U.S. Politics. Next?

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

thanks for the explanation.  I totally forgot about the 2010 filibuster.  And I suppose the chance that progressive legislation makes it through via a flattered, pliable Trump is probably low in that case.   Though it would raise an interesting conundrum for the Reps I think.  Would they push as hard against economically liberal policy with a (at least nominally) GOP president signing off on it?  Would that look really bad if they were seen to be holding up their party's president from passing the sort of legislation he'd essentially campaigned on?

Usually the conventional wisdom is that the President and his party take credit for and benefit from popular legislation getting passed.  So IF Democrats were to put together some very liberal bills that are nonetheless popular, it is possible that Republicans would go along with it and sign them.  Then Trump could say "See, I'm a moderate!" which he loves.  He'd also undoubtedly get a ton of good press about his bipartisanship. 

This fact indicates that I'm doubtful that Democrats would do it.  It's hard to come up with something that would be worth it for Democrats electorally.  Infrastructure wouldn't be worth it.  Perhaps a clean DACA bill, but I'm not sure Trump would sign it, and I'm not sure Republicans wouldn't filibuster.  Carbon Cap and Trade, maybe?  No way Trump signs that. 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

I'll be honest, I'm disappointed by the lack of pig-fucking it seems to contain so far.

 

It does contain a full account of the screwing over of Bannon 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

 Would they push as hard against economically liberal policy with a (at least nominally) GOP president signing off on it?  Would that look really bad if they were seen to be holding up their party's president from passing the sort of legislation he'd essentially campaigned on?

I think ultimately GOP politicians are beholden to the GOP donor class. And that donor class will put up with an ignorant, authoritarian and racist buffoon, so long as he serves their purposes.

The moment he doesn't they will drop him like third period french, declaring he was never a conservative just like them. And I think they could care less about what promises Trump made. In fact, they'd just probably rewrite history and say he never said those things and get believed by large parts of their base.

When this night mare ends, Republicans and conservatives may try to disown Trump. But, they cannot be permitted to do that. They created and nurtured this monster.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I sure hope someone files a complaint with whatever Bar Association WH counsel Don McGahn belongs to about his ethics.

And that comment about 'Comey was a rat, did you see what Dean did to Nixon' sure sounds like Trump. And speaking of complaints to bar associations, in Rosenstein took part in digging and releasing dirt on Comey, or ordering others to do it, he needs to be fired.

BIRDY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you forgetting the externalities of this course of action?????????????????

[butterbumps!]

 

26 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Usually the conventional wisdom is that the President and his party take credit for and benefit from popular legislation getting passed.  So IF Democrats were to put together some very liberal bills that are nonetheless popular, it is possible that Republicans would go along with it and sign them.  Then Trump could say "See, I'm a moderate!" which he loves.  He'd also undoubtedly get a ton of good press about his bipartisanship. 

This fact indicates that I'm doubtful that Democrats would do it.  It's hard to come up with something that would be worth it for Democrats electorally.  Infrastructure wouldn't be worth it.  Perhaps a clean DACA bill, but I'm not sure Trump would sign it, and I'm not sure Republicans wouldn't filibuster.  Carbon Cap and Trade, maybe?  No way Trump signs that. 

I was thinking some audacious ones, like a real infrastructure one and single payer health care, raising minimum wage, child care, free college, perhaps even universal basic income, if we really want to run wild.  I think anything relating to immigration and the environment would be non starters, but am curious if the economic populism ones-- especially the ones that align with his campaign promises-- would have a chance.

25 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think ultimately GOP politicians are beholden to the GOP donor class. And that donor class will put up with an ignorant, authoritarian and racist buffoon, so long as he serves their purposes.

The moment he doesn't they will drop him like third period french, declaring he was never a conservative just like them. And I think they could care less about what promises Trump made. In fact, they'd just probably rewrite history and say he never said those things and get believed by large parts of their base.

When this night mare ends, Republicans and conservatives may try to disown Trump. But, they cannot be permitted to do that. They created and nurtured this monster.

I agree they own this mess, but I'm curious if this might tie some legislators hands and get some radical stuff passed, perhaps even more than having Dem majority all across the board later on, because Trump would be nominally GOP, and they can't be that obstructive against their own pres the way they could with a Dem.  Like Tywin said upthread, it would cause an implosion.  So that could kind of be a win-win for Dems- either their agenda is let through and tons of people benefit, or it causes GOP self-destruction.

[Fragile Bird]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

BIRDY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you forgetting the externalities of this course of action?????????????????

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. 

I know there is worry that if Rosenstein were fired, he would be replaced with a Trump worm, but the Trump worm would have to be confirmed. Do you think the Senate has changed so much they would confirm a worm? One who will fire Mueller?

Do you think Rosenstein organizing a smear campaign against Comey was ok?

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 

I was thinking some audacious ones, like a real infrastructure one and single payer health care, raising minimum wage, child care, free college, perhaps even universal basic income, if we really want to run wild.  I think anything relating to immigration and the environment would be non starters, but am curious if the economic populism ones-- especially the ones that align with his campaign promises-- would have a chance.

I think infrastruture would help Trump too much, I'm very doubtful Democrats will actually push for that.  A lot of those Democrats couldn't get the votes for - single payer, free college, universal basic income are not going to get votes from guys like Manchin and Tester.  Of your list I'd say raising the minimum wage (and indexing it to inflation) would be one real possibility.  But I suspect Trump would say "I won't sign it", and then ask the Senate to filibuster to protect him from having to veto such a popular bill. 

[Mindwalker]

It may be old news for most of you, but was really interesting for me: The story of James Risen and how the Bush administration, togerther with the NYT, kept him from publishing that story about the government spying on its citizens. Also, how the Bush and Obama admins persecuted him for his Iran story...

  https://www.democracynow.org/

To me, the most shocking thing is how the so-called free press is happy to suppress the truth...

[Fragile Bird]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think infrastruture would help Trump too much, I'm very doubtful Democrats will actually push for that.  A lot of those Democrats couldn't get the votes for - single payer, free college, universal basic income are not going to get votes from guys like Manchin and Tester.  Of your list I'd say raising the minimum wage (and indexing it to inflation) would be one real possibility.  But I suspect Trump would say "I won't sign it", and then ask the Senate to filibuster to protect him from having to veto such a popular bill. 

Uhhhhhhh.....do you really think that Trump is going to suggest a trillion be spent of infrastructure by the government, which he talked about in his campaign, and make him look like a shining star? That money went to the .1% in the tax bill. He's going to suggest that $200 billion be spent and the rest be coughed up the private sector, with the private sector owning the infrastructure. ie toll roads and toll bridges are going to become a big part of your life for the next 20 years. The Democrats are not going to support that, and it's not going to be because they don't want Trump to look good. 

[butterbumps!]

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think infrastruture would help Trump too much, I'm very doubtful Democrats will actually push for that.  A lot of those Democrats couldn't get the votes for - single payer, free college, universal basic income are not going to get votes from guys like Manchin and Tester.  Of your list I'd say raising the minimum wage (and indexing it to inflation) would be one real possibility.  But I suspect Trump would say "I won't sign it", and then ask the Senate to filibuster to protect him from having to veto such a popular bill. 

Oh- why would Trump not want to sign something that would be popular?  I think what you describe would be how a regular Republican president might do it, but I don't think Trump has the idealogical impetus to reject it.   I suspect Trump would want to sign off on most of the items I'd listed, if flattered into it by the Dems, b/c they'd be popular and because doing so would give him wins (not to mention at least performative admiration and applause from people he craves it from).   I concede that the Dems aren't a unified enough bloc on some of those issues to get it passed anyway, but I'm not sure if I see Trump sending that stuff back to the Senate.  I mean I really, really think he'll sign anything put in front of him.

[Fragile Bird]

9 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

It may be old news for most of you, but was really interesting for me: The story of James Risen and how the Bush administration, togerther with the NYT, kept him from publishing that story about the government spying on its citizens. Also, how the Bush and Obama admins persecuted him for his Iran story...

  https://www.democracynow.org/

To me, the most shocking thing is how the so-called free press is happy to suppress the truth...

Are you trying to equate a concern by the US government that details being published about how they track down terrorists endangering the security of the USA with Trump trying to suppress a book about the people calling him an idiot?

[Mindwalker]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Are you trying to equate a concern by the US government that details being published about how they track down terrorists endangering the security of the USA with Trump trying to suppress a book about the people calling him an idiot?

No. My post is unrelated to the book about Trump.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Uhhhhhhh.....do you really think that Trump is going to suggest a trillion be spent of infrastructure by the government, which he talked about in his campaign, and make him look like a shining star? That money went to the .1% in the tax bill.

"That money"?  Trump cares nothing about deficits.  He'll gladly give away another trillion if it makes him popular.  Government infrastructure spending is good for the 1% and the real estate business anyway, so it's win-win for him. 

 

8 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Oh- why would Trump not want to sign something that would be popular?  I think what you describe would be how a regular Republican president might do it, but I don't think Trump has the idealogical impetus to reject it.   I suspect Trump would want to sign off on most of the items I'd listed, if flattered into it by the Dems, b/c they'd be popular and because doing so would give him wins (not to mention at least performative admiration and applause from people he craves it from).   I concede that the Dems aren't a unified enough bloc on some of those issues to get it passed anyway, but I'm not sure if I see Trump sending that stuff back to the Senate.  I mean I really, really think he'll sign anything put in front of him.

I doubt he'd sign a minimum wage bill because it doesn't help the 1% at all and the GOP donor class would hate it.  Everything he's done in the first year has been to benefit that group.  He likes winning, so I suppose there's an outside chance, but his instincts are always to screw the little guy, that's how you get ahead. 

[Fragile Bird]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

"That money"?  Trump cares nothing about deficits.  He'll gladly give away another trillion if it makes him popular.  Government infrastructure spending is good for the 1% and the real estate business anyway, so it's win-win for him.

Republicans in Congress won't pass a bill spending a trillion.

ETA: Then Trump will blame the Democrats for not voting for such a bill.

[butterbumps!]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I doubt he'd sign a minimum wage bill because it doesn't help the 1% at all and the GOP donor class would hate it.  Everything he's done in the first year has been to benefit that group.  He likes winning, so I suppose there's an outside chance, but his instincts are always to screw the little guy, that's how you get ahead. 

That's totally true, but I thought that was a function of a GOP-controlled Congress more than anything else.  I could be miscalculating, but my impression is that if you tell him he'll be loved, celebrated and canonized a national hero for instituting any of those populist initiatives (or, hell, if the NYT gives him a simple "attaboy"), he'd go along with it because it slakes his ego.  Which is as precious to him as profiteering.  

ETA:  Also, has he directly kowtowed much to the donor class?   My impression was that any deference he had to the donor class has been via Congress, in that they've presented donor-friendly legislation that Trump's signed off on, but that he's somewhat removed from them.   

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

41 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not. 

I know there is worry that if Rosenstein were fired, he would be replaced with a Trump worm, but the Trump worm would have to be confirmed. Do you think the Senate has changed so much they would confirm a worm? One who will fire Mueller?

Do you think Rosenstein organizing a smear campaign against Comey was ok?

Not at all. My understanding is that Trump can appoint an interim DAG who can fire Mueller and/or end his investigation. This person wouldn’t need to be confirmed by the Senate. Moreover, if Rosenstein is fired because of bad behavior on the job, it gives Trump an attack line that any and all of his actions are delegitimized, including the appointment of Mueller.

[Fragile Bird]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not at all. My understanding is that Trump can appoint an interim DAG who can fire Mueller and/or end his investigation. This person wouldn’t need to be confirmed by the Senate. Moreover, if Rosenstein is fired because of bad behavior on the job, it gives Trump an attack line that any and all of his actions are delegitimized, including the appointment of Mueller.

So, lol, if Trump ordered Rosenstein to gather dirt on Comey to discredit Comey and was fired for doing so, Trump could then discredit Rosenstein and thus Mueller for following Trump's orders? Lol, always possible under Trump, I guess?

But I had forgotten that Rosenstein's replacement could be appointed without confirmation, It would be a disastrous move, but that hasn't stopped Trump before.

[Werthead]

Quote

 

"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately," Bannon is reported as saying. "Even if you didn't think to do that, and you're totally amoral, and you anted that information, you do it in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet with these people and go through everything and then they verbally come and tell another lawyer in a cut-out, and if you've got something, then you figure out how to dump it down to Breitbart or something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication. You never see it, you never know it, because you don't need to... But that's the brain trust that they had."

 

Bannon's remarks are notable because they make clear that people involved with the Trump campaign saw something deeply wrong with the meeting. But they're also notable because of their role in the book: it's probably that which set Bannon and Trump on the warpath, and which allowed this book to become so important.

 

When you're doing something that even Bannon thinks is sketchy, it's probably a good idea not to do it. Although I like Bannon admitting that Breitbart isn't a "legitimate publication".

[Werthead]

Oh Jesus fecking Christ.

Quote

 

We end, as we started, not with Trump, but with Bannon. Wolff reports him speaking in the Breitbart embassy, offering his view of how the Trump presidency will end: a one-third chance Trump would be impeached and have to leave office because of the Mueller investigation; a one-third chance he would resign, perhaps because of a threat to take him down because of the 25th amendment, which gives the power for his cabinet to remove him if he is incapacitated; a one-third chance he would struggle on to the end of his term. He won't have a second one, Bannon said, according to the book.

But Bannon might, it concludes. He is sounding out ways to look at running in 2020; no longer pondering if he were president so much as saying when. He is looking at donors and considering his options, Wolff reports.

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

So, lol, if Trump ordered Rosenstein to gather dirt on Comey to discredit Comey and was fired for doing so, Trump could then discredit Rosenstein and thus Mueller for following Trump's orders? Lol, always possible under Trump, I guess?

But I had forgotten that Rosenstein's replacement could be appointed without confirmation, It would be a disastrous move, but that hasn't stopped Trump before.

It gives him an excuse with his base and his lapdogs in Congress. And that’s all that matters to Trump.

What I’ve come to learn over the last year is that no matter how much knowledge and training in political science you have, it won’t help you with Trump. You’re better off getting rip roaringly drunk and challenging your worst instincts and psychopathic behaviors.