The Trump Presidency – 2016

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

But showing that people in the community use these grants for all sorts of interesting things and it makes a difference. And you can use it too. Etc.

And then it immediately turns around to, if they can't survive in the market, why should we prop it up? That's been the tactic for years but conservatives have still been wanting to kill it. In 1981, it took Reagan's friends Heston & Coors to dissuade him from defunding the NEA, and since then it's only been saved because Democrats have been willing to go to the carpet for it. The whole "look how it impacts you" clearly hasn't worked much in the Trump Administration, as Trump admitted on Tucker Carlson's show that he knows that Trumpcare would hurt his voters more than blue state voters.

And guess what, the single struggling mother in Flint may not directly benefit from NEA spending (none of the Fall 2016 grants went to Flint), and so showing how it benefited museums, concern houses, etc in Ann Arbor and Detroit is not exactly a compelling argument (now Flint really needs the EPA not to get cut, but that's another story).

The only way to really make a defense of arts spending is to educate people on how the arts have been traditionally funded and what has been the result. People are far more impressed by the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel than they are about the reinstallation of 200 artworks at the Detroit Institute of Arts - but if you can link those together its far more impressive and impactful.

[Ben E Lou]

OK, media, stop it with the breathless "ZOMFG WTF BBQ NO INDICATIONS OF WIRETAPPING" headlines, and someone just write "Trump was talking out of his ass like he often does, and he's too stupid/naive to understand that accusing a former President of a felony is serious business. This is what happens when you elect a loudmouth with zero government/legal background as President. Hopefully he'll learn from this, but he probably won't" so we can move on from this stupidity.

[Logan]

That's a long headline.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The only way to really make a defense of arts spending is to educate people on how the arts have been traditionally funded and what has been the result. People are far more impressed by the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel than they are about the reinstallation of 200 artworks at the Detroit Institute of Arts - but if you can link those together its far more impressive and impactful.

I agree! But this is not what you said earlier. You said (paraphrasing) anyone who thinks this must be uneducated. That's the type of statement that loses elections. And we should aim for better messaging than that and better discourse than that, even on a silly sports sim message board.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

I agree! But this is not what you said earlier. You said (paraphrasing) anyone who thinks this must be uneducated. That's the type of statement that loses elections. And we should aim for better messaging than that and better discourse than that, even on a silly sports sim message board.

You win elections by getting your base to turn out. Not by convincing folks like JIMG that the arts matter (and I think JIMG would agree on the vice versa).

And the way to educate people is to first acknowledge that people are uneducated and call it out, rather than pussy foot around it. That's what has caused the Democrats to lose elections - gingerly trying to back their views to get folks from the other side, losing the base in the process.

[JPhillips]

I'm an artist and I'd rather focus attention on the cruelty of cutting school lunches and Meals on Wheels.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You win elections by getting your base to turn out. Not by convincing folks like JIMG that the arts matter (and I think JIMG would agree on the vice versa).

I'll agree on the premise but question the impact of the approach here.

The question I'd pose is basically this (as best I can phrase it on a first try anyway):

Take the ignorance approach you're talking about here. How much more votes does it get you versus how many votes does it motivate for the opposition. I'm picturing it working about as well as criticizing "their bibles and their guns" or calling them "deplorables".

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm an artist and I'd rather focus attention on the cruelty of cutting school lunches and Meals on Wheels.

Agree!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Logan

That's a long headline.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Take the ignorance approach you're talking about here. How much more votes does it get you versus how many votes does it motivate for the opposition. I'm picturing it working about as well as criticizing "their bibles and their guns" or calling them "deplorables".

Yes, exactly. I'd point to the deplorables moment as being one of the two or three pivotal moments of the campaign. That's exactly what this sounds like to me. We know better than you doesn't play well with the other side and doesn't help you with the convertible fringe.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm picturing it working about as well as criticizing "their bibles and their guns" or calling them "deplorables".

Yeah, I'm with Jon on this one. Seems like you're needlessly pissing off people who don't care about the arts but wouldn't have bothered to vote until you took a potshot at them.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You win elections by getting your base to turn out. Not by convincing folks like JIMG that the arts matter (and I think JIMG would agree on the vice versa).

And the way to educate people is to first acknowledge that people are uneducated and call it out, rather than pussy foot around it. That's what has caused the Democrats to lose elections - gingerly trying to back their views to get folks from the other side, losing the base in the process.

The very first sentence you typed in response was:

That would mean that person has no real knowledge of the history of art

Start any discussion with a moderate who is an otherwise reasonable person but has no strong opinion on funding for the arts with "well that just means you have no real knowledge" and see how well everything sticks.


Go look on reddit right now at pretty much any thread that touches on trump. Read back through our political threads during the election. There is a defeault behavior of many on the left that is supported and cheered on that is arrogant and condescending. Read enough of that arrogance online and maybe someone who would have held his nose and voted against Trump decided "fuck those assholes" and stayed home.

We're all sports fans here right? I have my favorite teams but a lot of my rooting interests are shaped around what I see from the fans of other teams. How many of us root against Kansas City teams with glee due to MBBF? I root against Boston teams in large part due to fans of the tems that I knew when they started winning.

Is that relevant to politics? It shouldn't be. We should all analyze a large number of issues and decide how to vote. But, isn't it much more likely that for some people, if they see arrogance and condescention as the primary way they are treated, some will subconsciously shift.


Of course its unlikely that any one person online lost his side votes with a post on FOFC. But I don't think its unreasonable to make an effort, even in mostly throwaway conversations, to communicate better and to think about who may be reading what you write.

[Radii]

Unsurprisingly, digamma and Ben said it better than I in far fewer words, but I think we're all saying generally the same things

[JPhillips]

Basically nobody is going to come out to vote for or against the NEA. Any arguments are playing to voters that aren't persuadable.

Now it could motivate donors or volunteers, but the single mother in Flint isn't going to decide to vote or change her vote because of the NEA. But she might go vote when her heat gets turned off because Trump zeroed out heating assistance.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Now it could motivate donors or volunteers, but the single mother in Flint isn't going to decide to vote or change her vote because of the NEA. But she might go vote when her heat gets turned off because Trump zeroed out heating assistance.

Or when she loses Medicaid for herself and her child.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

OK, media, stop it with the breathless "ZOMFG WTF BBQ

I find this amusing. Where did the 'WTFBBQ' stuff come from? I just think that formulation is hilarious, and am curious on the origins.

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Does anyone here personally know people who have done complete 180's on Trump like our spineless political leaders?

Everyone I know has stayed where they were. The Trump supporters have basically just pointed out things he's done that they like, and their response to the negatives is 'still a much better president than Hillary would have been'. To which my response, if I bother with one, is always 'those weren't the only two choices', and then we get back on that merry-go-round until someone is sick/bored of it.

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

I'm sure you know more about the law than people who have spent their entire lives practicing. I mean you watch the O'Reilly Factor and they just went to law school

When people who did go to law school have vastly different opinions(see: Ginsburg and Scalia who were hard pressed to agree on much beyond water is wet) this line of thought loses quite a bit. The larger issue here though is whether law is law, or merely a suggestion that may or may not be useful, as it has come to be used as increasingly.

Originally Posted by Jon

Because the Constitution supercedes any statute. It doesn't matter what the statute says if the President's actions violate the Constitution.

Interesting how this argument is always used by those who support a ruling. Particularly in this case coming from those who tend to not particularly care all that much what the Constitution says if it's not convenient. As an aside, the actions under discussion don't violate said Constitution.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What you just posted backs the decision. He has to show that they are "detrimental to the interests of the United States".

Actually it doesn't say that he has to show that, or anything else. It gives the POTUS the power of making the decision. The word used is 'find', which is quite different.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You aren't allowed to ban based on religion. It's simply not legal (as stated above).

Also inaccurate. First, neither executive order stated a religion-based ban. Second, even if they did, the section you quoted says basically that the president can if the SoS agrees. The phrase here is 'personally determines', which again is not about whether they can demonstrate something, it's a decision made by the SoS within their powers.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

even then he has to deal with the First Amendment issues of discrimination based on religion.

No he doesn't. The Constitution explicitly applies to 'the people of the United States'(per the beginning of the Preamble). If we were talking about the nonsense discussed in the campaign about deporting people who wouldn't renounce Sharia law, then yes absolutely this is the case. The First Amendment doesn't apply to immigration though. It applies to those who are already here.

As I've said before, I think the travel ban is/was/continues to be a lousy idea. I'd consider changing my mind if somebody would give me one concrete thing that 'extreme vetting' would accomplish that isn't already being done. The silence on that front is deafening, and I wouldn't believe Trump or anyone from his administration if they told me the sky was blue. It is within his Constitutional powers though, and the judges in these cases should be ashamed of themselves. It is simply none of their business to assess his motivations or the presumed economic impacts of these issues. One of the things Trump is right about is that this kind of thing matters greatly for future presidents as well. When we basically decide that we don't like how someone uses the office, so we are going to limit their ability to govern, it's just another step down the road to lawlessness.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll agree on the premise but question the impact of the approach here.

The question I'd pose is basically this (as best I can phrase it on a first try anyway):

Take the ignorance approach you're talking about here. How much more votes does it get you versus how many votes does it motivate for the opposition. I'm picturing it working about as well as criticizing "their bibles and their guns" or calling them "deplorables".

May I point out that the so-called deplorables did plenty of motivating votes for the opposition. Y'all do consider "liberal" basically a curse word, right? And let's not even get into what you consider people from the inner cities.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

Go look on reddit right now at pretty much any thread that touches on trump. Read back through our political threads during the election. There is a defeault behavior of many on the left that is supported and cheered on that is arrogant and condescending. Read enough of that arrogance online and maybe someone who would have held his nose and voted against Trump decided "fuck those assholes" and stayed home.

We're all sports fans here right? I have my favorite teams but a lot of my rooting interests are shaped around what I see from the fans of other teams. How many of us root against Kansas City teams with glee due to MBBF? I root against Boston teams in large part due to fans of the tems that I knew when they started winning.

Is that relevant to politics? It shouldn't be. We should all analyze a large number of issues and decide how to vote. But, isn't it much more likely that for some people, if they see arrogance and condescention as the primary way they are treated, some will subconsciously shift.

It's the false dichotomy here that rankles. It's the arrogance and condescension of the 'left' but for some reason the arrogance and condescension of the right (which arguably led to the building of the alt-right and Tea Party movements) is completely ignored.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Basically nobody is going to come out to vote for or against the NEA. Any arguments are playing to voters that aren't persuadable.

Now it could motivate donors or volunteers, but the single mother in Flint isn't going to decide to vote or change her vote because of the NEA. But she might go vote when her heat gets turned off because Trump zeroed out heating assistance.

Yep, this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

May I point out that the so-called deplorables did plenty of motivating votes for the opposition. Y'all do consider "liberal" basically a curse word, right? And let's not even get into what you consider people from the inner cities.

The word "scoreboard" seems rather apt here, don't you think?

I mean, stipulate exactly what you said for the purposes of the exercise.
Which side did that work out better for?

I have no problem with the concept that the two groups of voters really don't much care for one another. {shrug} That's cool by me. Thing is, for the purpose of what we're talking about here, which one does that animosity seem to work out better for at the ballot box?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The word "scoreboard" seems rather apt here, don't you think?

I mean, stipulate exactly what you said for the purposes of the exercise.
Which side did that work out better for?

I have no problem with the concept that the two groups of voters really don't much care for one another. {shrug} That's cool by me. Thing is, for the purpose of what we're talking about here, which one does that animosity seem to work out better for at the ballot box?

Are you confusing the scoreboard for one game for the entire season, though? 4 years ago or 8 years ago, saying 'scoreboard' would have meant the Democrats won the game, regardless of the condescension of the right wing against President Obama and liberals. So it isn't as if the condescension of the right always wins while the condescension of the left always loses. I would argue that especially in 2008, the condescension of the left was overwhelmingly triumphant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Are you confusing the scoreboard for one game for the entire season, though? 4 years ago or 8 years ago, saying 'scoreboard' would have meant the Democrats won the game, regardless of the condescension of the right wing against President Obama and liberals. So it isn't as if the condescension of the right always wins while the condescension of the left always loses. I would argue that especially in 2008, the condescension of the left was overwhelmingly triumphant.

I'd caution against judging Trump elections vs virtually any other.

You can, of course, if you want to ... but you ain't gonna like the outcome any better than you did last time.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't think 2008 was about any of that one way or the other. Information seems to indicate it was about change and the economy and nothing else mattered. The fierce urgency of now. I do definitely agree with your basic point though. Trump won, but getting all arrogant about that fact is silly when you consider how much he lost the popular vote by. Doesn't matter in terms of winning the election, but it does matter in terms of the state of the electorate and sustainable success.

[ISiddiqui]

JIMG: So does that mean you feel you only got 4 or 8 years to get everything done you can before you are fucked?

[Radii]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's the false dichotomy here that rankles. It's the arrogance and condescension of the 'left' but for some reason the arrogance and condescension of the right (which arguably led to the building of the alt-right and Tea Party movements) is completely ignored.

This makes no sense to me in the context of the discussion we're having, unless your argument is that the other side is full of assholes so your side needs to match that.

We're talking about swaying potential voters. About convincing someone to see your side of things, convincing someone that your side of things is worth the effort to go vote and to turn an election. There is only you and the case you make and the way you make it and the effect it has on those reading it. An argument that begins around the idea that the person you are trying to sway is dumb is not going to be effective, no matter what the other side is doing.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Basically nobody is going to come out to vote for or against the NEA. Any arguments are playing to voters that aren't persuadable.

Now it could motivate donors or volunteers, but the single mother in Flint isn't going to decide to vote or change her vote because of the NEA. But she might go vote when her heat gets turned off because Trump zeroed out heating assistance.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep, this.

No one is arguing this. This started because QS said it was a chance to have an honest conversation about budget initiatives. That was shut down immediately. With friends like these!

[Radii]

Making this a separate post so as to not dilute what I think is a much more important point in my last post.

Is "the condescention of the right" really a thing? The crux of the strategy on the right was one of fearmongering. It worked. I don't see arrogance and condescention as a part of a strategy or a way of speaking. I mainly see trying to create abject terror in voters.

[digamma]

I think there was some condescension when family values were a thing. Judging of other's lifestyle, etc.

[digamma]

As I've said before, I think the travel ban is/was/continues to be a lousy idea. I'd consider changing my mind if somebody would give me one concrete thing that 'extreme vetting' would accomplish that isn't already being done. The silence on that front is deafening, and I wouldn't believe Trump or anyone from his administration if they told me the sky was blue. It is within his Constitutional powers though, and the judges in these cases should be ashamed of themselves. It is simply none of their business to assess his motivations or the presumed economic impacts of these issues. One of the things Trump is right about is that this kind of thing matters greatly for future presidents as well. When we basically decide that we don't like how someone uses the office, so we are going to limit their ability to govern, it's just another step down the road to lawlessness.

Brian, honest question here. It seems like your position largely stems from your position that there shouldn't necessarily be judicial review and that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. This may be the topic of an entirely different thread, but what do you see the role of the courts then in interpreting the law? And in the instant case, why is legislative intent (or in this case executive intent) not a valid judicial inquiry? There is obviously a ton of judicial precedent for considering intent.

Also important to keep the framework of the cases in mind. We actually haven't had a ruling on the merits, just a decision on a TRO, which weighs likelihood of success on the merits versus likelihood/magnitude of immediate injury.

[cuervo72]

If the term "libtard" isn't condescending...

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's the false dichotomy here that rankles. It's the arrogance and condescension of the 'left' but for some reason the arrogance and condescension of the right (which arguably led to the building of the alt-right and Tea Party movements) is completely ignored.

I would say the alt-right and Tea Party movements were the result of the traditional GOP not responding strongly enough to the arrogance and condescension of the left.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If the term "libtard" isn't condescending...

yea fair point there

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

This makes no sense to me in the context of the discussion we're having, unless your argument is that the other side is full of assholes so your side needs to match that.

That's about right. I think I've pointed out a few times that after the election I came to the realization that JIMG was more right than wrong about treating the other side as the enemy.

We're talking about swaying potential voters. About convincing someone to see your side of things, convincing someone that your side of things is worth the effort to go vote and to turn an election. There is only you and the case you make and the way you make it and the effect it has on those reading it. An argument that begins around the idea that the person you are trying to sway is dumb is not going to be effective, no matter what the other side is doing.

I don't think there are a lot of 'potential voters' that get swayed. Even independents are mostly leaning GOP or Dem. The way you win is by getting your base out. I think the Dems have tried too much lately to reach to potential voters in the middle rather than rallied the base - while I don't think Sanders would have beaten Trump (some one like Sherrod Brown though...), he was far more correct in focusing on the base being the campaign strategy rather than Clinton's 'Trump is horrible, moderate Republicans you should vote for me strategy' - which didn't really work. And I'll be honest, I thought, while she should have emphasized her policy positions more, the appeal to moderate Republicans would work. They lined up right behind Trump though when it came time to vote.

Considering that scientific research tells us that people made decisions based on emotional response, then try to rationalize ad hoc, trying to sway people rationally is a lost cause IMO. Unless they get an emotional shock (like in the gay marriage fight, someone they knew all their lives is gay), there isn't much change in their views.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

Making this a separate post so as to not dilute what I think is a much more important point in my last post.

Is "the condescention of the right" really a thing? The crux of the strategy on the right was one of fearmongering. It worked. I don't see arrogance and condescention as a part of a strategy or a way of speaking. I mainly see trying to create abject terror in voters.

As pointed out libtard has been used frequently, but Trump's entire campaign strategy was fear mongering coupled with "these morons and idiots don't get it". And that "they are so stupid, they can't see this obvious thing". The whole argument around political correctness is a idea that libtards would rather say nice things "about our enemies" than acknowledge the truth. There is a ton of arrogance and condescension involved in that worldview. I mean Hell, look at how JIMG talks about liberals.

[JPhillips]

The whole, coastal, liberal elite thing is condescending as can be.

Or, "get out of your bubble."

[molson]

The democrats shouldn't refuse to believe there's anything wrong with their party. Including how they can come across to people, or how they unnecessarily embolden the other side, or how they perceive people who vote on different values, etc.

They did lose to Donald Trump, after all. That's quite a fail. They won the popular vote, but this was supposed to be a slam dunk.

Edit: A friend of mine on facebook made a long, passionate post about how he decided to de-friend a conservative facebook friend because he admitted that he sometimes posted snarky anti-liberal memes just to annoy her liberal friends. That was the line, apparently. But I wondered what the purpose was of all of the anti-conservative snarky memes this guy posted, about how dumb the other side is, etc. Was it to rally his own side, convert people on the other side or who are on the fence, or to annoy the other side?

[Easy Mac]

So can we get back to how British microwaves are colluding with the 9/11 hoaxers to help Hillary Clinton impeach Trump to install Mike Pence as Chancellor of New California?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The whole, coastal, liberal elite thing is condescending as can be.

Or, "get out of your bubble."

I dont see this as condescending. Unless you are talking the coastal liberals as being condescending.
That is the problem. Those liberals (Entertainers from the west and politicians from the east), come across as out of touch with the reality of the flyover states and come off as exceedingly condescending.
Thus the name. It is based on a truth many people in the Midwest feel is true. So it is based on that perception which is considered the truth.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

JIMG: So does that mean you feel you only got 4 or 8 years to get everything done you can before you are fucked?

My sincerest desire is, that within 8 years, there isn't enough of the left still standing for even a decent candidate to ever lose another national election again.

I don't want the left beaten, I want it destroyed. Completely. And relegated to the rubbish bin where it belongs.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by molson

They did lose to Donald Trump, after all.

Yes, they lost to Donald Trump. But there's more.

They hold less than 1/3 of the Governorships.

They couldn't retake the Senate in an election that featured Donald Trump as the headlining opposition candidate.

They control only 31 out of 98 state legislative chambers. The Republican number of 67 is a record. They let the opposition party set that record in an election that featured Donald Freaking Trump as the headliner.

There is no room for arrogance. They've got a lot to figure out.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

Brian, honest question here.

Be careful with that kind of thing 'round here. :P. J/k, I like productive discussions muy mucho.

It seems like your position largely stems from your position that there shouldn't necessarily be judicial review and that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided.

I was once against judicial review, but was persuaded otherwhise. Credit where credit is due: I think it was Isiddiqui on these boards who changed my mind.

Originally Posted by digamma

what do you see the role of the courts then in interpreting the law?

Just that: interpreting the law. My beef with the modern judiciary is that quite often(though less so than in some past periods), they don't primarily concern themselves with mere interpretation. More on this in a second:

in the instant case, why is legislative intent (or in this case executive intent) not a valid judicial inquiry?

I think this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Legislative intent is a valid and important judicial inquiry(though it should never approach what the law actually says in importance), because it directly concerns what the law is and means. Executive intent absolutely is not; it has no bearing on the law itself. Applying it also has the perverse affect of encouraging the executive branch to lie about what it is trying to do, but that's a side issue.

Taking the Hawaii case, when Judge Derrick Watson wrote that the argument regarding the six countries being blocked for national security reasons is not convincing, I'm inclined to agree with him. More importantly though, it's none of his business! He's not the commander-in-chief. It's not his job to make the decision on what national security-related steps to take. That job belongs to the president. Similarly, the implication that the ban would be more legally acceptable if Trump had not made anti-Muslim statements during the campaign is simply absurd ... I can't objectively put it any kinder. It's also clear from what he wrote that if Trump had added random countries without Muslim-majority populations to the list, it would be easier for his order to survive. The sheer machinations going on here are just really beyond my vocabulary to effectively describe.

As for the scope of the cases, maybe things will change when the full process plays out, but I see no reason based on the rulings so far on both EOs to think that is the case.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

There is no room for arrogance. They've got a lot to figure out.

It's amazing how many articles you can find from liberal publications and blogs declaring the Republican party dead, written right after the 2008 election, and then in the months before the 2016 election. I remember that sentiment expressed here too.

There's probably some conservatives who think the Democratic party will die soon, but I don't think it's as prevalent a theme on that end. Republicans maybe are better at keeping the emphasis on themselves and what they want to do.

[Drake]

I say let them cut everything they want.

And then in four years or eight years, return the favor. Cut Veterans Affairs, cut military spending, cut subsidies/tax abatements to businesses and fund flower gardens and whatever instead. Stop shitting around and go after the guns for realz. Strip tax exempt status from churches. The whole enchilada.

I think it's time Americans get a hard lesson in what happens when you lose the art of compromise. If we're going to polarize, let's get serious about it. If we want to apply free market principles to the arts, that's cool...as long as we can also apply them to homeless vets. If that new fighter plane is so important to you, let the Air Force launch a gofundme in the Democratic years. If homeless vets freezing to the ground in January bother you, take one in.

Maybe after a decade or so, people will realize that maybe we can support both things in moderation without making everything an all-or-nothing false dichotomy. Sure, some people are going to die on either side of the policy divides, but we really don't honestly give a shit about that. Not when winning an internet argument is at stake.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

It's amazing how many articles you can find from liberal publications and blogs declaring the Republican party dead, written right after the 2008 election, and then in the months before the 2016 election. I remember that sentiment expressed here too.

There's probably some conservatives who think the Democratic party will die soon, but I don't think it's as prevalent a theme on that end. Republicans maybe are better at keeping the emphasis on themselves and what they want to do.

I wouldn't call the Republican party dead by any means, but their stance on many social issues is still the minority and not trending in their direction despite election results. If 110,000 votes or so are moved around people would have been discussing the death of the party or the need to adapt for at least the next 4 years.

IMO, if Republicans want to take a Trump fluke against a weak democratic nominee as some some sort of validation I'm fine with that. Polls have shown that society as a whole has been moving slowly to the left for 15 or so years. An administration that is combative with the majority of the voting base isn't going to help slow that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I wouldn't call the Republican party dead by any means, but their stance on many social issues is still the minority and not trending in their direction despite election results. If 110,000 votes or so are moved around people would have been discussing the death of the party or the need to adapt for at least the next 4 years.

IMO, if Republicans want to take a Trump fluke against a weak democratic nominee as some some sort of validation I'm fine with that. Polls have shown that society as a whole has been moving slowly to the left for 15 or so years. An administration that is combative with the majority of the voting base isn't going to help slow that.

I don't think the issues matter that much for voters.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

When people who did go to law school have vastly different opinions(see: Ginsburg and Scalia who were hard pressed to agree on much beyond water is wet) this line of thought loses quite a bit. The larger issue here though is whether law is law, or merely a suggestion that may or may not be useful, as it has come to be used as increasingly.

We've gotten decisions on it from both sides of the judicial spectrum. I'm sure we'll get more and maybe it will change.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Actually it doesn't say that he has to show that, or anything else. It gives the POTUS the power of making the decision. The word used is 'find', which is quite different.

Also inaccurate. First, neither executive order stated a religion-based ban. Second, even if they did, the section you quoted says basically that the president can if the SoS agrees. The phrase here is 'personally determines', which again is not about whether they can demonstrate something, it's a decision made by the SoS within their powers.

No he doesn't. The Constitution explicitly applies to 'the people of the United States'(per the beginning of the Preamble). If we were talking about the nonsense discussed in the campaign about deporting people who wouldn't renounce Sharia law, then yes absolutely this is the case. The First Amendment doesn't apply to immigration though. It applies to those who are already here.

As I've said before, I think the travel ban is/was/continues to be a lousy idea. I'd consider changing my mind if somebody would give me one concrete thing that 'extreme vetting' would accomplish that isn't already being done. The silence on that front is deafening, and I wouldn't believe Trump or anyone from his administration if they told me the sky was blue. It is within his Constitutional powers though, and the judges in these cases should be ashamed of themselves. It is simply none of their business to assess his motivations or the presumed economic impacts of these issues. One of the things Trump is right about is that this kind of thing matters greatly for future presidents as well. When we basically decide that we don't like how someone uses the office, so we are going to limit their ability to govern, it's just another step down the road to lawlessness.

I'm going off what the decisions have said. Not my personal opinion on the matter. Like I said, I didn't attend Harvard or Georgetown law. I haven't spent my life working in law. It'd be ignorant of me to pretend I know more than the judges because I watched a few segments on cable news.

Maybe all the stuff you say is right and will be changed by other judges. We have a rather vast array of checks and balances. Many other great legal minds will take a look at this and rule on it. If they reinstate it, I'll go with it because I assume those people have a better understanding of the law than I do.

[JPhillips]

I don't think the attitude of the Dems matters anywhere near as much as the lack of definition of the party's goals. Can anybody list the five things Dems would do if they were in charge? They have no brand, largely because most of them are too scared to stand for anything more than, "not quite as bad as the other guys."

Personally I'd like to build around a modern version of Roosevelt's four freedoms, but even if it were to the left or right of my ideal, any clear set of principles and goals is bound to help.

[Drake]

The problem is that as soon as Dems settled on a new set of four freedoms or principles or whatever, we'd immediately start tearing each other apart because victim group x, y, or z got marginalized, re-victimized, or disenfranchised by such absolute statements that ignored their historical plight.

The problem with building your political momentum around increasingly atomized groups of victims is that eventually you can't say anything definitive without conflicting with one of your interest groups. I think Dems are just confronting the logical end of the post-modern political narrative.

[Drake]

For the record, I'm not saying that Dems shouldn't come up with clear principles to push as their agenda...just that I think the outcome is predictable because of the way we've set up the game for the last 20+ years.

[JPhillips]

But that's been a problem since at least Roosevelt and somehow others have managed to square that circle. This is also the time to lay out guiding principles, as defeat makes people willing to compromise in ways they wouldn't after a victory.

The problem is, who is the voice that could credibly articulate these principles? I don't think anybody can alone, but I hope Perez and Ellison are working on ideas that can get the Sanders folks and the moderates to walk hand in hand. And it has to be more than opposition to Trump.