U.S. Politics: You Didn't Think It Would Be So Easy, Did You?

[Jace, Extat]

9 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

 

I'm just sick of everyone kowtowing to these GOP threats.  They will fuck everyone over whether or not we play nice.  Fuck any strategic consideration based on not antagonizing them.

 

 

Throughout history do we see more victories from those who coalesce around a functional plan of operations, or those who lash out indiscriminately with no broader strategy?

I agree wholeheartedly that democrats are on the whole a terrible group of people to have to work with. They're whiny, arrogant, insufferable, and maddeningly self-righteous. But you go to war with the soldiers you have.

So on one hand we have the option of delaying immediate (ultimately ruinous) gratification in service of long term benefits (possibly (but not really) including the salvaging of a democracy) while organizing the disparate factions of the Big Tent against Trumpian politics.

And on the other we have "Fuck any strategic consideration based on not antagonizing them."

One of them is certainly bolder than the other.

[Mexal]

Murderous dictators going to murder.

 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

@DMC aren't you usually advocating taking advantage of any procedural shit before it gets nukes by the other side?  The fucking GOP has shown they will pull this shit whether or not Trump is impeached or not. 

They did not impeach Obama.  

I'm for it when it seems clear they're gonna go all banana republic.  But if they haven't yet?  No, not if it's a legit protection (and once again, the obligatory, if it's just a political move).  As for changing SCOTUS, I agree with that both because it's plainly not going to be a protection for the Dems in its current state for at least a very long time and because it's the right thing to do.  I'm against abolishing the legislative filibuster, because it's still a protection.  Hope that helps clarify my thought process.

18 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

'm not even that sold on impeachment, but they need to get Mueller to testify before the house.

I agree they should subpoena him, and I'm sure he'd comply.  I liked Noah's line last night on Daily Show regarding Mueller's comments on not wanting to testify - spoken like a guy who has non-refundable vacation tickets.

[Martell Spy]

Trump Now Says, Not at All Hysterically, He’s Going to Slap Tariffs on Mexico Over Illegal Immigration

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/trump-mexico-tariffs-illegal-immigration-what.html

Quote

On Thursday, Donald Trump got on the horn and tweeted the U.S. into another trade war, this time with southern neighbor Mexico. Trump announced that in 10 days’ time he will impose a 5 percent tariff on goods coming into the U.S. from Mexico as punishment for what he sees as insufficient help in stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Mexal said:

This is a fair worry but unless they actually make a case and get public support, they won't have the votes. Impeachment doesn't just happen in a vacuum.

True, but I think DMC laid out a better route. A soft impeachment approach is probably wiser than laying that down as your opening marker.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, DMC said:

You want it to be as highly salient as possible, Comey showed that in spades.  There's plenty of behavioral research on this.

I know this. Again I did double major in poli sci and psych, and have over 1,000 lab hours logged. The lab I referenced was focusing on romantic relationships and how they react to positive and negative stimuli from internal and external sources. Normally I wouldn’t apply that directly to politics, but Trump offers a unique dynamic. Jace is right to call Trump “Daddy,” because that’s how his supporters view him, at least in some sense. The base and Trump are in some type of love affair, which leads me to believe the party will react exactly like a partner who is being told that their spouse is no good. They will further bond with him.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 hours ago, Mexal said:

2. Congress has power of the purse. They've refused to fund certain things and Trump has gone around them, invoking archaic clauses or just fucking doing whatever he wants. And even that hasn't stopped him from being corrupt, his Cabinet from being corrupt and from him committing potential federal crimes. The power of oversight has been great so far. Executive branch has refused all interviews, refused to provide pretty much all documentation and ignored every subpoena. The only win was Schiff getting counterintelligence info in regards to Russia and we're unlikely to ever really see the results of that. Interstate commerce? Any regulation there has to go through Senate so kiss that good bye.

Mexal,

Trump bypassed Congress using the “Emergency Power’s Act”.  It’s still up in the air as to whether or not his invocation of the EPA is proper in the context of his “wall”.  What is worse is that he’s also using the EPA for his tariffs on China, Mexico, etc.  If I had my druthers Congress should simply repeal that grant of discretionary power to the President.  You might actually get some Republican support for that in the Senate and it doesn’t require a supermajority to pass like the veto override.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The lab I referenced was focusing on romantic relationships and how they react to positive and negative stimuli from internal and external sources. Normally I wouldn’t apply that directly to politics, but Trump offers a unique dynamic. Jace is right to call Trump “Daddy,” because that’s how his supporters view him, at least in some sense. The base and Trump are in some type of love affair, which leads me to believe the party will react exactly like a partner who is being told that their spouse is no good. They will further bond with him.

First, if you've spent that much time in a lab you should know it's very bad practice to project the results of an experiment onto an entire different topic (and indeed, entire different discipline).  Lab experiments have enough external validity problems.  Second, this dynamic you're referring to seems like some weird transference.  You posit Trump supporters have some type of romantic feelings for him, then refer to the supporters viewing him as "Daddy."  Just because him and Ivanka appear to have some weird Freudian relationship (and I'd argue that only goes one way - from dad to daughter, whereas the relationship your suggesting seems to be something of the inverse) does not mean it has anything to do with Trump supporters. 

Third, back on topic, the point of all this wouldn't be to appeal to Trump supporters that have..any type of such a close connection with him.  Obviously, those people are going to vote for him.  As always, you're trying to appeal to persuadable voters, and mobilize your base.

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

First, if you've spent that much time in a lab you should know it's very bad practice to project the results of an experiment onto an entire different topic (and indeed, entire different discipline).  Lab experiments have enough external validity problems.  Second, this dynamic you're referring to seems like some weird transference.  You posit Trump supporters have some type of romantic feelings for him, then refer to the supporters viewing him as "Daddy."  Just because him and Ivanka appear to have some weird Freudian relationship (and I'd argue that only goes one way - from dad to daughter, whereas the relationship your suggesting seems to be something of the inverse) does not mean it has anything to do with Trump supporters. 

Third, back on topic, the point of all this wouldn't be to appeal to Trump supporters that have..any type of such a close connection with him.  Obviously, those people are going to vote for him.  As always, you're trying to appeal to persuadable voters, and mobilize your base.

Actually I refer to Trump as their Daddy because of the freakish authoritarian fetish so many Republicans are displaying. 

They like him because he's belligerent and undeniably successful. "My Dad is waaay stronger than your dad!."

Republicans are stupid little children who worship their fat sack of man Daddy and freak the fuck out whenever someone suggests he's not perfect. 

This isn't supposition or even a theory. That's an observable goddamn fact. Whether you like the analogy or not, I stand by it. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Actually I refer to Trump as their Daddy because of the freakish authoritarian fetish so many Republicans are displaying. 

They like him because he's belligerent and undeniably successful. "My Dad is waaay stronger than your dad!."

Republicans are stupid little children who worship their fat sack of man Daddy and freak the fuck out whenever someone suggests he's not perfect. 

This isn't supposition or even a theory. That's an observable goddamn fact. Whether you like the analogy or not, I stand by it. 

You are absolutely right.  It is creepy as hell and both my parents fall into this bizarre fetish.

[KingintheNorth4]

My home state is gonna light it up!

https://twitter.com/WGNNews/status/1134544633894187010?s=20

[Quijote Light]

31 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Actually I refer to Trump as their Daddy because of the freakish authoritarian fetish so many Republicans are displaying. 

They like him because he's belligerent and undeniably successful. "My Dad is waaay stronger than your dad!."

Republicans are stupid little children who worship their fat sack of man Daddy and freak the fuck out whenever someone suggests he's not perfect. 

This isn't supposition or even a theory. That's an observable goddamn fact. Whether you like the analogy or not, I stand by it. 

I think he was disagreeing with Tywin’s interpretation of your analogy as romantic/sexual. I tend to agree with your analogy, which is really sad. How anyone can see Trump as tough or manly is beyond me. 

[DMC]

44 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Actually I refer to Trump as their Daddy because of the freakish authoritarian fetish so many Republicans are displaying. 

Oh sure, that observation has been around for quite awhile.  Russell Dalton is shit methods-wise, but his book The Good Citizen is an accessible synthesis explaining the difference between the older generations that prefer authority and order to the younger generations that encourages different types of activism/engagement, tolerance, and general egalitarianism.

[Jace, Extat]

Alright with the 3 replies I think we're all on the same page then. 

That being said I think Pelosi's strategy is the best one we have. If the cops come and arrest Daddy then he was clearly framed. But if an 87 year old lady the size of me emasculates him publicly for 2 straight years...

 

[Zorral]

If he's arrested it merely more proof that his life-long arc is that of proving himself a failure at everything he touches.

In the meantime Hillary wants some of what Barak and Michelle got -- she wants her some TV!

Obama and Michelle got Netflix.  Hillary and Chelsea think they can get in this too:

https://deadline.com/2019/05/hillary-clinton-hollywood-production-deal-chelsea-1202624556/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, DMC said:

First, if you've spent that much time in a lab you should know it's very bad practice to project the results of an experiment onto an entire different topic (and indeed, entire different discipline).  Lab experiments have enough external validity problems.  Second, this dynamic you're referring to seems like some weird transference.  You posit Trump supporters have some type of romantic feelings for him, then refer to the supporters viewing him as "Daddy."  Just because him and Ivanka appear to have some weird Freudian relationship (and I'd argue that only goes one way - from dad to daughter, whereas the relationship your suggesting seems to be something of the inverse) does not mean it has anything to do with Trump supporters. 

Third, back on topic, the point of all this wouldn't be to appeal to Trump supporters that have..any type of such a close connection with him.  Obviously, those people are going to vote for him.  As always, you're trying to appeal to persuadable voters, and mobilize your base.

If this was a professional or academic setting, I'd totally agree. But it's not, dude. Now that said, perhaps using the term "Daddy" was confusing or misleading. I was simply quoting Jace. What I was trying to get at is that there's a bond that's been created between Trump and his base that I feel is unusual in American politics. I was a very early Obama supporter, but I never had that kind of bond with him, nor have I with any of the elected officials I've worked with, and one of them treated me like family. The study I was referencing tackled relationship dynamics and how negative criticisms affect them. With the exception of young women, every other group we tested demonstrated what we expected, that negative stimuli from an outside source strengthens that bond. Is it perfectly analogous to Trump and his base? No. Can the study be loosely applied to them on a message board? I don't see why not. 

Regarding your final point, I agree with you, but that wasn't really want I was getting at. If I can use estimates, I'd say that 35% of the country is for Trump, ride or die, and next to nothing will change that. My concern though is that other 10% who voted for him with some degree or trepidation. Their support wavers with the daily news. If we follow your hypothetical course of action, we liberals, through the House inquire/impeachment process, would be attacking Trump at a time of elevated emotions for the party. My fear is that course of action would immediately reunite that 10% with the base, and weaken the chances that they would break away over the remainder of the election cycle. That's what I was trying to get at by citing the study.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Alright with the 3 replies I think we're all on the same page then. 

That being said I think Pelosi's strategy is the best one we have. If the cops come and arrest Daddy then he was clearly framed. But if an 87 year old lady the size of me emasculates him publicly for 2 straight years...

 

Pelosi is way taller than you, shorty.

[Martell Spy]

In the Real World, Health Care Reform Is Really, Really Hard
What the fate of two Democratic efforts at health care reform tells us about the future of fixing insurance.

https://slate.com/business/2019/05/health-care-reform-connecticut-washington.html

Quote

Two news stories out of Washington and Connecticut this month are a reminder that, back in the real world, eking out even incremental progress on health care is very, very difficult. In both states, Democratic lawmakers sought to create what might be called sorta public options—government-designed health plans that private insurers would sell to individuals and small businesses. In Washington, the effort succeeded, but only after politicians made a major tweak to appease hospitals that will make the coverage more expensive. In Connecticut, meanwhile, the attempt flamed out in an episode that may foreshadow just how hard large insurers will fight even small-bore attempts at reform.

 

[Jace, Extat]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Pelosi is way taller than you, shorty.

I'm hurt, Ty. I'm hurt and I don't hurt easily. 

I actually wish I had a video recording of the bemused smile slipping off my face into a pronounced frown. I figured she'd be 5'3. 5'4 at the absolute max when I googled. But I can't compete with some Amazon woman. 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

If this was a professional or academic setting, I'd totally agree. But it's not, dude. Now that said, perhaps using the term "Daddy" was confusing or misleading. I was simply quoting Jace. What I was trying to get at is that there's a bond that's been created between Trump and his base that I feel is unusual in American politics. I was a very early Obama supporter, but I never had that kind of bond with him, nor have I with any of the elected officials I've worked with, and one of them treated me like family.

I mean, I know I'm a snob, but I don't really care about the setting.  If you wanna go from your gut or relay an anecdote (which is what this is), then fine, of course we all do it.  But don't present some lab experiment as evidence if doing so is entirely inappropriate.  And that's what you did:

On 5/30/2019 at 6:38 PM, Tywin et al. said:

While the scenario was different, I suspect the results we got would match the results you would see in this instance. A strong negative attack from an outside force will likely drive weary Republicans right to Trump. 

That statement is what I was responding to, because it's implying credibility when there is none.  Further, in the above you're suggesting it has an effect on "weary Republicans," whereas now you're admitting really all you're talking about is Trump's base.  And again, Trump's base wasn't really germane to the discussion - that's obviously not part of any Dems' reelection constituency (in Fenno terminology).  

As for Trump having a more cultist following than anyone before, I mean, I guess sure it's increasing.  But there were plenty of similar complaints about Obama followers, and being one of them, I think it's understandable someone from the other side would think that way.  And there were complaints about this with Dubya, Clinton, and Reagan.  Literally my entire life.  I think it's just a reflection of increasing polarization.  Trump is a symptom, not the cause.  That's not meant to be reassuring, btw, in fact quite the opposite.  The next GOP president will be worse.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

My concern though is that other 10% who voted for him with some degree or trepidation. Their support wavers with the daily news. If we follow your hypothetical course of action, we liberals, through the House inquire/impeachment process, would be attacking Trump at a time of elevated emotions for the party. My fear is that course of action would immediately reunite that 10% with the base, and weaken the chances that they would break away over the remainder of the election cycle. That's what I was trying to get at by citing the study.

That's my point though.  I'd put it more at 40/5 than 35/10, but regardless, that 5-10 is likely to come home by the end.  They always do with the GOP.  If you do things early, and the economy stays fine, then they're just as likely to come home as every other time.  Research has shown repeatedly that negative attacks have a limited timespan in terms of effect.  So you want to drop your biggest bomb as late as possible, really.  I mean, that's the entire idea of an October surprise.  And Comey's bullshit in 2016 demonstrated this very well - the content of the news didn't matter, just the priming of the story.  So, in this way I completely disagree regarding when to hold the vote on a hypothetical censure.