Trump presidency

[Mutex]

And they're all ghosts. On a planet that turns out not to be Earth.

M Night Shamalan to direct?

[Sableagle]

Plot twist, he didn't actually do it.
Plot twist, midway through the book it's revealed that the wife isn't dead, and she's framing him.
Plot twist, she's framing him in order to protect herself for when he does try to murder her.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097662/plotsummary

[LaserGuy]

NYT publishes this interesting essay from a source inside the White House (NYT also discusses the issues with such anonymous sourcing in the header).

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

[...]

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

[...]

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

Nothing really honestly all that surprising, actually.

[Pfhorrest]

Honestly, my biggest takeaway from that is that most of the worst things the administration have done, the things that writer lists as "successes" (letting big business run rampant and unchecked, massive wealth transfer to the richest of the rich, further enlarging our already astronomically overinflated military industrial complex), have happened despite Trump, and that the died-in-the-wool Republicans who want to rape and pillage our country would much rather have Trump out of the way and Darth Pence mowing down the opposition in his place.

I'm surprised to find myself slightly happy that Trump is there gumming up the works of the Republican machine, and making their entire party look as much a fool as he is. It's just too bad he has to make the country as a whole look such fools in the process.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, that's part of what I'm talking about when discussing why Trump's actions won't last. He isn't building a dynasty, or leaving a legacy. He's just doing self promotion. The instant he's gone, that collapses like a house of cards.

He certainly hasn't built a great deal of loyalty or support for ideals. In part, it's because he doesn't value ideals a whole lot. It's hard to make lasting changes when you're simply fishing for whatever policy is popular at the moment.

[LaserGuy]

Honestly, my biggest takeaway from that is that most of the worst things the administration have done, the things that writer lists as "successes" (letting big business run rampant and unchecked, massive wealth transfer to the richest of the rich, further enlarging our already astronomically overinflated military industrial complex), have happened despite Trump, and that the died-in-the-wool Republicans who want to rape and pillage our country would much rather have Trump out of the way and Darth Pence mowing down the opposition in his place.

Well, pretty much all of that stuff is par for the course under any Republican administration (and most Democratic ones too, for that matter).

[Dauric]

Yeah, that's part of what I'm talking about when discussing why Trump's actions won't last. He isn't building a dynasty, or leaving a legacy. He's just doing self promotion. The instant he's gone, that collapses like a house of cards.

He certainly hasn't built a great deal of loyalty or support for ideals. In part, it's because he doesn't value ideals a whole lot. It's hard to make lasting changes when you're simply fishing for whatever policy is popular at the moment.

Problem is some of them, like nominating a Supreme Court Justice who is not only classically conservative, but also has expressed views that the president is above the law (cannot be investigated or 'bothered' with special counsels or the like while in office) -will- last as they're lifetime appointments.

Not everything he does will be a permanent disaster, but there will be lasting damage.

[Tyndmyr]

SC appointments are probably the lengthiest impact. I don't think "the president is above the law" is a view that is likely to be a majority viewpoint. That's pretty extreme. Kavanaugh has explicitly said the opposite. It's a cinch that classically conservative viewpoints will likely remain in the SC majority for some time. That'd be true with probably any republican president, though.

[ObsessoMom]

Personally, I am NOT reassured by being told, essentially, "Don't worry, the President is insane, but there are adults in the room who are actually running the Executive Branch, for the good of the country. And we didn't invoke the president-removing sections of the 25th Amendment because we wanted to avoid a Constitutional crisis."

Huh? Isn't it already a Constitutional crisis when the President is not actually in charge of the Executive Branch?

[Dauric]

Personally, I am NOT reassured by being told, essentially, "Don't worry, the President is insane, but there are adults in the room who are actually running the Executive Branch, for the good of the country. And we didn't invoke the president-removing sections of the 25th Amendment because we wanted to avoid a Constitutional crisis."

Agreed, but the fallout of this.. accusation? revelation? whatever it ultimately is, is going to get interesting as the administration attempts to ferret out who their disloyal elements are. Last year was plagued by internal purges and power struggles, at this rate it will be a constant factor of Trump's presidency.

Huh? Isn't it already a Constitutional crisis when the President is not actually in charge of the Executive Branch?

In a way it's worse than that, it's more like "We're doing our best to keep the toddler away from the really dangerous buttons." and anyone with children knows that the most dangerous buttons are the ones with the candy-like finish that toddlers can't resist touching. They can't actually stop Lil' Donny from having access to all the buttons, but this 'cabal' (for lack of a better word) is like harried parents trying to keep the kid from touching everything dangerous.

Edit: I think it would be interesting to know what kinds of disastrous presidential orders were snatched away from the desk before Trump could sign them hoping he'd forget all about them.

[CorruptUser]

I just watched the 2005 Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on Netflix last night. Now all I can think of is how the president of the galaxy had signed the paperwork for Earth's demolition because he thought someone wanted his autograph.

Also I can't stop thinking that President Zaphod is like a smarter and less obnoxious version of Trump.

[EdgarJPublius]

The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.

[sardia]

SC appointments are probably the lengthiest impact. I don't think "the president is above the law" is a view that is likely to be a majority viewpoint. That's pretty extreme. Kavanaugh has explicitly said the opposite. It's a cinch that classically conservative viewpoints will likely remain in the SC majority for some time. That'd be true with probably any republican president, though.

What kavanaugh says during the confirmation, barring a stroke, are either misleading lies, or lawyerly nonanswers. Notice the only time he loses his cool, is when Harris asks if he had met with Trump's lawyer. All the rest are practiced nonanswers that say "I'll respect precedent unless specific circumstances decide otherwise". And by specific circumstances, he means anything that Republicans want. So roe vs Wade won't be overturned, but Texas is free to restrict abortion access.

Look at Robert's confirmation as an example. Nothing he said during the hearing would lead you to gutting the civil Rights act, or citizen's United bullshit $ is speech. And yet, here we are.
The Democrats are looking for him to make a awful mistake, like lying under oath, or admitting that the president is above the law.

[Tyndmyr]

There is a significant amount of politics regarding judicial appointments, yeah. He's obviously trying to steer clear of obvious traps.

I have no doubt that he'll be soundly Republican. I'm less certain that he has any particular love of Trump. Sure, right now he's not going to go overtly anti-trump, because that'll jack up confirmation, but once in power, I doubt he'll give two craps about Trump.

I do look forward to the autobiographies that'll come out of his staff after Trump leaves office, though.

[sardia]

There is a significant amount of politics regarding judicial appointments, yeah. He's obviously trying to steer clear of obvious traps.

I have no doubt that he'll be soundly Republican. I'm less certain that he has any particular love of Trump. Sure, right now he's not going to go overtly anti-trump, because that'll jack up confirmation, but once in power, I doubt he'll give two craps about Trump.

I do look forward to the autobiographies that'll come out of his staff after Trump leaves office, though.

I disagree because of the following
Legal obstruction of Justice - he's stated his regret of Clinton's impeachment. (Maybe he's honest about it, or it's a convenient lie with a GOP president. ) Either way, kavanaugh can legally obstruct Justice by denying investigators access to evidence. He could rule that the mandate for the special council is too broad.

he wrote that Mr. Clinton should have been spared the investigation, at least while he was in office. Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”

in addition, kavanaugh writings suggest he'll overturn scotus case law, allowing a president to refuse to turn over evidence and refuse to answer questions.

Second, electability - if you had the option to suppress the investigation against Trump, you remove a weight against Republicans in the election.

Source politico Mueller, Trump Kavanaugh article.

Sure he may not like Trump, but the temptation to help Republicans in the investigation may be too much. For one thing, kavanaugh didn't feel bad pushing the boundaries against a Democratic president. What's to say he won't push the boundaries towards a republican one? I remind you, Trump is very popular in the GOP base. It may be a shallow popularity, but helping Trump is a good thing for the party.

[Tyndmyr]

Eh, Trump ain't going out because of the investigation. Partisanship is too high, and those in power have too many privileges. He ain't getting removed from power, I think. Not unless he loses in 2020. That's probably the case regardless of specific judicial interventions.

The republicans probably *should* tear him apart, but I don't think they will.

[addams]

Once upon a Time, I had respect for the U.S. Presidency.
Once upon a Time, I had respect for The Supreme Court.

If Kavanaugh is seated, Both those things change.
Turtle Man held up hearing on Merit Garland for more than a year!

Turtle Man should be charged!
Yes. Partisanship is too high.

[sardia]

Eh, Trump ain't going out because of the investigation. Partisanship is too high, and those in power have too many privileges. He ain't getting removed from power, I think. Not unless he loses in 2020. That's probably the case regardless of specific judicial interventions.

The republicans probably *should* tear him apart, but I don't think they will.

I agree in most scenarios of stupid Watergate Trump edition. But it helps Trump skeptics if you limit how bad the final report is.
Why do you think the GOP should attack Trump? Are you talking 2018, or a post Democratic wave?* Are you saying that attacking/criticizing Trump will help said Republican get elected
?
*Assuming it happens.

[Tyndmyr]

I think the republicans could benefit greatly by allowing the Democrats to win(with a suitable show of rage for the base, of course). Then they have Pence in the big chair, free and clear of all of Trump's baggage. Can whip up a nice persecution narrative to feed the base, and that generally plays pretty well with the religious right. All the Trump fans will want vengeance on the Dems, of course. They've always been as much about spiting democrats as anything else. And the mainstream republican sorts essentially get everything they want.

They won't particularly benefit by publicly making a show of disagreeing with Trump, no. But they will benefit by throwing him under the bus while blaming the Democrats for it.

Optimally, before the midterms would be best. Pulls focus, and energizes the base*. But it'd probably work decently well whenever.

*I share your doubt regarding a Democratic wave. Might happen, might not. But in either case, the safe Republican play is to take the possibility seriously and offer a counterplay.

[elasto]

That's a frighteningly Machiavellian scheme: The Republicans get everything they want, get to blame the Democrats, and energise their base into a frothing frenzy, likely causing a clean sweep of government for a cycle or two.

Democracy is a terrible, terrible system. Roll on the AI overlords I say!

[Tyndmyr]

If it's any comfort, I have no doubt that they lack the competence for true Machiavellian scheming. We'll probably just see more of the same partisan fighting because it's easy and familiar. It probably won't accomplish anything of note, but feh.

[Sableagle]

he wrote that Mr. Clinton should have been spared the investigation, at least while he was in office. Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”

So ... constant war?

Mankind united with infinitely greater purpose in pursuit of war than he ever did in pursuit of peace.

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.

[ijuin]

I don’t expect the Democrats to take the House, but they need a net gain of only three senate seats (out of 33 being elected this year) to break the Republican majority in the Senate, so I can see a 51/49 or 52/48 Senate with the Republicans as the minority come November.

[Chen]

I don’t expect the Democrats to take the House, but they need a net gain of only three senate seats (out of 33 being elected this year) to break the Republican majority in the Senate, so I can see a 51/49 or 52/48 Senate with the Republicans as the minority come November.

Isnt the problem that a large chunk of those 33 seats are currently held by democrats?

[addams]

If it's any comfort, I have no doubt that they lack the competence for true Machiavellian scheming. We'll probably just see more of the same partisan fighting because it's easy and familiar. It probably won't accomplish anything of note, but feh.

They pay for competence.
The poor, poor Dems and their poor, poor people.

[sardia]

I don’t expect the Democrats to take the House, but they need a net gain of only three senate seats (out of 33 being elected this year) to break the Republican majority in the Senate, so I can see a 51/49 or 52/48 Senate with the Republicans as the minority come November.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... id=rrpromo
The model on Five thirty eight suggests that the Democrats are favored to win the House. Conversely, Democrats are struggling to not lose more net seats. So yeah, the experts have the opposite judgement. Try reading the back story at the end, and you'll see why they think their model is right. AKA predictive indicators.
Do you have any reason for your beliefs besides the number of seats needed?

[Tyndmyr]

I don’t expect the Democrats to take the House, but they need a net gain of only three senate seats (out of 33 being elected this year) to break the Republican majority in the Senate, so I can see a 51/49 or 52/48 Senate with the Republicans as the minority come November.

Isnt the problem that a large chunk of those 33 seats are currently held by democrats?

26 of them, yes. So the Democrats need to win quite a lot. And if you look at the partisan makeup of those races, it's reasonably probable that the Republicans will gain a seat or three. I'd rank the senate as vastly less probable for the Democrats to take than the House(and I've placed bets accordingly).

[Euphonium]

These last few years are the best evidence yet that the Founders weren't wise statesmen who deserve our utmost deference.

Remember, with Orange Hitler's election, the Electoral College worked exactly as designed. It was created to preserve white supremacy, and it's done just that.

The Constitution isn't some grand design of resilient government. It was a compromise among a bunch of sectional special interests. We should have abandoned it as soon as the majority of the electorate consisted of people who were not voters when it was created; rinse, lather, repeat with every generation. Instead, we turned it into some holy relic.

[CorruptUser]

[the Electoral College] was created to preserve white supremacy

Citation needed.

[maybeagnostic]

These last few years are the best evidence yet that the Founders weren't wise statesmen who deserve our utmost deference.

Its a foundation myth, those are always bull. The US' is only noteworthy in how recent it is and even in that aspect it is nothing exceptional.

We should have abandoned it...

Would you like to replace it with something else or just have the country fall apart into individual states than then fracture even further?

[Pfhorrest]

From the rest of his comment it sounded like he expected the next generation to replace it with something else.

As I recall, some of the founding fathers themselves (at least Jefferson, I think?) were of the opinion that it probably would be.

And our first constitution was peacefully replaced with the current one only eight years later, anyway, so there was good reason at the time to think so.

[The Great Hippo]

Remember, with Orange Hitler's election, the Electoral College worked exactly as designed. It was created to preserve white supremacy, and it's done just that.

The Electoral College was not intended to preserve white supremacy, if only because the people who created it never thought white supremacy was a thing that would genuinely need preserving.

It was intended to prevent poor, uneducated white people from being swayed into voting a demagogue into office.

[CorruptUser]

Remember, with Orange Hitler's election, the Electoral College worked exactly as designed. It was created to preserve white supremacy, and it's done just that.

The Electoral College was not intended to preserve white supremacy, if only because the people who created it never thought white supremacy was a thing that would genuinely need preserving.

It was intended to prevent poor, uneducated white people from being swayed into voting a demagogue into office.

Initially, yes; the electors were appointed by the states themselves, as the president was NOT originally elected by the voting public. After voting was transferred to the public at large (so long as you weren't female/black (except in NJ)) was initially kept in place for a variety of reasons, but the one that doesn't get much mention is that it was a way around the utter corrupt messes that were the states. If Jones won in Georgia, enough Georgians would've been happy enough with all the votes for Jones having been lost or altered, and New Jersey is doing likewise with Smith's votes, so you'd end up with a situation where the guy with the most corrupt cronies in place ends up taking the prize. With the electoral college, it's all codified, and due to the weirdness that is human nature, simply having the end result of corruption being codified allows humans themselves to be less corrupt.

The reason it has stuck since is because there actually is a huge advantage to the EC that doesn't get much play around here; it ensures that the candidates' support is spread out amongst the entire country rather than concentrated in a few locations. The idea is that a President can't just be adored by California and New York and fuck all the rest, but rather, the President is someone that is at least tolerated by most people even if nobody actually loves the guy.
Kind of like how making a movie or song that is designed to appeal to as many people as possible results in a bland pop thing that no one actually claims to like yet still hits #1 at the box office.

[Thesh]

In reality, a popular vote system also spreads the vote out over the country, because states aren't homogeneous. The actual effect is that everyone who isn't in a swing state is ignored, and it's a lot easier to manipulate the system so that a less popular candidate can win. Stop trying to make excuses for all-around terrible ideas.

[CorruptUser]

But the non-swing states aren't ignored; the candidates skip campaigning there but if their guy gets in they sorta get what they want. Otherwise they would be swing states. Unless you seriously want to argue that the Republicans haven't been doing what the Bible Belt has asked of them.

[Thesh]

That's all a random quirk, rather than the result of the design of the electoral college. With the electoral college, it makes it possible for a handful of states to decide the President; if Texas and Florida flipped solid blue, then no voters in red states would have any say in who is President. Without the electoral college, you need to campaign to woo voters over the entire country. The EC gives a little more power to the majority party in lower population states, but it doesn't make a difference whether it is Rhode Island or Montana.

I find the whole idea of thinking about things as being about democracy in terms of what states want instead of what voters want to be just plain nonsense.

[addams]

I vote for One Dakota! Or; Three Californias
They have one-fourth the population and twice the number of Senators.

[ucim]

Well, we are fifty states united into one country, not one country divided into fifty states.

One of the original ideas behind the electoral college is that the hoi polloi shouldn't be trusted to elect the highest office, (as in that time communication was poor, and even now people can't be bothered to research the choices). Instead, we'd elect "special" people who would be interested and able to do the research and choose the best candidate. That went south in a hurry as soon as those who were running for the powerful position of elector realized that by promising their vote, they could get the vote, and as soon as political parties limited the choices anyway. And it does force candidates to appeal to a broad base, based on states. If not for that, it would be different groups that would be favored (or ignored) in the campaign. Why try to get the nerd vote if you know they won't listen to you? Ch*rp 'em.

Political parties (primaries, I'm looking at you!) are a big part of the problem. One man one vote is the other part. Approval voting would be a big improvement, leading to the selection of the candidate that fewest find odius, rather than the one that the most find appealing. This would tend towards centrism rather than polarization.

The electoral college is not the main problem. The main problem is that a huge significant number of people actually like the shitshow we are having. Yeah, a minority, but a huge one, that cannot (and should not) be ignored. By design.

Jose

[CorruptUser]

Yeah, Ranked Choice voting or similar systems should be implemented, or really, any system that would give us more than 2 parties. Really, even three would be enough parties; the Repubs can't simultaneously sabotage the Dems and then expect to get in the following election cycle, since voters would choose the Libertarians/Greens/Reform/BullMoose instead.

[Euphonium]

One of the original ideas behind the electoral college is that the hoi polloi shouldn't be trusted to elect the highest office, (as in that time communication was poor, and even now people can't be bothered to research the choices).

What a load of uninformed nonsense.

If you read the actual debates at the Constitutional Convention (as opposed to just The Federalist, which was little more than after-the-fact marketing), you'll find that actually there was a pretty even split over the issue of straight democratic elections.

What tilted the scales towards the Electoral College was structural: delegations voted by state rather than as individual delegates, and because the Electoral College would give disproportionate power to lower-population states, those states supported it out of self-interest (particularly those who feared slavery was in danger)--and there were enough of them to prevail in the end.

Federalism is a mistake.