POTUS Donald Trump

[DaveW]

So now that it's pretty much a certainty that Russia influenced this election significantly, what are the recourse's?  I imagine unless they can prove Trump was involved (treason) there isn't a whole lot they can do to change the election results?

Hopefully this doesn't lead to another war/conflict with Russia.

Part of me thinks that America might deserve this, after decades upon decades of the US influencing other countries elections (many of which bit us and the rest of the world in the ass eventually......Iran comes to mind) we are finally getting a taste of our own medicine.

On the other hand, ugh, why did it have to be THIS election... 

[Craig Arko]

The war will be with China, not Russia. Over Taiwan.

[Doomtints]

Russia can now buy industries in the US for pennies on the dollar, just like China did in the 90s.

 

Politicians want power and money, but apparently they're OK with having power over less and less as long as their wallets fatten.  

 

Barring a terrorist attack I doubt we will go to war in the traditional sense.  Russia and China will be owning us in other ways.  

[nicksaviking]

China and Russia are hurting every bit as much as we are economically, more so likely. No one's going to war unless it's some kind of cyber war. I'm pretty tech-unsavvy so I have no idea how that would work, previously I would have thought the US would have a significant edge but I'm not so sure at this point.

 

Also, I hate that I have to like it, but Trump is ripping on Lockheed Martin after doing the same to Boeing last week. He's after both for wasteful defense spending. I want the money to go towards infrastructure and education but I guess if the next evolutionary step is from physical war to cyber war, I'd rather funds went there than to stupid billion dollar planes that are under-utilized.

[PseudoSABR]

Electors from the Electoral College are demanding an intelligence briefing on Russian interference with the election.

 

Not sure that it will matter, but isn't this precisely why we'd have an Electoral College rather than a direct election of the President?

[nicksaviking]

The intel briefings are useless to intelligent people.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-explains-skipped-intel-briefings-im-smart-person/amp

 

Trump explains skipped intel briefings: 'I'm, like, a smart person'

 

Like, totally. For sure, OMG only like losers go to intelligence meetings. So lame.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Electors from the Electoral College are demanding an intelligence briefing on Russian interference with the election.

 

Not sure that it will matter, but isn't this precisely why we'd have an Electoral College rather than a direct election of the President?

 

It's one benefit, but I wouldn't attach much hope to the effort.

 

The only tangible benefit is to continue to push the FBI and CIA to disclose information.  And perhaps something more substantial is revealed in the process.

 

And, really, would any of us be surprised if it did?

[Badsmerf]

What does happen if trump is shown to have some involvement.....

 

Does the population that voted him in actually care? Do they think the CIA is lying too? I just don't know what some people consider real anymore.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, if he is directly involved, he could be charged with some serious crimes.  It might be enough for something radical to happen.

 

But there are costs to that as well.

[Squirrel]

What does happen if trump is shown to have some involvement.....

Does the population that voted him in actually care? Do they think the CIA is lying too? I just don't know what some people consider real anymore.

I think that a large chunk of his supporters will think it's some kind of conspiracy and won't believe it's true. But I really know. Maybe I'm underestimating people.

[kab21]

 

I have to think there's going to be a pretty big push to start calling the "alt-right" for what they are, white nationalists or neo-Nazis or something. I can't imagine mainstream Republicans are going to stand for that, they already tried to distance themselves from that during the primaries, are they really going to be OK taking on those labels if they become widely used?

But this is what I was talking about when I said mob rule. The mainstream Republicans can't do anything substantial until the bulk of their party turns against Trump and the alt right. The moderate republicans that tried to oppose Trump (and Cruz/Carson) during the primaries got crushed or suffered in popularity (like Paul Ryan). In the previous elections we already saw this happening at all levels of elections. It is getting very difficult to survive in the GOP as a moderate right now.

[DaveW]

 

What does happen if trump is shown to have some involvement.....

Does the population that voted him in actually care? Do they think the CIA is lying too? I just don't know what some people consider real anymore.

I think that would be more than enough grounds for treason. If you know a foreign country is going to "attack" the US, but say nothing, hide a bunch of **** etc and use that for a personal gain? That has to be treason, right?

Will some of the people who voted for him actually not care? Sure, but only the ones dumb enough to refuse to believe it.

But I bet 75-80% of the country would "care"

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Part of me thinks that America might deserve this, after decades upon decades of the US influencing other countries elections (many of which bit us and the rest of the world in the ass eventually......Iran comes to mind) we are finally getting a taste of our own medicine.

I certainly don't want to come off as un-American, but Dave is right, the leadership of this country has meddled way too much in the past 70 years and for the most part, it is against anything a rational, moral, and educated person would subscribe to.

 

Our countries decisions do not mirror the people of which it constitutes and we all need to face this reality. No laws, rules, or investigations are going to change this farce we have on our hands.

 

The repercussions of Trump are stoking the fires of supressed racism. something I would hope that has left our DNA, it has in many, but not in enough of people. It is discouraging.

 

If things go further South, which I am assuming they will. Only we can change the course. Many voices need to be heard from the mountain high. Intelligent protests need to be calculated and executed. People who are for this, need to put their necks on the line.

 

I don't know what the next 4 years hold for us, and I hope for the best. But something is amiss, and I hope that all the folks who are concerned, stand up for their beliefs, and fight this, and fight it to the bitter end.

[DaveW]

 

But this is what I was talking about when I said mob rule. The mainstream Republicans can't do anything substantial until the bulk of their party turns against Trump and the alt right. The moderate republicans that tried to oppose Trump (and Cruz/Carson) during the primaries got crushed or suffered in popularity (like Paul Ryan). In the previous elections we already saw this happening at all levels of elections. It is getting very difficult to survive in the GOP as a moderate right now.

The problem with the moderate republicans who opposed him: Bush/Paul was that:

 

-People were tired of another Bush president, and Jeb had like zero charisma.
-Paul was to far "left" to be a serious candidate.

I don't think there was another moderate republican candidate on the "main stage" at any time IMO. People will bring up Kasich, but that guy had some extremely far right views when it came to women's rights.

Rubio, Cruz etc were all very far right as well, and Fiorna and Carson were just sort of jokes to begin with.

 

[DaveW]

 

I certainly don't want to come off as un-American, but Dave is right, the leadership of this country has meddled way too much in the past 70 years and for the most part, it is against anything a rational, moral, and educated person would subscribe to.

 

 

Questioning terrible decisions by the govt isn't un-American at all, in fact I think it's much more "pro-American" then idiots who stand by the phrase "God Bless America and no place else" or send death threats to athletes who kneel during the anthem.

My main hope is that we find out during these next four years that even with a terrible president and a terrible cabinet, America will continue to be a great country because of it's people. If anything too crazy gets suggested or starts going down, the people can resist, fight back and right the ship. I mean my parents generation (and the ones just slightly before them) are the ones behind the civil rights movement and helped end the Vietnam War. 

IF **** goes south, the people can "win" again, just the small victory in North Dakota last week gives me a little bit of hope moving forward.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Questioning terrible decisions by the govt isn't un-American at all, in fact I think it's much more "pro-American" then idiots who stand by the phrase "God Bless America and no place else" or send death threats to athletes who kneel during the anthem.

My main hope is that we find out during these next four years that even with a terrible president and a terrible cabinet, America will continue to be a great country because of it's people. If anything too crazy gets suggested or starts going down, the people can resist, fight back and right the ship. I mean my parents generation (and the ones just slightly before them) are the ones behind the civil rights movement and helped end the Vietnam War. 

IF **** goes south, the people can "win" again, just the small victory in North Dakota last week gives me a little bit of hope moving forward.

I hope you know I was not accusing you of being un-American. I used your post as a jumping board to put out my message and I agree with you 100%. (:

 

I guess I was trying to be polite and inclusive. Not that it matters much.

[DaveW]

I hope you know I was not accusing you of being un-American. I used your post as a jumping board to put out my message and I agree with you 100%. (:

 

I guess I was trying to be polite and inclusive. Not that it matters much.

Oh no! I didn't think that at all.

 

I was responding to your comment about (you) not wanting to come off sounding "un American"

 

Definitely on the same page. Sorry if I was a little unclear.

[kab21]

 

The problem with the moderate republicans who opposed him: Bush/Paul was that:

 

-People were tired of another Bush president, and Jeb had like zero charisma.
-Paul was to far "left" to be a serious candidate.

I don't think there was another moderate republican candidate on the "main stage" at any time IMO. People will bring up Kasich, but that guy had some extremely far right views when it came to women's rights.

Rubio, Cruz etc were all very far right as well, and Fiorna and Carson were just sort of jokes to begin with.

 

You are limiting it to the presidential candidates. There were many in the republican party that started to oppose Trump but had to tone it down for fear of losing their own support. And this has been going on for the last decade since the Tea Party was created. It is getting harder and harder to be a moderate in the GOP. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

You are limiting it to the presidential candidates. There were many in the republican party that started to oppose Trump but had to tone it down for fear of losing their own support. And this has been going on for the last decade since the Tea Party was created. It is getting harder and harder to be a moderate in the GOP. 

 

It's getting harder and harder to be a moderate at all.  Neither side accepts it very well.  When you inject reason, common sense, and nuance into the conversation both sides go nuts.

 

Unfortunately, one side has consolidated more power among the people rejecting those sorts of ideas and had a party actually, fully buy into it.  The Dems at least have resisted the urge so far, but your average left-winger cares for moderates about as much as Limbaugh and that ilk.

 

And yet politics are supposed to be the art of the compromise.

[kab21]

 

It's getting harder and harder to be a moderate at all.  Neither side accepts it very well.  When you inject reason, common sense, and nuance into the conversation both sides go nuts.

 

Unfortunately, one side has consolidated more power among the people rejecting those sorts of ideas and had a party actually, fully buy into it.  The Dems at least have resisted the urge so far, but your average left-winger cares for moderates about as much as Limbaugh and that ilk.

 

And yet politics are supposed to be the art of the compromise.

Absolutely correct. I see the Dems going the route of the alt right and launching a very strong Occupy/Bernie based progressive movement. I have said this before but I think we could have 3 substantial parties in the next election. Far right - moderates/establishment (probably democratic moderate led but absorbing moderate republicans) - progressives. It is very easy to see the extremes on both sides but many (like myself) don't really want to have anything to do with either extreme. If people thought this election was crazy then I think they need to be prepared for an even crazier election in 4 years.

[TheLeviathan]

I completely agree.  I don't know when nuance of thought became such a bad thing, but it definitely is.  Both sides take any kind of nuance, balance, or consideration as a sign of "not committed enough" and that is such a horrible mentality for effecting any kind of compromise or common ground.

[PseudoSABR]

Let's just get this straight.  Alt-right ≠ progressives.  

[PseudoSABR]

In other news, the Trump administration is trying to identify and gut the Energy Department of "climate" staffers.  Thankfully the Department isn't complying. 

[DaveW]

I love how people who acknowledge global warming is the new communist.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Let's just get this straight.  Alt-right ≠ progressives.  

 

Of course not, leftists progressives generally aren't outward racists.  But they come with their own host of issues (stifling of speech most importantly IMO) that are very dangerous in their own right.

 

Ugly reflections tend to have mirrors and I think both extremes are fueling it.  And people in the middle are giving up hope in being moderates and declaring for one camp or the other.  I tip my hat to the Dems for trying to stay moderate in the face of all of it though.

[Badsmerf]

In other news, the Trump administration is trying to identify and gut the Energy Department of "climate" staffers. Thankfully the Department isn't complying.

Is that an attempt to destroy them or to save them? Sounds scary to me.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Is that an attempt to destroy them or to save them? Sounds scary to me.

I imagine the Trump regime wants its administrations staffed with only climate-deniers.  So yeah, pretty scary. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I tip my hat to the Dems for trying to stay moderate in the face of all of it though.

But that's essentially what did them in; they became a party of appeasement, creating establishment by default.   Obama and Clinton's presidency are examples of ideological moderation.

 

It's fine to identify yourself as a moderate (being conservative on some issues, liberal on others, finding middle ground on yet others), but moderation isn't an operable belief-system because there really isn't any fixed point of agreement.  As a political message it becomes muddled and sounds insincere.   

 

For my part, I hope Democrats do track to the left, and try to persuade Americans on the merits of their beliefs.  Country's concept of moderation has swung far much to the right for my tastes, and I don't think balance will be achieved by trying to better track the middle. 

[Mike Sixel]

Right....moderate today = pretty hard core republican 25 years ago.....other than a couple social issues.

[TheLeviathan]

 

But that's essentially what did them in; they became a party of appeasement, creating establishment by default.   Obama and Clinton's presidency are examples of ideological moderation.

 

It's fine to identify yourself as a moderate (being conservative on some issues, liberal on others, finding middle ground on yet others), but moderation isn't an operable belief-system because there really isn't any fixed point of agreement.  As a political message it becomes muddled and sounds insincere.   

 

For my part, I hope Democrats do track to the left, and try to persuade Americans on the merits of their beliefs.  Country's concept of moderation has swung far much to the right for my tastes, and I don't think balance will be achieved by trying to better track the middle. 

 

I don't think that's what did them in.  It wasn't the moderate message, it was the insider nature of the messenger.  Voters wanted an outsider, the Democrats gave them the most inside insider they could possibly come up with.  

 

I would say, from your second paragraph, that you have fallen into the trap I'm talking about.  Being moderate isn't insincere or muddled.  That notion comes from the idea that you have to think just like everyone on your side of the aisle to count as having a firm, consistent world view.

 

And that, frankly, is BS.  And I think that mentality, the one you just laid out so perfectly, is such a HUGE part of the problem.  Frankly, change a few words in there and you don't sound dissimilar to how Limbaugh talks about rhino's or moderates.  

 

That is toxic.  I am, however, ok with the country's moderate moving further left.  But I also worry about what that means.  Elements of the left have gotten so extreme they start to look like the elements of the extreme right.  I almost feel like we need to jump off the current spectrum and on to a new, more sane one.  Moving right or left on this spectrum seems to end up in the same mess IMO.