U.S. Politics: Speak, Shriek, or Squeak! Whatever Technique You Seek in Critique of the Isogeneic Freak.

[Freshwater Spartan]

9 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Ouch, no, that is not true.

The difference is that the Bush administration had much more support to expand the power of the executive than either Obama or Trump got.
The "war on terror" (in all its forms) had a lot of bipartisan and media support.

However, from a pure "constitutional" angle the Bush administration expanded the executive in unprecedented (and shocking) ways... It even faced a few harsh words from the SCOTUS a couple of times (I've quoted O'Connor here before I believe).
When Obama came to power, given his background (as a constitutional lawyer), many hoped he would "rein in" the executive.
But he didn't. On some levels he made it worse.

I think it's very important not to rewrite history. W was seen as a kind of "imperial" president before Obama took power. All the people who knew well what his administration had done were scared. There are entire books on what his AG (Ashcroft) did for instance, and though my memory betrays me a bit I still shudder to remember some of the things I studied at the time.

FFS please stop this tendency of whitewashing W. because of Trump. W. was terrible in almost every conceivable way, he was just better at surrounding himself with competent people than Trump.

This post is so spot on. Prior to the covid19 and the race riots I could confidently say GWB was the worst President of my lifetime. I still give him that title though Trump seems to putting in a late push for that award.

I don't know about the rest of you but I feel a little better about things after yesterday's Mattis letter. If Trump makes a power grab after  a November loss he needs the military to make it happen like in ancient Rome. After yesterday that seems less likely. 

Who would have thought we would be comparing ourselves to Rome.

[Ormond]

34 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Who would have thought we would be comparing ourselves to Rome.

Well, gee, people have been comparing the USA to Rome for over two centuries now. Back in the early 19th century most educated Americans loved to compare us to ancient Rome and Greece -- that's how we got all those towns and cities named Rome, Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Akron, Cicero, etc.

Of course two centuries ago intellectuals were mostly comparing us to Rome before the Emperors. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

that's how we got all those towns and cities named Rome, Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Akron, Cicero, etc.

I always wondered driving through Starke, Florida.  It seemed pretty dilapidated - like the relic of a civilization that was never going to return. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

I always wondered driving through Starke, Florida.  It seemed pretty dilapidated - like the relic of a civilization that was never going to return. 

Not to mention the fact that it takes forever to pass through driving 20 MPH the whole way to avoid a ticket.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not to mention the fact that it takes forever to pass through driving 20 MPH the whole way to avoid a ticket.

Indeed.  This is why I empathize with Robert just drinking the entire time on the way up.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

A lot of the willingness of Trump supporters to "accept anything he says" is just the self-justification effect of maintaining one's belief that you voted for the right person. That's combined with the polarization going on long before Trump which has led many people on the right to see Democrats as being "evil". 

Trump supporters don't just refuse to believe negative stuff about Trump. They also believe positive things about him that are not true. After the March 3 tornado outbreak in Tennessee there was a story posted on Facebook that when Trump made his quick visit to see storm damage he brought along his personal accountant and had him write personal checks to some of those who lost homes in the tornado. That was a completely false story, but it was believed by Trump supporters. They want to see him as some sort of Daddy Warbucks type figure who is going ot take care of them as much as he is going to "stick it" to those they don't identify with.

I agree that many of them do participate in a lot of motivated reasoning, but I guess I'm wondering (and you're probably the right person to ask) is how far does that take them? I guess to me their devotion seems to track more closely with die-hard fans of sports teams, or with religious devotion, where their support of him is actually tied up in their identity.

I'm probably phrasing this inelegantly, but I've always thought that motivated reasoning kind of falls apart when it's about something that doesn't affect the reasoner directly. A middle-aged white man can uncritically accept Trump's position on foreign interventionism, or on draconian measures used at the border, or a whole host of other issues that either do not affect him, or that will only affect him tangentially in the future.

But stuff like the pandemic, or the recession/depression will end up hurting his base. I suppose I'm using Bush II as a comparison. While his approval during his 2nd term was never great, it actually took people getting hit in the pocketbook for his support to really crater.

Does that mean that Trump's support among his base is more difficult to dislodge and if so, why? Or have most of his supporters just not been severely affected by the pandemic and recession yet? 

I don't expect you to have the answers, I'm basically just ruminating out loud.

[Maithanet]

This is a really useful point in why Biden's position is stronger than Clinton's 5 months before the election.  Clinton's lead was smaller, but that wasn't the only weakness she was seeing.  In 2016, Clinton's campaign was banking on 1) Trump's weakness with Republican voters to continue and 2) Independents would find Trump unacceptable.  Neither of those things happened.

In contrast, looking at Trump's numbers today, there is only a tiny pool of Republican voters to potentially expand to.  Likewise much fewer 3rd party voters to add uncertainty to electoral math.  Plus of course, Biden's numbers both with independents and Democrats are much stronger than Clinton's. 

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I agree that many of them do participate in a lot of motivated reasoning, but I guess I'm wondering (and you're probably the right person to ask) is how far does that take them? I guess to me their devotion seems to track more closely with die-hard fans of sports teams, or with religious devotion, where their support of him is actually tied up in their identity.

I'm probably phrasing this inelegantly, but I've always thought that motivated reasoning kind of falls apart when it's about something that doesn't affect the reasoner directly. A middle-aged white man can uncritically accept Trump's position on foreign interventionism, or on draconian measures used at the border, or a whole host of other issues that either do not affect him, or that will only affect him tangentially in the future.

But stuff like the pandemic, or the recession/depression will end up hurting his base. I suppose I'm using Bush II as a comparison. While his approval during his 2nd term was never great, it actually took people getting hit in the pocketbook for his support to really crater.

It took a bit more than that. It took the perception of the economy cratering to cause them to change their minds and look for someone to repudiate Bush. And that perception was largely around the stock market - not massive layoffs, not major pains.

The perception from most Republicans is that the economy is not just doing okay, it's doing AMAZING. Facts don't matter here, even when you're personally hurt. 

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Does that mean that Trump's support among his base is more difficult to dislodge and if so, why? Or have most of his supporters just not been severely affected by the pandemic and recession yet? 

I don't expect you to have the answers, I'm basically just ruminating out loud.

Trump's support amongst his base is going to be strong for a long time because unlike GWB, most of his support is very, very wedded to the identity of Trump as a POTUS. You don't shed your identity easily. You don't shed your friends easily. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This is honestly what worries me the most. While I have some worry that Trump's cult-like followers will make things a living hell for a while if Trump loses, my main concern now is who out there is learning Trump's lessons.

If someone were to combine Trump's bizarre ability to inspire devotion (this is honestly something I'll never understand) with a disciplined approach and the ability to actually make concessions to the right people, then it seems like the U.S. could become something like Orban's Hungary more easily than I would have imagined 4 years ago. I never would have expected that so many seemingly foundational aspects of U.S. government were and are essentially nothing more than a gentleman's agreement.

I really believe that this boils down to his risk of going full racist. The majority of his devotion comes from people feeling like they can be flagrantly racist again. The risk any future politician will have to weigh if they were to try and emulate Trump is how effective this will be going forward. Because all other avenues of support that Trump has garnered seem to be failing quickly. Even Pat Robertson was upset by Trump's willingness to attack U.S. citizens with military force. In the end, going full racist likely won't bring the base that Trump had. His rise to American presidency was a perfect storm of shittiness. 

[Kalbear]

Also (thread):
 

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Well, gee, people have been comparing the USA to Rome for over two centuries now. Back in the early 19th century most educated Americans loved to compare us to ancient Rome and Greece -- that's how we got all those towns and cities named Rome, Athens, Sparta, Utica, Syracuse, Akron, Cicero, etc.

Of course two centuries ago intellectuals were mostly comparing us to Rome before the Emperors. 

Sure, most people who read history know about those two hundred year old debates.

But don't you think it is Little Odd that people are talking about military coups and destroying the Constitutional order.  I don't remember this talk about Bill Clinton gaining power. No talk about armed revolutionaries charging DC for Gore. No talk of W seizing a third term to deny Obama. I just find the current discussion odd. Sorry it wasn't super profound. It was meant more to be a casual observation. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Hitler had a lot of supporters too, right up to 1944-1945 (I dont remember where I saw it, but I think there were opinion polls showing broad support for him even past the disastrous Soviet campaign, after the siege of Leningrad). I wish we had something like YouGov back then, tracking his approval disapproval right until the bunker was stormed.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I wish we had something like YouGov back then, tracking his approval disapproval right until the bunker was stormed.

It's a rather large assumption to think Hitler would allow YouGov, or anyone else, to track his public approval.

[Kalbear]

The worry shouldn't immediately be the military; it should be the police. While the military is largely divided evenly on supporting Trump, the police is about 75-80% in support of Trump across the board. And from what I can tell they're the ones with real power in general. 

[Maithanet]

Just now, Kalbear said:

The worry shouldn't immediately be the military; it should be the police. While the military is largely divided evenly on supporting Trump, the police is about 75-80% in support of Trump across the board. And from what I can tell they're the ones with real power in general. 

It's a concern, but the governors control the state national guard, and the Democrats control the governorship in 4 of the 6 big swing states*.  It's not like the police are the only ones with guns if they start swinging their dicks around. 

* And even Ducey (R-AZ) is no lickspittle like DeSantis. 

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Hitler had a lot of supporters too, right up to 1944-1945 (I dont remember where I saw it, but I think there were opinion polls showing broad support for him even past the disastrous Soviet campaign, after the siege of Leningrad). I wish we had something like YouGov back then, tracking his approval disapproval right until the bunker was stormed.

In Nazi Germany people were being killed on and through the 23rd of April 1945 for things like "defeatist mindset" and "subversive activities." I don't think polling would show anything other than absolute support.

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Hitler had a lot of supporters too, right up to 1944-1945 (I dont remember where I saw it, but I think there were opinion polls showing broad support for him even past the disastrous Soviet campaign, after the siege of Leningrad). I wish we had something like YouGov back then, tracking his approval disapproval right until the bunker was stormed.

This was something I had considered when composing my thoughts on the matter, but I finally rejected the comparison because we aren't quite yet at the "murderous special police stamping out all possible dissent" stage yet. Maybe on our way there, but not yet.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

20 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Sure, most people who read history know about those two hundred year old debates.

But don't you think it is Little Odd that people are talking about military coups and destroying the Constitutional order.  I don't remember this talk about Bill Clinton gaining power. No talk about armed revolutionaries charging DC for Gore. No talk of W seizing a third term to deny Obama. I just find the current discussion odd. Sorry it wasn't super profound. It was meant more to be a casual observation. 

Do you really think the Trump Administration and action are comperable to the behavior of the last three prior administrations?

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

the police is about 75-80% in support of Trump across the board. And from what I can tell they're the ones with real power in general. 

Where'd you get that number?  Because recent polling suggests there's been a broad shift in attitudes on policing with the public at large.  This may lag with police themselves of course, but doubtful by that much:

Quote

A majority of Americans (57%) say that police officers facing a difficult or dangerous situation are more likely to use excessive force if the culprit is black, compared to one-third (33%) who say the police are just as likely to use excessive force against black and white culprits in the same type of situation. The current findings represent a marked change in public opinion from prior polls. In a poll of registered voters taken after the police shooting of Alton Sterling in Louisiana in July 2016, just 34% said blacks were more likely to be subject to excessive force while 52% said they were just as likely as whites. In December 2014, after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City police officer in the chokehold death of Eric Garner, the results were 33% more likely and 58% just as likely.

Nearly all black Americans (87%) feel that individuals of their race are more likely than whites to experience excessive force. This is up slightly from 77% in a 2016 poll, but the overall shift in public opinion on this question is due mainly to an increase among other racial groups. Currently, 49% of white Americans say that police are more likely to use excessive force against a black culprit, which is nearly double the number (25%) who said the same in 2016. Another 39% of whites say police are just as likely to use excessive force regardless of race, which is down significantly from 62% four years ago. Among Americans of Latino, Asian and other minority backgrounds, 63% say black individuals are more likely to be subject to excessive force by police, which is up from 39% in 2016. Just 27% of this group say police are as likely to use excessive force in a situation with a white or black person, which is down from 43% in 2016.

I also have no idea why you'd suggest decentralized police forces under local and state government control possess the "real power," other than recency bias.

[DanteGabriel]

16 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This was something I had considered when composing my thoughts on the matter, but I finally rejected the comparison because we aren't quite yet at the "murderous special police stamping out all possible dissent" stage yet. Maybe on our way there, but not yet.