U.S. Politics 2017: He's Good Enough, He's Smart Enough, and GODDAMMIT AL, WTF WERE YOU THINKING?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nothing.

I think that Democrats might try to impeach Trump, but chances are good that they'd simply oppose him. Unless they have any chance of passing articles of impeachment in the Senate, they're not going to jump down that rabbit hole, because they saw how congress got punished for trying it against Clinton last time and would be wary of doing something that could be framed to look partisan.

The problem is that everything will now look partisan. 

Really, the only hope to get rid of someone like this at this point is a supermajority, and I don't see that happening. And if it does, it'd still be partisan. 

Yeah, I think that's certainly on the table. Just the calculus that Trump is so toxic for the GOP that you let it ride for another 2 years in the hopes that you can obtain a supermajority on the back of that.

 I hope you're wrong though. If they can manage to capture both the House and the Senate, I hope they do their level best to flush this turd. 

[GAROVORKIN]

58 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Nothing.

I think that Democrats might try to impeach Trump, but chances are good that they'd simply oppose him. Unless they have any chance of passing articles of impeachment in the Senate, they're not going to jump down that rabbit hole, because they saw how congress got punished for trying it against Clinton last time and would be wary of doing something that could be framed to look partisan.

The problem is that everything will now look partisan. 

Really, the only hope to get rid of someone like this at this point is a supermajority, and I don't see that happening. And if it does, it'd still be partisan. 

Impeach him ? On what grounds ? if they had legal ground to do so they wouldn't  have done so already? 

I think he will compete this term at the very least. But unless the Democrats can come up with up someone  the voters will vote for  and  befiore you bring him up, forget  about Joe Bidden,  he's run for the Presidency  before and failed to resonate  with the voters  nor could he muster enough support to secure the Presidential nomination of his own party.  Trump  might just end up winning the Presidency  again in 2020. I think this is not is not as far fetched as it might sound .

 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, GAROVORKIN said:

Impeach him ? On what grounds ? if they had legal ground to do so they wouldn't  have done so already? 

They already have introduced several articles of impeachment. Several times. Impeaching requires a simple majority of the House to vote on, and it requires that the speaker of the House introduces the articles to be voted on. Shockingly, Ryan isn't interested in doing that and it's almost certain that Republicans would vote against it. 

Impeachment isn't done by a legal process. It's done by a congressional one. And it does not require that a crime was actually committed.

Just now, GAROVORKIN said:

I think he will compete this term at the very least. But unless the Democrats can come up with up someone  the voters will vote for  and f befiore you bring him up, forget  about Joe Bidden he's run for the Presidency  before and failed to resonate  with the voters . He couldn't even secure the Presidential nomination of his own party.  Trump  might just end up winning the Presidency  again in 2020. I think this is not is not as far fetched as it might sound .

It's not farfetched at all; it should be expected to be the norm. There are very, very few one-term POTUS in our history. And fairly unpopular ones like Nixon and GWB still won, and sometimes won with more than they had before.

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Is the symbolism of Trump approving a measure that will lead to the killing of elephants lost on everyone?

Well played, sir.

[Zorral]

Mango Dictator is no longer silent about Franken or Clinton.  He thinks they need to be punished and removed from office and the party.  Twitters tweet eveything he thinks.  Except about himself or Moore or anyone who isn't his perceived enemy.

We are going to be forced, as women, as voters, degrees of shame, punishment and reprisal, it looks like.  There are significant degrees of difference -- as even Franken's accuser says.  She doesn't think he should leave office.

But the Mangos, the x-right, cray-cray xtians etc. will not be satisfied until the Hillarys, Bills and Als are in jail, if not actually lynched.  So how are we to deal with this?  Particularly among those of us who are too young to remember what the 1990's were like.

[Martell Spy]

Tax reform roadblocks emerge in Senate
Sens. John McCain and Lisa Murkowski have been wildcards, avoiding taking a public position on the proposal.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/senate-republicans-trump-obamacare-mandate-169764?lo=ap_b1

GOP senators lobby Trump on Obamacare mandate, markets
Republicans want Trump to get behind a bipartisan deal Sens. Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray crafted to fund Obamacare’s cost-sharing program.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/senate-tax-reform-roadblocks-168761

Pro-Obamacare group targets swing Republicans on taxes

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/pro-obamacare-groups-target-gop-taxes-247314

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well played, sir.

I used that line on so many people today at work. Not a single person got it. 

I miss politically astute working environments. 

[GAROVORKIN]

14 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Tax reform roadblocks emerge in Senate
Sens. John McCain and Lisa Murkowski have been wildcards, avoiding taking a public position on the proposal.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/senate-republicans-trump-obamacare-mandate-169764?lo=ap_b1

GOP senators lobby Trump on Obamacare mandate, markets
Republicans want Trump to get behind a bipartisan deal Sens. Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray crafted to fund Obamacare’s cost-sharing program.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/senate-tax-reform-roadblocks-168761

Pro-Obamacare group targets swing Republicans on taxes

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/17/pro-obamacare-groups-target-gop-taxes-247314

 

Trump is going have come up compromises that everyone can agree on. But it doesn't sound like he's going to be able to please enough  to get this one done. Barring some last minute miracle ,  It seems not very likely that this version of Tax reform will get by the Senate. 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

They already have introduced several articles of impeachment. Several times. Impeaching requires a simple majority of the House to vote on, and it requires that the speaker of the House introduces the articles to be voted on. Shockingly, Ryan isn't interested in doing that and it's almost certain that Republicans would vote against it. 

Impeachment isn't done by a legal process. It's done by a congressional one. And it does not require that a crime was actually committed.

It's not farfetched at all; it should be expected to be the norm. There are very, very few one-term POTUS in our history. And fairly unpopular ones like Nixon and GWB still won, and sometimes won with more than they had before.

  I don't see  Democrats getting  a  simple majority to Impeach  unless the Republican  suffer massive defeat  in next year Midterms which in which they regain control and  seems unlikely at this juncture. 

George Bush Sr being the Last Republican to serve only one term.  Another  interesting fact ,  the Democrats have failed to win the presidency  for three consecutive terms since FDR.

[denstorebog]

Impeachment would almost require that it becomes extremely clear from 2018 that Republicans are losing seats because of Trump, not because "they failed to embrace him enough". But the fact remain that 78% of Republicans are still cheerleaders for the Don, so really, what an R-Senator to do?

That said, if Dems can take the House at the very least, that will act as a massive check on Trump's power. On top of that, Trump as a lame duck president might have a weird kind of value for Democrats to get their voters engaged and riled up beyond 2020. After all, he is still going to act as a monstrous caricature even when he's less capable of acting on it. So maybe (rose-colored glasses here) a sustained Trump presidency will mean lasting damage to Republicans at state and congressional level and restore voting rights to the point where Republicans are generally fucked.

[DMC]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I miss politically astute working environments. 

Out of guilt, I attended a talk today presented by a theorist.  Thought it'd be stupid because theorists are kind of the happy wanderers in the discipline these days.  But she actually demonstrated how among charter schools, those with higher minority populations tend to have more stringent prescriptive dress codes.  This was evidence for her larger point about how "respectability" engenders unequal outcomes for our youth.  Included were anecdotes about teachers demanding 10-12 year-old female violators of dress codes get on their knees or even bend over.  At that point the talk seemed incredibly prescient.

Anyway, you should apply to grad school.

[Martell Spy]

5 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Impeachment would almost require that it becomes extremely clear from 2018 that Republicans are losing seats because of Trump, not because "they failed to embrace him enough". But the fact remain that 78% of Republicans are still cheerleaders for the Don, so really, what an R-Senator to do?

That said, if Dems can take the House at the very least, that will act as a massive check on Trump's power. On top of that, Trump as a lame duck president might have a weird kind of value for Democrats to get their voters engaged and riled up beyond 2020. After all, he is still going to act as a monstrous caricature even when he's less capable of acting on it. So maybe (rose-colored glasses here) a sustained Trump presidency will mean lasting damage to Republicans at state and congressional level and restore voting rights to the point where Republicans are generally fucked.

It's important to note that Republican Senators supported Nixon pretty much right up to the end. I looked it up when Trump started because I was curious and while I knew broad strokes, I didn't know all the details. It probably looked hopeless to 1970's liberals at the time. We are certainly in a more partisan period now and things could well play out differently. But it wasn't like there weren't partisan Republican Senators propping up Nixon a long time.

Something Larry Sabato said that really stuck with me is that Presidents tend to lose their parties many seats in congress. This even normally happens to what are considered good Presidents at the time by many. So Trump may actually turn out to be good for the Democrat party, in particular if he stays 8 years. However, I can't imagine what it will mean for the country with possible wars, nukes, immigration, etc. Not to mention, corruption among American elites may grow even more than the already high levels.

One very likely possibility is nothing happening to Trump, but many around him go to jail. Trump seems to be one that grabs all the pussy and money he can, just short of going to jail. Attempting to become another Putin involves risk. Of course if there is a large terrorist attack, all bets are off.

The Deepening Partisan Split Over Sexual Misconduct
While the leadership of both parties views sexual misconduct as a political problem to minimize, the Republican and Democratic bases could not be farther apart.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/handling-sexual-harassment-allegations/546194/

 

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

I don't expect Sessions to investigate Trump and I don't expect Congress, in the hands of the Republicans, to investigate their own President while they're in the process of trying to take away healthcare from 20 million people and pass tax reform for millionaires. I also don't believe that this will forever be the case in American politics, which it's very clear you do. So lets just agree to disagree. You keep pointing out all the times Congress allows Trump to do unethical shit and I'll keep posting links to Trump Organization shady business dealings. We'll see what happens in the future.

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm gonna challenge you on that.

Let's say that the House gets overtaken by Democrats, which is probably about 50-50 likely to happen right now. What happens then?

Let's also say that the Senate miraculously also gets overtaken by Democrats. What happens then?

"What happens then" is conditional on many factors - namely Trump's approval, the state of Mueller's investigation and all that entails, how the tax bill went, and the nature of the partisan makeup in both chambers.  Oh, and if Trump's wagging the dog escalates to military ventures at that point, which seems inevitable.

[LongRider]

34 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Anyway, you should apply to grad school.

Or not;

Quote

Republicans in the House of Representatives have just passed a tax bill that would devastate graduate research in the United States. Hidden in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a repeal of Section 117(d)(5) of the current tax code, a provision that is vital to all students who pursue master’s degrees or doctorates and are not independently wealthy.

I’m a graduate student at M.I.T., where I study the neurological basis of mental health disorders. My peers and I work between 40 and 80 hours a week as classroom teachers and laboratory researchers, and in return, our universities provide us with a tuition waiver for school. For M.I.T. students, this waiver keeps us from having to pay a tuition bill of about $50,000 every year — a staggering amount, but one that is similar to the fees at many other colleges and universities. No money from the tuition waivers actually ends up in our pockets, so under Section 117(d)(5), it isn’t counted as taxable income.

But under the House’s tax bill, our waivers will be taxed. This means that M.I.T. graduate students would be responsible for paying taxes on an $80,000 annual salary, when we actually earn $33,000 a year. That’s an increase of our tax burden by at least $10,000 annually.

It would make meeting living expenses nearly impossible

 

Tell me again Sen. Hatch, how the R's tax plan doesn't favor the wealthy?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Tax reform roadblocks emerge in Senate
Sens. John McCain and Lisa Murkowski have been wildcards, avoiding taking a public position on the proposal.

Murkowski has come out and has mostly taken Collins' position, except she has stated that if the mandate is repealed as part of tax reform, then the passage of Murray-Alexander needs to be assured to obtain her vote. Guaranteeing Murray-Alexander passage would most likely be far from assured as a separate bill, so I'm not sure if she's pushing for it to be made a part of tax reform or not.

Corker and Flake are concerned about raising long term deficits, as is, surprisingly, one of my own Senators, James Lankford. You can bet I'll be hammering his office with emails and letters over the next couple of weeks (my other Senator, Inhofe, is a fucking moron, and thinks it's funny that mandate repeal might raise insurance premiums).

McCain hasn't really staked out a position at all.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Or not;

Tell me again Sen. Hatch, how the R's tax plan doesn't favor the wealthy?

Right.  Every DGS in the country has sent out memos to contact your congressperson.  Mine held a rally about it.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Murkowski has come out and has mostly taken Collins' position, except she has stated that if the mandate is repealed as part of tax reform, then the passage of Murray-Alexander needs to be assured to obtain her vote. Guaranteeing Murray-Alexander passage would most likely be far from assured as a separate bill, so I'm not sure if she's pushing for it to be made a part of tax reform or not.

ANWR!

[Ordos]

Question: Where do you see the state of US politics on January 21st 2018? That will be the one year anniversary of the Drumpf presidency (inauguration day does not really count). These days there is always some kind of scandal or investigation.

The reason I give that specific date would be to point out to those those who keep saying Drumpf's days are numbered: Look, he has lasted a year!

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Corker and Flake are concerned about raising long term deficits, as is, surprisingly, one of my own Senators, James Lankford. You can bet I'll be hammering his office with emails and letters over the next couple of weeks.

Something weird happened during the various Obamacare repeal attempts. A Senator of Kansas voted against. I didn't see that coming, so I guess anything is possible.

[Mexal]

43 minutes ago, Ordos said:

Question: Where do you see the state of US politics on January 21st 2018? That will be the one year anniversary of the Drumpf presidency (inauguration day does not really count). These days there is always some kind of scandal or investigation.

The reason I give that specific date would be to point out to those those who keep saying Drumpf's days are numbered: Look, he has lasted a year!

Not sure anyone believes Trump's days are numbered. Think we all believe this shit is going to continue. And the state of politics is a shit show.