POTUS Donald Trump

[Craig Arko]

As I recall, the Appeasement Policies of the 1930’s provided sub-optimal results.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

Honestly, I think the self-pardon talk is pretty pointless. Do we care if this asshat ends up in jail or not?

 

I want him out of the Oval Office. I don't care how that comes about, I just want him gone. Whether he goes to jail or not doesn't really matter to me.

 

And if he has to pardon himself, there's no ****ing way he isn't impeached. Congress would collapse in on itself the following election and the biggest blue wave in history would hit the government.

It's not just the self-pardoning; it's the rule of law.  We keep thinking that elections will be fair, that turn out somehow will matter.  We're literally doing nothing to stop any kind of election interference.   When the blue wave doesn't happen, we'll continue to blame Democrats even if the election was stolen.  

 

And really, no one is talking about cheating, or using illegal tactics or stealing an election; I'm talking about using procedural tactics to stop Trump from nominating the next supreme court justice.  There's a lot of moral hand-wringing going on about something that's totally legal, and has been used by the political party in power (among, likely, illegal tactics).   Yes, there are lines we shouldn't cross, but let's not die on the sanctity of Senate procedure.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Except that power isn't (or at least shouldn't) be inevitable and permanent.

 

And what happens the next time the opposition takes power? They up the ante... just like we've seen in every power transition for the past 25+ years. The GOP stoops to a new low, the Democrats continue along the rules of that low. Then the GOP stoops to a new low, the Democrats then play along at that new low...

 

Where does it stop? We need to reestablish checks and balances, not continue to erode them because everyone loses sooner or later under those rules.

 

Part of the reason we are at this stage with the Supreme Court is the Democrat's move to change the vote from 60 to 51.  They did it for political expediency and McConnell told them that day they'd regret it.

 

Well, if you decide to sit all of your senators out....you're going to regret that too.  If you think you've got the last nuke and you're safe - I guarantee the Republicans find another way to one up you that makes things even worse.  

 

Win god damn elections.  Get people out to vote by talking to the people that should be voting for you but aren't.  Take all that righteous indignation you're so proud of (and waste so much time on twitter attacking people with) and direct that energy towards getting voters out.  Stop letting the Republicans control every level of government across the country.  Playing a dirty nuke to get out of a corner you backed yourself into does nothing.  You'll be back in that corner again in no time unless you change how you got there in the first place.

[TheLeviathan]

 

What's your answer? The way the Constitution is set up literally provides less populated, rural, right wing, voters an advantage in the Senate and presidency. The deck is literally stacked against us.

 

Farmers used to vote heavily Democratic.  Perhaps the question is....how did you lose them?  I think this "Woe is us" crap is really tiresome.

[Mike Sixel]

Farmers used to vote heavily Democratic. Perhaps the question is....how did you lose them? I think this "Woe is us" crap is really tiresome.

Years of education cuts, years of communication, wanting equal rights for people that didn't look like them... They voted for Democrats when the world was about white, straight, Christians. The world changed, rural voters didn't want change. How's that on Democrats?

 

And yes, the Constitution literally gives them more power than city dwellers, at most state levels also. That's not woe is me, it's a fact.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Years of education cuts, years of communication, wanting equal rights for people that didn't look like them... They voted for Democrats when the world was about white, straight, Christians. The world changed, rural voters didn't want change. How's that on Democrats?

And yes, the Constitution literally gives them more power than city dwellers, at most state levels also. That's not woe is me, it's a fact.

 

As a rural person growing up I disagree with that assessment.  Democrats stopped looking and talking about them.  When was the last time a prominent Democrat had any blue-collar cred?  Bill Clinton right?  (And I'm not even sure that cred was legit, but he had it) How about the last Congressional leader?  Eventually, when people never talk about you, to you, look like you, sound like you, or care about some of the same things as you, and dismiss your way of life....what else are you going to do?

 

Sure, the Dems should run candidates of all walks of life....but that's just it, they stopped paying attention to one walk of life.  Maybe you still lose that demographic overall....but you might not get as badly trounced if you tried a little harder to not put them off so badly.  

 

Maybe you pull enough rural people in the Midwest, Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania, etc. that you stop getting beaten so badly.  There are other factors, sure, but I really think your "Welp, nothing the Dems could do!" line takes them way off the hook.  And takes left-wing voters off the hook for their own self-imposed wounds.

[Mike Sixel]

As a rural person growing up I disagree with that assessment. Democrats stopped looking and talking about them. When was the last time a prominent Democrat had any blue-collar cred? Bill Clinton right? (And I'm not even sure that cred was legit, but he had it) How about the last Congressional leader? Eventually, when people never talk about you, to you, look like you, sound like you, or care about some of the same things as you, and dismiss your way of life....what else are you going to do?

 

Sure, the Dems should run candidates of all walks of life....but that's just it, they stopped paying attention to one walk of life. Maybe you still lose that demographic overall....but you might not get as badly trounced if you tried a little harder to not put them off so badly.

 

Maybe you pull enough rural people in the Midwest, Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania, etc. that you stop getting beaten so badly.

Ignoring that the Republicans also run people from cities without rural cred.... I'm not sure that's the problem.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ignoring that the Republicans also run people from cities without rural cred.... I'm not sure that's the problem.

 

Which they overcome by whom they talk to and how.  

[Mike Sixel]

Which they overcome by whom they talk to and how.

Not sure your point. You want Democrats to be racist, homophobic and anti Muslim, which is how the GoP talks? What could Democrats say at this point that independent rural voters want to hear?

 

My rural family cares about the culture war.... As do their friends.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not sure your point. You want Democrats to be racist, homophobic and anti Muslim, which is how the GoP talks? What could Democrats say at this point that independent rural voters want to hear?

My rural family cares about the culture war.... As do their friends.

 

Perhaps your first paragraph is the problem.

 

But yeah, go with divide the country.  Seems reasonable.  Let me know how it goes!

[PseudoSABR]

 

Part of the reason we are at this stage with the Supreme Court is the Democrat's move to change the vote from 60 to 51.  They did it for political expediency and McConnell told them that day they'd regret it.

This isn't quite correct.  The Dems changed the rule for federal judges, but preserved it for supreme court justices, and they did it because---the Republicans were stonewalling Obama's nominations.  I suppose the right thing would have been to let those just go unfilled for years? Bleh.

 

I don't know why we need to source the reason we are here to some tactic the Democrats made years ago, or who their nominee was.  The reason we are here is Trump, his supporters, and the near-rigged (if not totally rigged) election mechanisms that enabled them.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

Perhaps your first paragraph is the problem.

 

But yeah, go with divide the country.  Seems reasonable.  Let me know how it goes!

And your path to appeasement seems totally viable! And will probably work out in favor in the long run! 

[Vanimal46]

Perhaps your first paragraph is the problem.

 

But yeah, go with divide the country. Seems reasonable. Let me know how it goes!

By the time people my age run for President we'll build a Roman Colosseum and have gladiator fights to determine who will lead the country. The loser gets beheaded on live TV!

[Mike Sixel]

Perhaps your first paragraph is the problem.

 

But yeah, go with divide the country. Seems reasonable. Let me know how it goes!

Perhaps I wasn't clear, that's how the GoP speaks.... What should Democrats say to independent rural voters to sway them? What's this message that will suddenly reverse decades of voting patterns?

 

The world changed. Ime rural voters aren't big on change. Maybe it's the ones I know.... But that's my experience.

 

I'm literally asking you to educate me here, if your experience is different.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This isn't quite correct.  The Dems changed the rule for federal judges, but preserved it for supreme court justices, and they did it because---the Republicans were stonewalling Obama's nominations.  I suppose the right thing would have been to let those just go unfilled for years? Bleh.

 

I don't know why we need to source the reason we are here to some tactic the Democrats made years ago, or who their nominee was.  The reason we are here is Trump, his supporters, and the near-rigged (if not totally rigged) election mechanisms that enabled them.  

 

It's cool, everyone else is to blame.  Sounds reasonable.  I'm sure that will work out.

 

Remember when all of us about 6 years ago wondered how the Republicans would ever recover from the changes in demographics and their losses during the Obama years.  Well, we found it.  They bet on voter indifference on the left.  They galvanized the white and aging voters.  They played smart politics with the election map.  And they won.

 

I guess if "Woe is the Democrats" is your conclusion - get used to getting your ass kicked.  It doesn't seem like you want this Independent's opinion.  Fitting.

[Mike Sixel]

It's cool, everyone else is to blame. Sounds reasonable. I'm sure that will work out.

 

Remember when all of us about 6 years ago wondered how the Republicans would ever recover from the changes in demographics and their losses during the Obama years. Well, we found it. They bet on voter indifference on the left. They galvanized the white and aging voters. They played smart politics with the election map. And they won.

 

I guess if "Woe is the Democrats" is your conclusion - get used to getting your ass kicked. It doesn't seem like you want this Independent's opinion. Fitting.

Not all of us wondered that. I spent years working with the GoP, I know their plan is a long game. I do think, over generations, things improve. But Turkey has made me wonder if history is right, and tyranny is harder to defeat than I thought.

 

There are literally people in power in Italy that want to rebuild the axis.... Egypt and Turkey are lost as democracies. Fear is an easier sell than hope, apparently.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear, that's how the GoP speaks.... What should Democrats say to independent rural voters to sway them? What's this message that will suddenly reverse decades of voting patterns?

The world changed. Ime rural voters aren't big on change. Maybe it's the ones I know.... But that's my experience.

I'm literally asking you to educate me here, if your experience is different.

 

It sounded sarcastic, sorry.  I don't know if I have the answers either.  6 years ago I thought the Republicans were about to get screwed hard by the demographics.  But I didn't anticipate them swinging so many whites (women included) and rural voters away from the Dems.

 

So how do I recover that?  Well I start (like, yesterday) talking about how Republicans are screwing you with trade wars.   You get a plan out there right now for the Dem platform to protect farmers, laud their efforts to feed our country, offer small-farm subsidies, promise investment into rural communities (like technology), and offer tax breaks/credits for those farmers that pass their estate on to their children.  Offer a migrant worker/immigration package that gives farmers the workers they need.

 

I'd also implement some kind of "Small Town USA" funding project to help inject dollars into some rural communities to help keep rural life a possibility.  That will trickle into the other members of the rural community outside of farmers.

 

Just spit-balling.  The demographics still favor the Dems in the long-run, but in the short run you can't just abandon them.  That's how you lose.

[Mike Sixel]

That all sounds good. I doubt it is enough to over come identity politics, but it might be enough to make a dent. But that all sounds good.

[Mr. Brooks]

This isn't quite correct. The Dems changed the rule for federal judges, but preserved it for supreme court justices, and they did it because---the Republicans were stonewalling Obama's nominations. I suppose the right thing would have been to let those just go unfilled for years? Bleh.

 

I don't know why we need to source the reason we are here to some tactic the Democrats made years ago, or who their nominee was. The reason we are here is Trump, his supporters, and the near-rigged (if not totally rigged) election mechanisms that enabled them.

This whole conversation literally started with someone asking, maybe this is how we can stonewall Trump's appointment.

 

Why is it ok to stonewall his appointments, but it's wrong for them to stonewall Obama's?

It's wrong for both.

 

Trump is awful. The Republicans are mostly awful these days.

Trump's appointment is going to be awful. We're all screwed.

But elections have consequences. Trump won.

Obama should have gotten to pick Scalia's replacement. Trump gets to pick Kennedy's.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's cool, everyone else is to blame.  Sounds reasonable.  I'm sure that will work out.

 

Remember when all of us about 6 years ago wondered how the Republicans would ever recover from the changes in demographics and their losses during the Obama years.  Well, we found it.  They bet on voter indifference on the left.  They galvanized the white and aging voters.  They played smart politics with the election map.  And they won.

 

I guess if "Woe is the Democrats" is your conclusion - get used to getting your ass kicked.  It doesn't seem like you want this Independent's opinion.  Fitting.

I'm fine with owning that the Democrats have been politically ineffective, and I've championed the idea that Gore/Kerry/HRC are horribly vanilla (civility) candidates.  But that is not the CAUSE of the predicament we are in; it's certainly part of the narrative, but it's not the main, or even major cause. 

 

I want your opinion, but I'm not going to agree with it.  And I'm not saying Woe is Democrats; I'm asking them to do whatever they can to gum up the process short of violence and illegality.   Your solution sounds like trying to win rural whites back--which I think is a horrible strategy destined to fail.  Trump supporters aren't rational actors--but there is a persuadable middle.   Honestly, your opinion seems like a bunch of things we shouldn't be doing, and your not offering any real solutions or any strategy at all.  (I see in a response to Mike that you do offer some ideas; which are fine, but not nearly enough IMO).

 

I mean it's these same arguments that somehow suggest HRC was a horrible candidate, but also Bernie couldn't have won either.  As if there's some fictional candidate that would somehow please everyone and be perfectly civil, motivate the base yet draw rural whites, etc. etc.   We can hope for someone like that, but I imagine whoever the 2020 Dem nominee will be will be imperfect, and we should nonetheless rally around them because of the stakes. 

[Mr. Brooks]

That all sounds good. I doubt it is enough to over come identity politics, but it might be enough to make a dent. But that all sounds good.

As someone who grew up in rural America, it's so incredibly lazy and insulting, to me, to say that Dems lose the rural vote because rural voters are racist and sexist.

Dems used to compete in rural areas, even recently enough while they were advocating for equal rights and treatment. In areas where their message resonated, such as mining, industrial, and farming areas, they even dominated.

 

Until the left stops lumping them all together as stupid, racists and undesirables, the left is never getting them back.

Nobody likes being spoken down to, and discarded, and people will cut off their own noses to spite their faces if you insult them enough.

 

Messaging matters. The Republicans don't help rural working class people, but they also don't ignore them and insult them.

Unless there is a deliberate, pointed attempt to tell rural voters that they matter, Trump will win again in 2020.

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

This whole conversation literally started with someone asking, maybe this is how we can stonewall Trump's appointment.

Why is it ok to stonewall his appointments, but it's wrong for them to stonewall Obama's?
It's wrong for both.

Trump is awful. The Republicans are mostly awful these days.
Trump's appointment is going to be awful. We're all screwed.
But elections have consequences. Trump won.
Obama should have gotten to pick Scalia's replacement. Trump gets to pick Kennedy's.

Indeed.  Stonewalling is bad, but it's the new normal.  It's a tactic that's been employed to derail the Democrats time and again; and if they are the only one's willing to avoid stonewalling; we end up here with more right-wing policy and right-wing elected officials. 

 

Elections do have consequences, but let's not be naive that elections are fair; and the danger exists that they can be outright rigged.  Trump is autocrat, who perhaps will stop at nothing to maintain power--he'll go far beyond procedural ploys; he believes he's above the law so he won't operate within it.

 

Again, what is sanctity of the Senate procedure worth if only the (perpetually) minority party honors it?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Just to illustrate the rural vote difference.

[Mike Sixel]

As someone who grew up in rural America, it's so incredibly lazy and insulting, to me, to say that Dems lose the rural vote because rural voters are racist and sexist.

Dems used to compete in rural areas, even recently enough while they were advocating for equal rights and treatment. In areas where their message resonated, such as mining, industrial, and farming areas, they even dominated.

 

Until the left stops lumping them all together as stupid, racists and undesirables, the left is never getting them back.

Nobody likes being spoken down to, and discarded, and people will cut off their own noses to spite their faces if you insult them enough.

 

Messaging matters. The Republicans don't help rural working class people, but they also don't ignore them and insult them.

Unless there is a deliberate, pointed attempt to tell rural voters that they matter, Trump will win again in 2020.

I literally posted it was my experience with rural voters I know, but that I was asking to be educated if the other poster had other experiences.....

 

I'll ask you, what message gets over the identity politics that the GoP uses? Denying that identity politics exist doesn't help either....

[Mr. Brooks]

Indeed. Stonewalling is bad, but it's the new normal. It's a tactic that's been employed to derail the Democrats time and again; and if they are the only one's willing to avoid stonewalling; we end up here with more right-wing policy and right-wing elected officials.

 

Elections do have consequences, but let's not be naive that elections are fair; and the danger exists that they can be outright rigged. Trump is autocrat, who perhaps will stop at nothing to maintain power--he'll go far beyond procedural ploys; he believes he's above the law so he won't operate within it.

 

Again, what is sanctity of the Senate procedure worth if only the (perpetually) minority party honors it?

But both sides think they are the noble ones.

Always have, always will. Even the Nazi's thought they were in the right.

Every ploy just escalates back and forth, with both sides justifying it with the belief that they are in the right, and that the other side started it.

It's not sustainable.

[Mike Sixel]

But both sides think they are the noble ones.

Always have, always will. Even the Nazi's thought they were in the right.

Every ploy just escalates back and forth, with both sides justifying it with the belief that they are in the right, and that the other side started it.

It's not sustainable.

It's really hard to win a game, where one side plays by the rules, and the other does not. At some point, you need to realize the rules have changed. Or keep losing.

[Mike Sixel]

I'll also add that I never actually said rural voters were racist. I said the GoP speaks that way, and that rural voters aren't big on societal change.

 

Just look at Steve King....

[Craig Arko]

Two things:

 

1) The country is already irreparably divided; it's a bit late to start worrying about that.

2) No matter what the actions taken, or even the results, the way we view ourselves and the way the rest of the world views us is forever changed. There's no status quo left to try to preserve.

 

Oh, a third thing; it's time to make a moral gut check and take a stand based on that.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/06/28/hitlers-rise-it-can-happen-here/

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Tell that to the people of Turkey.

Honest question, thirty percent of the US loves this. Why do you want to stay married to them? Why is this make up of land mass so important?

What's your answer? The way the Constitution is set up literally provides less populated, rural, right wing, voters an advantage in the Senate and presidency. The deck is literally stacked against us.

Turkey is a wildly different situation that required several things to happen in a nation that has relied on the coup pretty regularly for about 100 years now.

 

Who cares if 30% of the nation loves this? Show me a period in time where 30% of the nation hasn't loved truly awful things.

 

Instead of screaming about the unfairness of rural voters and their impact on things (you won't get disagreement from me on that, really), figure out a way to win over enough of them that the point becomes moot.

 

Because that's where Democrats have failed over the past 30-40 years. Rural voters aren't inherently awful. By and large, they've been conned by one party and ignored by the other. Find a way to win over a few of them.

[Mike Sixel]

Two things:

 

1) The country is already irreparably divided; it's a bit late to start worrying about that.

2) No matter what the actions taken, or even the results, the way we view ourselves and the way the rest of the world views us is forever changed. There's no status quo left to try to preserve.

 

Oh, a third thing; it's time to make a moral gut check and take a stand based on that.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/06/28/hitlers-rise-it-can-happen-here/

That link!