The Trump Presidency – 2016

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The next to last thing you'd wanna do is remove a (relatively?) moderate (D) from Congress. Same reason I dislike picks like Sessions, it's already a cesspool of uselessness, why remove anything that has a redeeming quality at all?

If he removes Manchin, the Republicans have a guaranteed pick up in 2018.

[Jas_lov]

I wouldnt put anybody from the opposite party in any position of power. It does no good and in the case of James Comey it can do a lot of damage.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If he removes Manchin, the Republicans have a guaranteed pick up in 2018.

Pretty much.

And the Democrats are already facing pretty steep midterm headwinds in the Senate given all the seats for which they're going to have to play defense. 23 Democratic incumbents are up for re-election (assuming no retirements), while just 8 Republicans face the same. Manchin is popular enough in WV to hold that seat, but if he isn't in the Senate, an otherwise "safe" seat is likely to flip. Republicans 53, everybody else 47.

Democrats are up for re-election in Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. All states Trump won.

In particular, Wisconsin re-elected a guy this year who ran on "don't pay attention to the last six years, I'm actually the outsider and Feingold is the incumbent #draintheswamp." That's how little he's accomplished in six years - he had no record to run on, so he ran against the record of a guy who hasn't been in the Senate for six years. If he can pull that off in a Presidential year, which is normally when Democratic voters show up, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for Baldwin's prospects.

So, I mean, even without Manchin's seat, Republicans can get to 60 by flipping the eight states I listed above. West Virginia is low-hanging fruit if Trump can convince Manchin to come aboard, and then they have margin for error with the other states.

If Jon really thinks President-elect Trump's agenda is what the country needs, wants to minimize the ability of Democrats to run "Operation: Obstruct EVERYTHING" from the Republicans' recent playbook, and thinks Manchin in the Senate holds only "some" redeeming value, he should be welcoming a Manchin appointment with open arms. Removing him from the chessboard sets Republicans up to go balls to the wall in 2019 and 2020.

[JPhillips]

I'd be thrilled to see Manchin leave the Senate. A GOP Senator wouldn't cause nearly as much damage as Manchin giving bipartisan cover to the Trump/Ryan agenda.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd be thrilled to see Manchin leave the Senate. A GOP Senator wouldn't cause nearly as much damage as Manchin giving bipartisan cover to the Trump/Ryan agenda.

They are on the same page for trade and such. Manchin famously ran an ad in WV where he shot the Cap and Trade law with his own gun.


EDIT, I still love that ad, it's hilarious.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

They are on the same page for trade and such. Manchin famously ran an ad in WV where he shot the Cap and Trade law with his own gun.


EDIT, I still love that ad, it's hilarious.


Dead Aim - Joe Manchin for West Virginia TV Ad - YouTube

He also refused to commit to staying Dem if the Senate was 50-50 and Clinton won. My guess is he digs his own grave by joining with the GOP for Medicare and Social Security privatization. He'll find out pretty quickly that his constituents like their entitlements, thank you very much. Then he'll have to get by on a multi-million dollar lobbying job.

[JonInMiddleGA]

As much as I hate to, I have to introduce just a moment of negativity into this thread.

I get that the "not taking my salary" thing is good p.r. & all, nice gesture. But ...

Latest net worth estimate is $3.7B.
Salary is $400k.

That's 0.01% (if I put the right number of zeroes in 3.7B)

For the average Georgian, that's the equivalent of foregoing an annual salary of ... $4.87

The part that bugs me most though? That it's a good p.r. move because most people are too dumb to work out the math.

[cuervo72]

Not only a drop in the bucket for him, but a drop in the bucket in the federal budget.

(Though certainly enough that it could keep me on my contract for a couple of years...)

[CrescentMoonie]

Yep, 0.01%.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'll be booing this idiot in Arrowhead next weekend.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/sport/...ick/index.html

[JPhillips]

Given how Trump funneled campaign cash to his businesses, I'd bet he'll find ways to make plenty of money.

[TroyF]

Not sure if anyone caught his interview on 60 minutes (it might be in about 5 different threads at this point)

Highlights or lowlights for some people (my personal opinion in parentheses):

- He's going to review Clinton. (no shock there. He isn't going to do a thing to her. I would be surprised if Obama didn't issue a blanket pardon locking this fact into place before he leaves office)

- He's going to work on the illegals who commit crimes before looking at the wall or any other immigration policy. (I'm sure he's been told that it wouldn't be as easy as he thought, already backing down even though he did say he wanted the wall later)

- No desire to change same sex marriage laws already into play.

- Abortion. He wants to return it to the states (scary, scary, scary)

- Term limits: he wants to get laws passed for this. (horrible idea IMHO)

- He wants to ditch the electoral college. He said that winning doesn't mean he changes his opinion on it. He wants a simple vote.

- To anyone committing racist acts "stop it, I say it to the cameras, stop it" (wish he would have followed his own advice)

[cartman]

He said he didn't want to address same sex marriages because the Supreme Court had ruled on it, and it was settled law. He then said he would look for judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Which the Supreme Court ruled on, and has been considered settled law since the 1973 ruling.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cartman

He said he didn't want to address same sex marriages because the Supreme Court had ruled on it, and it was settled law. He then said he would look for judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Which the Supreme Court ruled on, and has been considered settled law since the 1973 ruling.

Pretty much.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Not sure if anyone caught his interview on 60 minutes (it might be in about 5 different threads at this point)

Didn't bother (honestly, hard for me to belief 60 Mins is still on the air) but it mostly just confirms what I knew going in: he's going to be largely useless.

Term limit foolishness & the electoral college mistake should be able to be halted by Congress so I'm not worried about any long term damage yet.

But at least I've gotten some fun out of watching the lunatic fringe heads blow up for a few days.

[larrymcg421]

Also, he won't be able to control what SCOTUS does once his Justices are on the court. And it's doubtul he's going to find (or even look for) anti-Roe, pro-gay marriage justices, so in his quest to overturn Roe, gay marriage will be a casualty along the way.

[larrymcg421]

A Ken Blackwell (Trump transition team member) quote from WSJ:

"Bannon is going to be keeper of the image of Trump as a fighter against the status quo, and Reince is going to utilize his personal connections with the speaker and others, to make the trains run on time."

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Also, he won't be able to control what SCOTUS does once his Justices are on the court. And it's doubtul he's going to find (or even look for) anti-Roe, pro-gay marriage justices, so in his quest to overturn Roe, gay marriage will be a casualty along the way.

I doubt either gets overturned. If we get close to that tipping point, we'll see, but I'm not convinced at all it will ever happen.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

A Ken Blackwell (Trump transition team member) quote from WSJ:

"Bannon is going to be keeper of the image of Trump as a fighter against the status quo, and Reince is going to utilize his personal connections with the speaker and others, to make the trains run on time."

Horrible quote. Really horrible quote.

problems though:

1 - Mussilini never had to deal with a system of government which had checks and balances.

2 Mussilini didn't have to deal with free press.

3 - Which is exactly why "the trains ran on time" is such a historical quote. The reality is the trains didn't run on time and were actually fairly horrible.

I know he won't be, but anyone making that type of quote should lose their jobs. It's stupid.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll be booing this idiot in Arrowhead next weekend.

Speaking of empty gestures...

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by TroyF

2 - Mussilini didn't have to deal with free press.

Probably what Thiel is there for.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Didn't bother (honestly, hard for me to belief 60 Mins is still on the air) but it mostly just confirms what I knew going in: he's going to be largely useless.

Term limit foolishness & the electoral college mistake should be able to be halted by Congress so I'm not worried about any long term damage yet.

But at least I've gotten some fun out of watching the lunatic fringe heads blow up for a few days.

Term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, same as it did for POTUS after Roosevelt. Ditto ditching the Electoral College.

So while they can just ignore those pronouncements, and go to court if he goes 'hey I bet an Executive Order will take care of those,' if those two elements resonate strongly enough with the general public, a Constitutional convention can make them happen.

Elect a demagogue at your peril.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

2 Mussilini didn't have to deal with free press.

Well, remember, he wants to open up the libel laws so he can sue the press and make lots of money.

So he probably doesn't think he's going to have to deal with a free press, either.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I doubt either gets overturned. If we get close to that tipping point, we'll see, but I'm not convinced at all it will ever happen.

Well, we're two justices away from that tipping point on both cases. The replacement to Scalia won't change the numbers, but the next justice could flip both decisions.

But my main point was to show why his "settled law" comment shouldn't be comforting to the LGBT community, because he's definitely shown an interest in overturning other settled law and the judges will likely come as a package. If he really does have no interest in overturning marriage equality (which I doubt), then I still think he'll do it accidentally while he fights to overturn Roe.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, same as it did for POTUS after Roosevelt. Ditto ditching the Electoral College.

So while they can just ignore those pronouncements, and go to court if he goes 'hey I bet an Executive Order will take care of those,' if those two elements resonate strongly enough with the general public, a Constitutional convention can make them happen.

Elect a demagogue at your peril.

One way around the electoral college is if enough states agree (to equal 270 or more electors) to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Term limits would require a Constitutional amendment, same as it did for POTUS after Roosevelt. Ditto ditching the Electoral College.

So while they can just ignore those pronouncements, and go to court if he goes 'hey I bet an Executive Order will take care of those,' if those two elements resonate strongly enough with the general public, a Constitutional convention can make them happen.

Elect a demagogue at your peril.

You couldn't get a new Constitutional convention (assuming it's delegates are along existing Congressional splits) to agree on puppies, rainbows, and kittens.

Term limits aren't in the best interest of an existing Congress,so that ain't getting through them. And I believe that enough people (though probably just barely enough) understand the critical nature of the EC to have that be an eventual fizzle.

[larrymcg421]

The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 - Page 60 - Front Office Football Central

I remembered this discussion from a while back where we argued whether birthers were worth talking about. Now a birther is President.

[JPhillips]

I just had a college friend tell me:

an indication that ethnic globalization truly does not work due to cultural differences. That is not racism or white nationalism..it's derived from proven fact over the ages.

And she knows damn well the composition of my family. I guess it's good that I at least know her true feelings about me and my daughter.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

One way around the electoral college is if enough states agree (to equal 270 or more electors) to give their electors to the popular vote winner.

Nominally true, and 165 EV worth of states have already passed this. Get NY and a few others interested, and the math gets pretty interesting quickly.

National Popular Vote

Now... what really happens if this passes and goes into effect is unknown. On paper, you'd have state laws that oblige electors to vote with the popular vote... but is that enforceable? Look at what we saw in micro level this year with a rogue elector from WA - and it turns out there was something like a $1,000 fine at stake if he betrayed his party when casting the actual vote.

Anyway... there's a theoretical avenue that's a ton simpler than amending the constitution.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Term limits aren't in the best interest of an existing Congress,so that ain't getting through them. And I believe that enough people (though probably just barely enough) understand the critical nature of the EC to have that be an eventual fizzle.

Missing the point, Jon. There are two paths to Constitutional amendments, and only one requires Congress to assent.

If 34 states submit a petition to Congress for a Constitutional convention on the subject of term limits, Congress is required to convene one. And beyond that, we don't know what would happen. We don't know how delegates would be selected, how many each state would get, how long they would have to conduct their business, how limited the scope of their tinkering would be, how many state delegations would have to assent in order to send the amendments in question to state legislatures for ratification, etc.

The Founders didn't specify those things in Article V. Congress has no clear Constitutional authority to limit the work of such a convention, nor any Constitutional justification to refuse to call such a convention, if the requisite 34 states request one.

Because of that - and especially the bit about limiting the scope of their tinkering - there's no guarantee that any particular amendment proposal would fizzle at the convention. I can see a fair bit of "you vote for mine and I'll vote for yours" horse trading resulting in a plethora of amendments being sent to the states for ratification.

Yes, 3/4 of the state legislatures (or state conventions, if Congress were to choose conventions over legislatures for approval, but that's only happened once) would still have to ratify, and that's a high bar to clear. But all politics being local, if the voters demand Congressional term limits loudly enough, it's unlikely that state legislatures would refuse to ratify.

As for the Electoral College, how many states between the coasts do you think resent the electoral power of New York, Texas, and California? Do you think you could find 38 state legislatures which might go "hmm, if the Electoral College goes bye-bye, Presidential candidates will have to pay more attention to my state during the general election"?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

On paper, you'd have state laws that oblige electors to vote with the popular vote... but is that enforceable?

Isn't there a court ruling (or two?) that have upheld at least the general principle?

I could almost swear I saw something along those lines in the past week or so (related to the couple of stray delegates now allocated by congressional district or whatever it is).

Granted, precedent can be overturned & what not, but I think at the moment at least they're enforceable (unless I misread something).

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Nominally true, and 165 EV worth of states have already passed this. Get NY and a few others interested, and the math gets pretty interesting quickly.

National Popular Vote

Now... what really happens if this passes and goes into effect is unknown. On paper, you'd have state laws that oblige electors to vote with the popular vote... but is that enforceable? Look at what we saw in micro level this year with a rogue elector from WA - and it turns out there was something like a $1,000 fine at stake if he betrayed his party when casting the actual vote.

Anyway... there's a theoretical avenue that's a ton simpler than amending the constitution.

Probably at least as enforceable as current "faithless elector" laws are, really. The larger question to me is how electors would be selected under the NPV Compact.

Currently, the popular vote in each state actually elects the slate proposed by whatever Presidential candidate, and so the idea of faithless electors has been largely academic. Would that continue to hold true under the NPV? Trump (or a Republican) wins the popular vote, so California sends the Trump elector slate to the Electoral College? Or would it be a more generic slate legally bound to the winner of the popular vote?

[QuikSand]

I don't mean to cast doubt on its legality.

Rather, the electors are humans, and they are the weak link. Eventually, you'd have something weird happen... like a replay of 2016 or 2000, in whatever direction. Then, you'd be counting on human beings from states who voted for the candidate of their party to cross the party line and cast the deciding votes for the other candidate, and give him or her the win. How does that actually work? The constitution still grants the elector the power to cast that ballot... so what state law/penalty/etc would really stand up to that pressure? You going to put the person in jail for 30 years if she breaks the state law? (Obviously no fine would be relevant here, you'd have countless stand-ins willing to pay the fin on someone's behalf)

That's all I mean - it's legally on the up-and-up, but put into practice and suddenly that poor stiff from Oregon/Mississippi might have second thoughts.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Isn't there a court ruling (or two?) that have upheld at least the general principle?

I could almost swear I saw something along those lines in the past week or so (related to the couple of stray delegates now allocated by congressional district or whatever it is).

Granted, precedent can be overturned & what not, but I think at the moment at least they're enforceable (unless I misread something).

Kinda. SCOTUS precedent holds that the states can require fealty pledges from their prospective electors (and presumably thus that penalties for breaking that pledge are legal) but it's still up to Congress whether to accept the ballot of the elector.

Which is to say, there might be a fine involved if an elector were to switch, but the real enforcement mechanism would be Congress saying (as it almost assuredly would) "No, we're not going to accept the ballot from the WI elector who wishes to vote for Hillary Clinton, instead."

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The constitution still grants the elector the power to cast that ballot... so what state law/penalty/etc would really stand up to that pressure? You going to put the person in jail for 30 years if she breaks the state law?

I wonder what penalty you even COULD impose without violating the Eighth Amendment there. 30 years in the poke for voting for the "other" candidate would seem like a pretty good candidate for "cruel and unusual punishment" to me.

(Which isn't a poke at you; just general commentary that not only would states have the difficulty of finding a penalty that can stand up to that pressure, but the penalty in question would have to straddle the line between being able to herd the cats AND not running afoul of the Constitution.)

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I don't mean to cast doubt on its legality.

Rather, the electors are humans, and they are the weak link. Eventually, you'd have something weird happen... like a replay of 2016 or 2000, in whatever direction. Then, you'd be counting on human beings from states who voted for the candidate of their party to cross the party line and cast the deciding votes for the other candidate, and give him or her the win. How does that actually work? The constitution still grants the elector the power to cast that ballot... so what state law/penalty/etc would really stand up to that pressure? You going to put the person in jail for 30 years if she breaks the state law? (Obviously no fine would be relevant here, you'd have countless stand-ins willing to pay the fin on someone's behalf)

That's all I mean - it's legally on the up-and-up, but put into practice and suddenly that poor stiff from Oregon/Mississippi might have second thoughts.

I don't think that's how it would happen. Article 1, Section 2 says:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So if Wisconsin has joined this popular vote agreement, they wouldn't be sending Trump's electors and telling them to vote for Hillary, they would be sending Hillary's electors.

[NobodyHere]

[larrymcg421]

LOL

Pence pushes for email privacy - POLITICO

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But all politics being local, if the voters demand Congressional term limits loudly enough

Let us all hope that there aren't that many voters THAT stupid.

(yeah, I realize that pinning my hopes on collective wisdom is a fool's errand at best)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

LOL

Pence pushes for email privacy - POLITICO

And this is related to using a private email server to email classified documents how exactly?

Is there any evidence that Pence was using his email incorrectly?

If there was evidence he was using private servers or sending classified data, the FBI should investigate, go through every email and release them all. They should also prosecute him.

If not, then this is something for the court system to determine. (I hope Pence loses the motion to hide the email, but I see nothing inconsistent with his positions in both situations)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well, we're two justices away from that tipping point on both cases. The replacement to Scalia won't change the numbers, but the next justice could flip both decisions.

But my main point was to show why his "settled law" comment shouldn't be comforting to the LGBT community, because he's definitely shown an interest in overturning other settled law and the judges will likely come as a package. If he really does have no interest in overturning marriage equality (which I doubt), then I still think he'll do it accidentally while he fights to overturn Roe.

"could" flip and "will" flip are two different things.

As for his settled law comment, I'm not taking any solace in it. I don't base my opinions it won't flip because of it either.

We'll see what happens.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TroyF

And this is related to using a private email server to email classified documents how exactly?

Is there any evidence that Pence was using his email incorrectly?

I laughed not because of the state department e-mails, but because of the Podesta e-mails. Two different issues and the latter was a private account that did not involve classified information.

[JPhillips]

.@realDonaldTrump team has asked @WhiteHouse how his children could receive top secret security clearances - details on @CBSEveningNews

lol

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Let us all hope that there aren't that many voters THAT stupid.

Counterpoint: "President Trump."

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I laughed not because of the state department e-mails, but because of the Podesta e-mails. Two different issues and the latter was a private account that did not involve classified information.

Got it. That makes a lot more sense and is laugh out loud worthy.

[albionmoonlight]

Random post-election thoughts:

(1) I was way way wrong.

(2) I think that people are too quick to assume that a national popular vote would help Democrats. Both parties (correctly) focused on turning out the last possible voter in Florida/Pennsylvania/etc. Who knows what would change if instead they focused on going into New York, Texas, California, etc. and tried to drum up votes there.

(3) I've been happy staying off social media since the election, especially because I wasted SO MUCH TIME before the election thinking about it.

(4) When I have peeked in on facebook, I've seen my friends all sharing anti-Trump stuff like we are still in election mode. "Can you believe that he wants to give BANNON a position of power?!?!?!?" Um. Yes. Yes I can.

(5) When I've peeked at Twitter, I've seen the liberal writers I follow all producing think pieces that won't be read by anyone who does not follow them.

(6) The smartest thing I read was a writer who tweeted "Time to get back to work producing analysis that will be algorithmically delivered only to people who already agree with it."

(7) I tried to escape into football, but the Saints lost on a fucking blocked extra point returned for 2 points.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

(7) I tried to escape into football, but the Saints lost on a fucking blocked extra point returned for 2 points.

That play was awesome!

[NobodyHere]

BEN CARSON WILL NOT ACCEPT CABINET POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Originally Posted by Link

Williams tells ABC News that Carson "was offered whatever he wanted -- nothing specific," but felt he couldn't run an entire agency with his lack of government experience.

And this guy ran for president?

[cuervo72]

He just wanted to sell books.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

BEN CARSON WILL NOT ACCEPT CABINET POSITION IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION



And this guy ran for president?

And sometimes people run not expecting to win they just want to get their ideas heard. Forbes did that with his flat tax plan years ago.