U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love

[denstorebog]

Trump chief of staff: 'We've looked at' changing libel laws

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331299-trump-chief-of-staff-weve-looked-at-changing-libel-laws

Probably just yet another impotent threat from an administration that doesn't plan 2 days ahead, but if they ever starting going into this, it should prove equally sickening and entertaining.

[Durckad]

3 hours ago, denstorebog said:

Trump chief of staff: 'We've looked at' changing libel laws

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331299-trump-chief-of-staff-weve-looked-at-changing-libel-laws

Probably just yet another impotent threat from an administration that doesn't plan 2 days ahead, but if they ever starting going into this, it should prove equally sickening and entertaining.

The only possible upside to this would be Trump getting sued for libel over one of his one stupid, fucking, insanely ignorant tweets.

Other than that, yeah, nothing good about this. But, hey, freedom.

[LongRider]

8 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I'm not sure the pissing video would turn many Trump fans against him.  They seem to be coalescing around saying that their vote for him was the right move no matter what and they'll double-down in 2020 to prove they're not stupid you mean liberals.  

Maybe, but still, the vid, if it could be proved to be genuine, would catch Trump in a lie and put the Steel dossier in a different light.  Would certainly be interesting if it did come out.

[all swedes are racist]

it will never supplant my headcanon

[Fez]

16 hours ago, Triskan said:

I'm not sure the pissing video would turn many Trump fans against him.  They seem to be coalescing around saying that their vote for him was the right move no matter what and they'll double-down in 2020 to prove they're not stupid you mean liberals.  

Hard to say. Its well proven that many people lie about their previous votes when asked directly by pollsters; either because they backed the loser and the winner is popular, or they backed the winner and the winner is now unpopular (Its amazing how badly Bush apparently lost in 2004).

If there are Trump voters who are disappointed in him, its likely that many of them will not admit they voted for him; which is why these polls generally only find around 2% of his voters being disappointed. I don't know if there really are other Trump voters disappointed, or how numerous they might be, but there easily may be others. And its likely that some amount of the usually around 5% of his voters who answer don't know/aren't sure are also disappointed but don't want to admit it.

Also, even if there aren't others; Trump already only barely won, and him losing 2-3% of his support on its own would be enough to cost him re-election. Plus we're only 3 months in.

[Fez]

And on the policy side of things, the FY2017 budget deal has been released: https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules.house.gov/files/115/OMNI/CPRT-115-HPRT-RU00-SAHR244-AMNT.pdf

And it looks pretty much like any of the past several budgets that Obama signed. There's even some small domestic funding increases (plus a military spending increase), and no major cuts. Very few policy riders either. Clearly Democrats will be doing the heavy lifting on the vote, even though Republicans control all branches of government.

ETA: And on the current major topics of discussion: There's no funding for a border wall, no defunding of sanctuary cities, no defunding of planned parenthood, has permanent funding for coal miner health care benefits, and increases NIH funding by $2 billion (Trump wanted to cut it by $1.2 billion).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

I don't know much about Melenchon but the idea that Sanders was/could have siphoned away non-asshole Trump voters seems... unsupported by any actual evidence.

Figured I move this comment here. I'm not sure why you're saying this, it seems pretty obvious that a great number of white working class voters from the Midwest supported Sanders in the primary and ended up voting from Trump. 

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Figured I move this comment here. I'm not sure why you're saying this, it seems pretty obvious that a great number of white working class voters from the Midwest supported Sanders in the primary and ended up voting from Trump. 

Or voted 3rd party, or didn't vote.

I personally know a half dozen people who fall into this category and I couldn't convince any of them to throw their vote Clinton's way.  Anecdotal, but still...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Or voted 3rd party, or didn't vote.

I personally know a half dozen people who fall into this category and I couldn't convince any of them to throw their vote Clinton's way.  Anecdotal, but still...

Same here. It was really widespread in the Twin Cities. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 4/28/2017 at 7:08 PM, Fragile Bird said:

Trump wants to put a wall around the Board??? Man, we have a lot more influence than I ever dreamed possible!

Best grammar error/Freudian Slip of all time! 

[Ice Queen]

On 4/29/2017 at 9:11 PM, Nasty LongRider said:

June 14 would be a good day.   Flag day and Trump's birthday!   What a pisser of a day that would be.   

It's my birthday too. You have no idea how painful that is.  

On the other hand, it's also Boy George's birthday, so I'll just crank some Culture Club and try to forget about the other one. LOL

[DMC]

36 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Or voted 3rd party, or didn't vote.

I personally know a half dozen people who fall into this category and I couldn't convince any of them to throw their vote Clinton's way.  Anecdotal, but still...

It's pretty hard to argue against this just looking at the top-of-the-page results.  In 2012, Obama-Romney went 51.1 to 47.2.  In 2016, Clinton-Trump went 48.3 to 46.2.  Of the ~ 4 percent of the electorate that shifted from an establishment to a third party, the Democrats lost nearly 3/4ths of those votes.  That's how you lose an election in the polarized era.

Turnout is trickier.  Actually, according to McDonald's (whom I respect) site, VEP actually increased from 58.6 to 60.2 from 2012 to 2016.  Of course, it's the composition of the electorate that matters - plus the 2016 denominator there is based on extrapolated data.  Did turnout among uneducated white voters increase so they were a significantly larger share of the electorate than more reliably Democratic constituencies?  The exit polls kinda say this happened (but also kinda says it didn't), so I'd wait for better data like the ANES (or the GSS).  Come to think of it, the ANES should be out by now but I've been, well, busy.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

So one has to pass a U.S. History test to get citizenship, but alas the same is not true of the Presidency...

 

[Fez]

Talk about a complete messaging failure by the Democratic party.

Quote

42 percent of Obama-Trump voters said congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump. (Forty percent say that about congressional Republicans.) A total of 77 percent of Obama-Trump voters said Trump’s policies will favor some mix of all other classes (middle class, poor, all equally), while a total of 58 percent said that about congressional Democrats.

 

[Real Heir of Bear Island]

So is he saying that Andrew Jackson would have successfully convinced the South to do away with slaves or the North to keep them? I guess it depends in which rally he is speaking.  The level of incompetence is actually shocking. People joked about Bush being dumb or ignorant of fact. I myself thought Trump would be incompetent. But I mean the guy is rich and has his names on a bunch of building. Surely he's not that stupid. Right? 

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Real Heir of Bear Island said:

So is he saying that Andrew Jackson would have successfully convinced the South to do away with slaves or the North to keep them? I guess it depends in which rally he is speaking.  The level of incompetence is actually shocking. People joked about Bush being dumb or ignorant of fact. I myself thought Trump would be incompetent. But I mean the guy is rich and has his names on a bunch of building. Surely he's not that stupid. Right? 

Given Andrew Jackson was a prolific slave owner, I'd say the latter. But honestly, he has no idea because he doesn't actually know anything.

[The Mance]

3 minutes ago, Real Heir of Bear Island said:

But I mean the guy is rich and has his names on a bunch of building. Surely he's not that stupid. Right? 

My estimation of Trump has always been that he is only barely smart enough to have figured out who to put in charge of hiring the actual smart people to manage his money.

[Maithanet]

I've read serious historians who thought that if the North-South divide had come to a head a bit earlier that Andrew Jackson was so well respected nationally that he could have brokered a deal that averted war.  Such a hypothetical deal would undoubtedly be papering over the divisions regarding slavery/abolitionism, rather than actually solving them, and a Civil War probably would have just happened in the 1870s instead, but whatever.  On the sliding scale of stupid things Trump has said, this is pretty damn low on the list. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've read serious historians who thought that if the North-South divide had come to a head a bit earlier that Andrew Jackson was so well respected nationally that he could have brokered a deal that averted war.  Such a hypothetical deal would undoubtedly be papering over the divisions regarding slavery/abolitionism, rather than actually solving them, and a Civil War probably would have just happened in the 1870s instead, but whatever.  On the sliding scale of stupid things Trump has said, this is pretty damn low on the list. 

Why was there a Civil War? People don't ask that question? 

It might not rate on a sliding scale, but that is pretty damn stupid.

[Real Heir of Bear Island]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Given Andrew Jackson was a prolific slave owner, I'd say the latter. But honestly, he has no idea because he doesn't actually know anything.

But HOW!? How can the President be so damn clueless. And worse, why don't we have several millions of apologies for the idiots who voted him in? (Good friends and family members of mine included in the aforementioned figure)

Based on my understanding, people voted for Trump despite his lack of experience governing because:

Reason 1) He is rich, and wouldn't be susceptible by special interest groups. 

Result 1) He has pandered to pharmaceutical companies, the NRA, Oil and Coal industries. 

Reason 2) Is a good negotiator.

Result 2) Has not been able to negotiate anything with China, Mexico, the pharmaceutical companies or even his own party to get a boarder wall in teh budget or the Obama care repeal signed. 

5 minutes ago, The Mance said:

My estimation of Trump has always been that he is only barely smart enough to have figured out who to put in charge of hiring the actual smart people to manage his money.

Your comment is a perfect to set up reason 3) He knows how to hire good people and will find the best people to do the stuff he doesn't know how to do. 

Result 3) This has been his biggest disaster. He's had to fire several aid and reassign a bunch. Some are being investigated and others have proven to be incompetent. Did anybody see his one page tax outline on the back of a napkin? When asked to elaborate on the tax brackets they couldn't because they didn't figure it out yet!

At this point in his Presidency, Obama had legislation passed that ended up saving the US economy.