard, to return to the longstanding policy and practice on military service by transgender individuals that was in place prior to June 2016 until such time as a sufficient basis exists upon which to conclude that terminating that policy and practice would not have the negative effects discussed above.  The Secretary of Defense, after consulting with the Secretary of Homeland Security, may advise me at any time, in writing, that a change to this policy is warranted.

 

[aceluby]

8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

You said that something I said made no sense, and I clarified what I meant.  That's all.

You actually didn't clarify anything.  You really haven't presented anything at all.  Guess it's just too time consuming for you.

[BloodRider]

6 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

I'll let Jonathan Pie explain it to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

 

Is that because you have no thoughts but those that are pre-chewed.  Or maybe you can not articulate your own swirling thoughts of racist crap.

[Week]

2 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I tried.

Might be.  You have a nice day, okay?

Do you have a link to a 1+ hour audio or video (that you haven't heard/seen, won't describe, and then won't defend) that might be able to clarify better? Throw in a condescendingly pleasant farewell -- then you've nailed the playbook that you've outlined here.

[aceluby]

6 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Yes, I provided it top of page 3, this thread.  It's not that long, though.

This video shows some good counters to those reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvHiLLkPhQE

He may be right or wrong, but these are definitely reasons.

 

[Week]

7 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Yes, I provided it top of page 3, this thread.  It's not that long, though.

Appreciate the confirmation of your dedication. We are all impressed.

Anywho - there are more and more examples of tangible actions that Trump has made that are counter to his base -- in this case, i.e. "America First" anti-globalists

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-wont-tell-americans-how-many-troops-he-is-risking/538299/

Quote

Trump campaigned on the promise that he would seize power from globalist usurpers in Washington, D.C., and return it to the people, spending their tax dollars rebuilding America rather than investing blood and treasure in faraway war zones. Among populists, this project was sold as a return to “America First” thinking. Intellectuals in the orbit of the Claremont Institute saw it as part of an effort to rein in the administrative state. But eight months into Trump’s presidency, his administration has effectively abandoned “America First,” empowered the administrative state by ceding decision-making to generals, and undermined a basic means of democratic accountability by hiding what it is doing from the public. 

[..]

In his speech unveiling his plan for Afghanistan, Trump declared, “We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.” As John M. Donnelly observed, “In framing the issue this way, Trump conflated three things that are distinctly different: disclosing military plans; announcing deadlines for withdrawal; and informing Americans how many of their family members will be sent into harm’s way.”

Still, Trump misled his supporters about his approach to foreign conflicts, and the fact that he is now trying to keep troop levels a secret only underscores that he has perpetrated a betrayal worth concealing.

Sadly, this also references some bad behavior from the Obama administration where unintended consequences have caused issues that Trump is now taking advantage of.

Quote

As Politiconotes, “Caps on troop levels in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria mandated by the Obama administration have led to an elaborate Pentagon accounting system that conceals thousands of troops from the public.” And it goes on to report that “the discrepancy, which has come under new scrutiny amid leaks about actual troop levels, has led Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis to review the policy and promise to offer more accurate official numbers. But after Trump announced this week that his administration will not talk about troop numbers, Mattis’s initiative is in doubt.”

Unfortunately, we'll have to see what happens to see if this can be a winning issue for Democrats. Any attempt by the left to reduce overseas engagement or violence is castigated as 'weak on terror' or 'weak on the military' -- they'll need to figure out how to thread that needle or, at least, point to the danger of Trump's 'strategy'.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

This video shows some good counters to those reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvHiLLkPhQE

He may be right or wrong, but these are definitely reasons.

 

This video may or may not include better counters to those reasons, but it is much more succinct.

 

 

[Shryke]

49 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

These are contradictory statements.  What Trump wants to do in a Tweet is not official policy - which the military made abundantly clear - and thus is literally not what the administration is attempting (although thankfully, just as with the travel ban, his tweets can be used to demonstrate Trump's intent in court).  The memo is, and it plainly states:

 

No, they are not contradictory statements. We are talking about the intent of the Presidential order and what that means for those being discriminated against. This is literally what the conversation is about.

And when discussing how they are being discriminated again, it is absolutely correct that trans people are not "not eligible" for military service. They aren't even being banned from it. The President called for them to be actively removed from service. That's how they are being discriminated against.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

You guys are masochists. Why are you still feeding it?

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

The pretty consistent downward trend of of Trump's polling is not fake news.  His polling average on 538 is down 8 points since taking office.  That means of the 45% of Americans who supported him in January, nearly 20% have abandoned him.  Plenty of them are not coming back.

More importantly, Trump has not nearly hit his floor yet.  If the "status quo" continues - meaning nearly daily self-created controversies and no legislative accomplishments - he may well find himself in the mid 20s eventually.  Particularly considering if the GOP doesn't pass any tax cuts, the market will likely take a hit and the economy may well stagnate.

As to what will happen with impeachment and reelection, while this is all very premature it is fun to entertain some scenarios.  If Trump is still mired in the mid-20s by mid-2019 - and the Russian investigation or something else has provided a convincing case - impeachment may well be possible.  Sticking with Trump on the ticket at that point is an abject loser, and considering the private loathing many GOP Senators hold, enough would vote to convict Trump if it's both justified and in their interest.  Is this unlikely?  Of course, but it's certainly more possible than at any time than with any other president since, well, Nixon.

If his approval stabilizes around where it is now (~35%) once reelection approaches, then he will almost certainly encounter a significant primary challenge.  The only precedents we have for a president running for reelection with numbers even in this ballpark are Truman, Carter, and Bush I.  With Truman, he actually offered to run as Eisenhower's VP in 1947 and there was a concerted effort to have Eisenhower replace Truman on the ticket by party leaders.  Little did they know Eisenhower was actually a Republican, and the Dems renominated Truman largely because of a lack of alternative options.

Carter was challenged by Kennedy, who made quite a bit of headway and would have made quite a bit more if not for Chappaquiddick.  Bush I fairly handily defeated Pat Buchanan's challenge, but also precipitated the Perot candidacy.  Basically, if Trump is at 35 percent the GOP is between a rock and a hard place - too popular within the party to replace him and too unpopular in the general for him have a realistic shot.

Finally, if Trump is able to climb out of his current ratings and simply into the 40s - even low 40s - then he will have a shot at reelection.  This really would be quite easy for any other president, but Trump will have to seriously alter his behavior and actions that increasingly appeal to solely his base.  If Trump is in the low 40s by 2020, then the Dems will most certainly need a strong candidate with broad appeal in order to defeat him.

[aceluby]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You guys are masochists. Why are you still feeding it?

Am I feeding it, or is it feeding me? 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Trump supporters are not all the same.  There is definitely a significant contingent that have bought into Trump's cult of personality, and admit  in polling that there is nothing that would make them change their mind about the man.  But there are also more reluctant Trump supporters, many of whom are very unhappy with this string of failures and embarassments. A couple of my in-laws fit into the latter category, and while I still find their support for Dubya/Iraq to be baffling, I give them credit for admitting they were wrong about Trump. 

EDIT:  The pretty consistent downward trend of of Trump's polling is not fake news.  His polling average on 538 is down 8 points since taking office.  That means of the 45% of Americans who supported him in January, nearly 20% have abandoned him.  Plenty of them are not coming back.

I still haven't personally met anyone who regrets their decision to vote Trump, at least not enough to actually do something about it.  A couple have mentioned that they are disappointed and have given unfavorable reviews of him, but admit they'd still vote Republican next go around for reasons that end up being very uninformed and bullshit.  

That's what I imagine the polls would reflect if there is another election.  That 20% who says they've abandoned him would still vote for him because they've been so conditioned to vote for the Republican candidate even when that candidate is actively burning down their house.  They get attached to single issues, like women's reproductive control, and just go with that.