US Politics: The Transition Continues

[Castel]

4 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I'm pessimistic and think Trump will more likely than not win a second term.

I think we'll throw Corey Booker, hoping for Obama 2.0 when he's more like Obama 1.57 Beta test version.

I don't think that I can say that it's more likely than not that he wins but I think people are deeply, deeply optimistic in assuming that he just naturally falls apart and someone else strolls in. I've heard this before.

 

IME it's often progressives trying to hang unto accelerationism to sort of reconcile that sick feeling in the pit of their stomach with the notion that Hillary was the Devil and nothing would change. Can't miss her so...4 years of Trump is somehow good and he'll just stroll out after his term apparently. 

One thing he'll clearly have going for him is that none of the "unprecedented" or "unqualified"  talk will basically be gone. 

[Stannis is the man....nis]

2 minutes ago, Castel said:

I don't think that I can say that it's more likely than not that he wins but I think people are deeply, deeply optimistic in assuming that he just naturally falls apart and someone else strolls in. I've heard this before.

 

IME it's often progressives trying to hang unto accelerationism to sort of reconcile that sick feeling in the pit of their stomach with the notion that Hillary was the Devil and nothing would change. Can't miss her so...4 years of Trump is somehow good and he'll just stroll out after his term apparently. 

One thing he'll clearly have going for him is that none of the "unprecedented" or "unqualified"  talk will basically be gone. 

Not a bad thing now that being in power everything wrong in this country can be put on him and dems can run on "are you better now than 4 years ago"

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

W's first term was a disaster, but he still won reelection.

It sort of helped that a lot of the disastrous results didn't hit home until his second term.

The Iraq War was bad, but I recall it got really bad in 2005 and 2006*. Then there was Katrina and "Heck of a job, Brownie!"

*To his credit, he did make it better after that.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

6 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

W's first term was a disaster, but he still won reelection.

It sort of helped that a lot of the disastrous results didn't hit home until his second term.

The Iraq War was bad, but I recall it got really bad in 2005 and 2006*. Then there was Katrina and "Heck of a job, Brownie!"

*To his credit, he did make it better after that.

Apples to oranges Bush got saved by Iraq and people being uncomfortable changing CIC if Trump starts a major war there is no way he is forgiven like Bush was

[Tempra]

9 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

This is really well said.  Thanks.

 

@Mexal - wonder if it will be a non-US brand like Intercontinental.  Need to think about standing, etc.

Any violation of the  Emoluments Clause is likely not justiciable under the political question doctrine.  Impeachment would be the only remedy.

[Altherion]

17 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I know we are both in agreement that the outrage cycle regarding Hamilton is distracting from much more alarming things going on in the Trump administration, but would you mind articulating what part of the address you believe is unprofessional, self-serving and counterproductive?

It's unprofessional in that haranguing specific audience members is not part of the job description for theater workers. It is self-serving in that they're drawing attention to themselves as fighting for the cause without accomplishing anything positive. It is counterproductive in that it serves as a useful distraction (useful for Trump, that is) and because of the issues described in this Washington Post article (i.e. celebrities are not exactly the great messengers that the left considers them to be).

17 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

About Bouie's Trump voter piece, are you in disagreement with the message (which is far more nuanced), or the title (or both)?

Mostly the title and subtitle. The "message" is a little more subtle, but it does not actually contradict them.

17 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Why do you believe it's wrong (or less effective) to advocate for more privileges (or more accurately, more "rights") for groups as opposed to a more general appeal to "civil rights."?

This is a common propaganda technique. If you're advocating for something for specific group, people outside of this group will be angry at you because in nearly all scenarios, this will come at their expense in some way. A more general appeal minimizes the number of such people and puts them in an uncomfortable rhetorical position: they're effectively arguing against equality.

[Yukle]

23 hours ago, felice said:

Is that adjusting the percentages to account for removal of candidates who'd get less than 0.5 EC votes? Yes, Johnson and Stein would have gotten a few EC votes in the bigger states, but 28 seems a bit high. I estimate about 12 EC votes would have gone to third party candidates.

But in any case, Clinton is clearly more popular than Trump even with the Electoral College weightings for individual states.

5 per cent of Presidential votes went to third party candidates. 5% of 538 = 26.9, although I did round down Clinton and Trump's votes.

[Durckad]

4 hours ago, Red Hermit said:

Trump's policy about removing two regulations for every new one is just goofy.  It doesn't take into account the merits of new regulations but just assumes they must be bad.  You may as well just ban adding new regulations if that's your belief.

Are you daring, good sir, to suggest that Trump may not have carefully considered the effects and logic of his policies?

I am shocked! Shocked and appalled at such a flagrant and unseemly accusation! You sir are no gentleman!

[Yukle]

Just now, Durckad said:

Are you daring, good sir, to suggest that Trump may not have carefully considered the effects and logic of his policies?

I am shocked! Shocked and appalled at such a flagrant and unseemly accusation! You sir are no gentleman!

PISTOLS AT DAWN!

[felice]

16 minutes ago, Yukle said:

5 per cent of Presidential votes went to third party candidates. 5% of 538 = 26.9, although I did round down Clinton and Trump's votes.

Right, that's 5% of the overall popular vote. But if you allocate Electors within a state proportionately to the votes in that state, the third party votes are often less than 0.5EC, which rounds to zero.

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

W's first term was a disaster, but he still won reelection.

It sort of helped that a lot of the disastrous results didn't hit home until his second term.

The Iraq War was bad, but I recall it got really bad in 2005 and 2006*. Then there was Katrina and "Heck of a job, Brownie!"

*To his credit, he did make it better after that.

A big part of why GWB won reelection is that 9/11 happened, which instantly turned him from an idiot-man child joke to the President everyone rallied behind.

And while he used that power to do stupid shit like invade Iraq, it didn't become obvious how bad that ended up being till after 2004.