POTUS Donald Trump

[gunnarthor]

 

And that matters...how?

Was your mind changed by this? Was any Trump supporting voter's mind changed?

I doubt it. And nothing else matters.

If you remind people why the guy is a disgrace, eventually they'll get it. Despite concerns that this doesn't work, the polls show that it does. Tons of independents have gone away from Trump. I know people who voted for him who won't vote for him now. It's likely that Trump's payments to Stormy Daniels violated federal election laws so it's worth reminding people that our President broke the law to pay off a pornstar.

 

Something like 40 GOP incumbents are retiring rather than seeking re-election because Trump has made the landscape toxic for them. Yes, Levi's right that it's good to point out that Trumps very few successes as President (the tax bill) have harmed the majority of Americans and smart Dems have run against the tax bill and won (Lamb). It's also important to energize the base (seems like the Dems are energzied) and it's also important to get independents to support the Dems this time around. Lots of ways to do that but Trump's behavior is a legitimate target. He's lied so often on so many things that we should remind people that he's a liar. He's racist. He's vile.

 

Again, it doesn't really matter if the Joe Arpaio voters will still vote for him - they don't matter b/c they'll either vote for the GOP or not bother to vote. But independents, RINOS and Reagan Democrats are all in play and there are a lot of ways to get to them.

[Mike Sixel]

Money laundering. That's going to be the end.

[ashbury]

Money laundering. That's going to be the end.

 

It may not even matter whether it's a crime or not; money laundering per se usually involves concealing illegally gained sums. But once you point out to a fellow onlooker that the relationship was, "look out for things on my behalf, and I don't want to know the details," the light may finally go on for them that we have a skunk in the Oval Office. Money going out one door and coming right back in by another door. And because they are immersed in this kind of crookedness, it didn't even occur to the participants to disguise the dollar amounts.

[gunnarthor]

If it turns out that Trump paid for women to get abortions, would he finally lose the crazy right?

[USAFChief]

 

If it turns out that Trump paid for women to get abortions, would he finally lose the crazy right?

"Well we don't approve of that...but HILLARYYYYYYY!!!!!"

[gunnarthor]

 

"Well we don't approve of that...but HILLARYYYYYYY!!!!!"

That's what I'm worried about, too.

[TheLeviathan]

 

"Well we don't approve of that...but HILLARYYYYYYY!!!!!"

 

That's why you have to hit where it hurts.....the wall.  

[USAFChief]

 

That's why you have to hit where it hurts.....the wall.  

I would actually concentrate more on getting the people who already hate Trump out to vote.

 

I have Trump-ists in the family, and there literally is NOTHING you can say, and NOTHING Trump could do, that will get them to even consider changing their minds.

 

I mean, they have steadfastly been opposed--for decades--to most everything Trump says and does. Everything. Three marriages? Each to a younger woman?? HORRIBLE MAN!!! ... But when it comes to Trump, it's like they turn off their brain. They stand there straight faced, spouting Fox News, and World News Daily, and, literally, the National Enquirer, and will not budge off their pro-Trump position. 

 

And I suspect they're typical. I mean, they have to be. Something close to 40 percent of the public still loves the man. If what has transpired to date isn't going to lower that number, it's hopeless. We need to work on the 60 percent that already don't approve, and get them to act.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I would actually concentrate more on getting the people who already hate Trump out to vote.

 

I have Trump-ists in the family, and there literally is NOTHING you can say, and NOTHING Trump could do, that will get them to even consider changing their minds.

 

I mean, they have steadfastly been opposed--for decades--to most everything Trump says and does. Everything. Three marriages? Each to a younger woman?? HORRIBLE MAN!!! ... But when it comes to Trump, it's like they turn off their brain. They stand there straight faced, spouting Fox News, and World News Daily, and, literally, the National Enquirer, and will not budge off their pro-Trump position. 

 

And I suspect they're typical. I mean, they have to be. Something close to 40 percent of the public still loves the man. If what has transpired to date isn't going to lower that number, it's hopeless. We need to work on the 60 percent that already don't approve, and get them to act.

 

I agree on much of what you said.

 

40% of the country would sooner vote for Hitler than Trump

40% of the country would sooner vote for Trump than Hitler (by which I of course mean Hillary Clinton in their eyes)

 

The other 20% is what matters.  What issues swung them?  I think immigration and healthcare are the top two.  The Dems should focus on his failures at both and tout their own solutions to both.  That and take back the farm vote.  They went Trump's way and he just royally screwed them...there is another prong to attack.

 

But Stormy Daniels? Hush money?  Abortions?  Divorce while in office?  Meh.  That won't sway the 20%  Hit them on the hot button issues.

[Badsmerf]

I agree on much of what you said.

 

40% of the country would sooner vote for Hitler than Trump

40% of the country would sooner vote for Trump than Hitler (by which I of course mean Hillary Clinton in their eyes)

 

The other 20% is what matters.  What issues swung them?  I think immigration and healthcare are the top two.  The Dems should focus on his failures at both and tout their own solutions to both.  That and take back the farm vote.  They went Trump's way and he just royally screwed them...there is another prong to attack.

 

But Stormy Daniels? Hush money?  Abortions?  Divorce while in office?  Meh.  That won't sway the 20%  Hit them on the hot button issues.

I don't think all are that narcissistic. That stuff matters too. It matters a lot actually. It just can't be the only message. Democrats like Lamb have to use the message that rallies the district. Democrats like Khamala Harris have to use the message that rallies their district. The message doesn't have to be exactly the same everywhere, that's part of why democrats have been losing.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't think all are that narcissistic. That stuff matters too. It matters a lot actually. It just can't be the only message. Democrats like Lamb have to use the message that rallies the district. Democrats like Khamala Harris have to use the message that rallies their district. The message doesn't have to be exactly the same everywhere, that's part of why democrats have been losing.

 

That's true, but the party still needs to put certain issues at the forefront too.  Each candidate may have to attack that a bit differently, but the overall platform matters.

 

And I really don't think the other moral issues matter.  In fact, I think some of the attention on those issues galvanizes his support rather than erodes it.

[gunnarthor]

I don't have the link but the Washington Post's plum line noted that Dems have been running successful issue campaigns without needing to bring up Trump. He's everywhere so the Dems have been able to push back against the GOP tax bill or destruction of the individual mandate. 

 

Honestly, I think the health care thing is going to be a huge issue for the midterms. This summer we'll see health care costs go up quite a bit b/c of the tax bill and I think voters will not like that, even in rural areas. This is shaping up to be a really bad election for the Republicans, despite their gerrymandered safety nets.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't have the link but the Washington Post's plum line noted that Dems have been running successful issue campaigns without needing to bring up Trump. He's everywhere so the Dems have been able to push back against the GOP tax bill or destruction of the individual mandate. 

 

Honestly, I think the health care thing is going to be a huge issue for the midterms. This summer we'll see health care costs go up quite a bit b/c of the tax bill and I think voters will not like that, even in rural areas. This is shaping up to be a really bad election for the Republicans, despite their gerrymandered safety nets.

 

Yup, once people start looking at the rates during their open enrollment it's going to put this issue right back at the forefront.  And the Republicans have nothing to stand on.

 

I hope the Dems are bold.  Lay out what universal health care could look like.  Don't run from saying the taxes will be higher, but emphasize how much money nearly every business and individual will gain from cutting out insurance.

[ashbury]

Democrats aren't leading with "message" because they are fractured as much as the Republicans are. The Bernie wing wants to adopt a full agenda of progressive policies, and isn't satisfied with a message involving half-measures. They're going to fritter away this opportunity. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Democrats aren't leading with "message" because they are fractured as much as the Republicans are. The Bernie wing wants to adopt a full agenda of progressive policies, and isn't satisfied with a message involving half-measures. They're going to fritter away this opportunity. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

So an agenda of half-measures is the "good"/good-enough that will win? Again, I think that's what led to Democratic losses throughout the last thirty years. (Obama's brand of hope, identity politics, and mainstreamism not withstanding). 

 

I don't necessarily want Democrats to boycott anything but the most progressive policies. But I want them to be authentic, and I want them to stand for something. Yes the Democrats are fractured, but it's time for the moderate Dems to give a little on universal healthcare, universal education, and checks on corporate power and uber-wealth--I think these are issues the vast majority of Americans can get behind, esp. if Democrats can avoid being smug/sanctimonious when campaigning on them. However, I do think it's smart to stay away bringing in incendiary issues like guns, identity politics, abortion, etc. into the agenda, even though I feel passionately about those issues, and in that sense, I hope, liberals are willing to give up the perfect.

[TheLeviathan]

What do you mean by "universal education"?

[PseudoSABR]

 

What do you mean by "universal education"?

I'm open to suggestion.  But I think if post-secondary education were paid by the state, state universities could be much more particular about admissions (rather than chasing tuition dollars) and as a result, the market would be less flooded with college grads, the quality should improve, and perhaps, more institutions geared towards vocation might emerge as a viable alternative to those unable to be admitted to the university.  I think it would also do wonders for the economy generally not to have young people saddled with insurmountable debt at the beginning of their careers.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm open to suggestion.  But I think if post-secondary education were paid by the state, state universities could be much more particular about admissions (rather than chasing tuition dollars) and as a result, the market would be less flooded with college grads, the quality should improve, and perhaps, more institutions geared towards vocation might emerge as a viable alternative to those unable to be admitted to the university.  I think it would also do wonders for the economy generally not to have young people saddled with insurmountable debt at the beginning of their careers.

 

I agree with your last sentence, we absolutely need a fix for that.  (If I were President for a day we'd forgive all student loans and institute universal health care.  Watch what the economy does when young, middle class people suddenly have an extra 1,000+ a month to spend)

 

I'm a little more wary about what would happen if universities were funded by the states.  I think it could just as easily become High School 2.  That's just my pessimism on this subject speaking though.  I've started to see the future of colleges as more and more bleak the last few years.  They just might be too far gone for redemption.  

 

I'd lean more towards fully funding vocational schools and community colleges for awhile until we force the major universities to get away from advertising, athletics, and constant new construction on campus and back to what they were originally for - education.  Maybe if we are siphoning a lot of their money away they'll be open to some major reforms.  They can start by getting their tuition rates more in line with what they should be relative to inflation and not the gouging the saddle 18 year olds with on the promise of a degree that means less and less.

[USAFChief]

 

I'm open to suggestion.  But I think if post-secondary education were paid by the state, state universities could be much more particular about admissions (rather than chasing tuition dollars) and as a result, the market would be less flooded with college grads, the quality should improve, and perhaps, more institutions geared towards vocation might emerge as a viable alternative to those unable to be admitted to the university.  I think it would also do wonders for the economy generally not to have young people saddled with insurmountable debt at the beginning of their careers.

This is a proposal sure to keep the Republican majorities in both houses.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This is a proposal sure to keep the Republican majorities in both houses.

Yeah, I don't think America is ready for that message yet.

 

Maybe if 20-somethings voted - they don't - that message might gain traction.

 

Like Levi, I think vocational schools are the first and most appropriate push. Get kids in and out of school without crippling debt, teach them an actual skill that will help them land a job or start their own business.

 

After that is accomplished, we can start to talk about how to fix the universities (which badly need a fix for the reasons Pseudo laid out).

[PseudoSABR]

 

This is a proposal sure to keep the Republican majorities in both houses.

Astute and thorough analysis.  It's kind of your shtick, I know, but your glibness lately has been nauseating.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Astute and thorough analysis.  It's kind of your shtick, I know, but your glibness lately has been nauseating.

 

In fairness to Chief, he's talking practically.  "Free Stuff" has never won the Democrats much either, the proposal needs to be smarter than that.  

 

Part of the reason (the main reason IMO) why the university system is so badly broken in the first place is a liberal idea of "let's just give it to everyone!"  

 

Let's not and be a bit more intelligent about that approach this time. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I think the better plan is a two prong approach.

One, put in guidelines and incentives to bring tuition down.

Two, a different approach to paying back student loans. Make them completely interest free (they'd have to be 100% guaranteed by the government obviously), with a 5 year grace period after graduation before repayment begins. And repayment amounts are a percentage of income.

[PseudoSABR]

 

In fairness to Chief, he's talking practically.  "Free Stuff" has never won the Democrats much either, the proposal needs to be smarter than that.  

 

Part of the reason (the main reason IMO) why the university system is so badly broken in the first place is a liberal idea of "let's just give it to everyone!"  

 

Let's not and be a bit more intelligent about that approach this time. 

I don't necessarily disagree (but I can't really rebut what one does not say).  Part of my assumption is that universities stop admitting all the people who eventually drop out (which is like half of them).  It should also drive prices down because there will be hard limits on what the state can pay as opposed to what students can borrow against.   I do think Dems need to be wary of the "free stuff" narrative, so label it the The American Investment Act or something.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think the better plan is a two prong approach.
One, put in guidelines and incentives to bring tuition down.
Two, a different approach to paying back student loans. Make them completely interest free (they'd have to be 100% guaranteed by the government obviously), with a 5 year grace period after graduation before repayment begins. And repayment amounts are a percentage of income.

 

The loans themselves are the crux of the problem IMO.  I don't think you can do the first prong without completely revisiting the concept itself.  

 

Which I believe is necessary.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't necessarily disagree (but I can't really rebut what one does not say).  Part of my assumption is that universities stop admitting all the people who eventually drop out (which is like half of them).  It should also drive prices down because there will be hard limits on what the state can pay as opposed to what students can borrow against.   I do think Dems need to be wary of the "free stuff" narrative, so label it the The American Investment Act or something.

 

Hmmm....as an educator I am wary of the hope that most any kind of funding will be seen (rightly) as an investment.  But I could get behind that term - it's accurate and less easily picked apart.  

 

Are you suggesting that the state pays for a certain number of students?  As in, there is a hard cap on student enrollment at the university?  Or a hard cap on total dollars?  

 

And, the more I think about those questions the more it leads me to ask.....how far down this road do we go before we have government controlled universities?  A problem I would think any liberal, in the true sense of the word, would be hesitant about?

[USAFChief]

I don't necessarily disagree (but I can't really rebut what one does not say).  Part of my assumption is that universities stop admitting all the people who eventually drop out (which is like half of them).  It should also drive prices down because there will be hard limits on what the state can pay as opposed to what students can borrow against.   I do think Dems need to be wary of the "free stuff" narrative, so label it the The American Investment Act or something.

How do you propose to know ahead of time which students will be the half that eventually drop out? Can they go back? Government paying will drive prices down?? Can you show me an instance in history where that has been the case?

 

Where do you propose getting the money? Increase taxes? That should get the voters out.

 

At the end of the day, it’s not a workable idea. It’s not even a good idea. Want to go to college? Pay for it. Take up engineering, nursing, computer science. You’ll make enough to pay your student loans, the same way you pay for your housing, car, food, and entertainment. Can’t/won’t do that? Don’t go to college. It’s not a right. Go to trade school, learn to be an electrician, carpenter, or auto mechanic. Start a business and work. Enlist in the military.

 

Maybe I’m wrong about all this, but I’m not wrong about it being an issue that Republicans everywhere hope Democrats endorse. It will cost votes.

[TheLeviathan]

I will say Chief, Psuedo is right that the days of "want to go to college? Pay for it" are a thing of the past.  Colleges have priced that out of reality.

 

But I also blame the left for that which speaks to your first point.  I don't see how the government handing free money to colleges is going to solve the problem.  That's what started this steady descent into the disaster we have today.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The loans themselves are the crux of the problem IMO.  I don't think you can do the first prong without completely revisiting the concept itself.  

 

Which I believe is necessary.

I wonder if some kind of universal healthcare approach is the correct solution to college loans.

 

"You have this GPA and qualify for this much money. We have negotiated with universities that will give you a four year education for this dollar amount and not one cent more."

 

If universities start losing students because they can't provide an education for a certain dollar amount, maybe that new basketball arena won't be such a priority.

 

Of course, they could just lop out faculty expenses and keep that stupid arena. That would fit the current upper education MO. It may have to be complex legislation - something I'm not fond of in general because more complexity tends to add more stupidity - but something has to be done to keep university spending on non-educational expenses in line.

 

If the government can intelligently negotiate prices en masse, we might be able to stop the bleeding.

[TheLeviathan]

I think that's the key.  We need the government to say "We will allocate X amount of money" but then put a TON of conditions on it.  As in, "yes, you can charge more than X...but only by Y% or we pull all funding" and "you must spend X amount of your budget on faculty (or only X on athletics)"

 

Right now colleges are getting a blank check that taxpayers are paying for, along with 18 year olds who pay them for the rest of their lives.  And then the colleges spend that on spas for their basketball teams, replacing a three year old science building, and funding a bloated administrative staff.  That system is so badly broken, it may take major intervention (more than I typically am a fan of) to fix it.

 

So yeah...just like health care.  Too broken for the market to fix at this point.  It'll take heavy regulation, negotiation, and rules to get it back to some semblance of sanity.

 

The only way the Dems turn that into a winning issue is to talk about how this is de-coupling taxpayers from the largesse of universities.  But that's a hard sell....and one I would rather the Dems not try.