Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

FrostyJack

amandstu wrote: »

Would be great if the Dems could actually choose their best candidate and not just who beats the beast.

Is that just a luxury?

Yes unfortunately, for my sanity and safety of the World anyone of them has to win, not massive fans of them all but would happily take any over Trump. If I had a gun to my head I would pick Warren now but in terms a low hanging fruit for mockery, Trump could beat her. In debates or on policy he wouldn't stand a chance. Her anti corruption and fair play policies she promotes are a refreshing change.

Stallingrad

With that kind of polling I wouldn't want to be Iran right now.

Water John

Extra bonus pleasure points. A woman beating Trump ticks a box, a coloured woman beating Trump ticks all the boxes.
The Dems first task is to beat Trump. Would like a more radical occupant of the WH but winning is a priority.

duploelabs

Stallingrad wrote: »

With that kind of polling I wouldn't want to be Iran right now.

Pardon my ignorance, but how'd you work that out?

Ben Done

duploelabs wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance, but how'd you work that out?

I presume it refers to the fact that war is good for presidential polling.

cf. The great movie Wag The Dog

pixelburp

Honestly the bigger priority for the Democrat party is surely the senate; McConnell is a demonstrably destructive force and controlling Congress has had limited effect. President Warren is all well and good, but ultimately toothless if the Republicans control the upper house and Mitch McConnell continues to run roughshod over normal governance in favour of partisanship. Not that as minority they'd be any better, they'd immediately default back to the "tax and spend" attack narrative ..

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Extra bonus pleasure points. A woman beating Trump ticks a box, a coloured woman beating Trump ticks all the boxes.
The Dems first task is to beat Trump. Would like a more radical occupant of the WH but winning is a priority.

I've used this quote before and it's a great quote by former US Secretary of State James backer about the stuff that happened after the 2000 election in Florida. The quote is "do you want to be ideological pure or do you want to win?"

Water John

See your point, pixel. All branches of the GOP need a bit of time in the dog house, until sanity prevails and they come back to bipartisanship. We have the logical result of Newt Gingrich et al.

TomOnBoard

duploelabs wrote: »

Stallingrad wrote: »

With that kind of polling I wouldn't want to be Iran right now.

Pardon my ignorance, but how'd you work that out?

A military effort against Iran would serve as a very useful distraction from Trump's woes at home. Deflection and distraction reigns supreme in the Trump GOP playbook.

AbusesToilets

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly the bigger priority for the Democrat party is surely the senate; McConnell is a demonstrably destructive force and controlling Congress has had limited effect. President Warren is all well and good, but ultimately toothless if the Republicans control the upper house and Mitch McConnell continues to run roughshod over normal governance in favour of partisanship. Not that as minority they'd be any better, they'd immediately default back to the "tax and spend" attack narrative ..

That is something of a dilemma. Warren for example, would be superb as the leader of the Dems in the Senate. I would hesitantly agree that wresting back control of the Senate would go much further in righting the ship, so to speak.

thecretinhop

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

hcf500 wrote: »

Some very encouraging news in a recent poll. trump loses out to all top Dems in 2020 election! I think Harris has an excellent chance of securing the nomination for the Democrats

In a first look at head-to-head 2020 presidential matchups nationwide, several Democratic challengers lead President Donald Trump, with former Vice President Joseph Biden ahead 53 - 40 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today.

In other matchups, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University National Poll finds:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders over President Trump 51 - 42 percent;
California Sen. Kamala Harris ahead of Trump 49 - 41 percent;
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren tops Trump 49 - 42 percent;
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg edges Trump 47 - 42 percent;
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker by a nose over Trump 47 - 42 percent.

I'm sure our regular trump supporter will be along to explain how that is all "fake news" and then provide a long list of this weeks "great" achievements by the orange one.

yes indeed. hillary had a 95pc chance of winning before 2016 vote

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly the bigger priority for the Democrat party is surely the senate; McConnell is a demonstrably destructive force and controlling Congress has had limited effect. President Warren is all well and good, but ultimately toothless if the Republicans control the upper house and Mitch McConnell continues to run roughshod over normal governance in favour of partisanship. Not that as minority they'd be any better, they'd immediately default back to the "tax and spend" attack narrative ..

That is something of a dilemma. Warren for example, would be superb as the leader of the Dems in the Senate. I would hesitantly agree that wresting back control of the Senate would go much further in righting the ship, so to speak.

The GOP has been entirely complicit in Trump's wrongdoing and indeed is fully to blame for McConnell ''s debasement of the Senate. So the GOP should control nothing for at least a full 4-year time frame to allow the venom of current politics to be washed out.

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

pixelburp wrote: »

Honestly the bigger priority for the Democrat party is surely the senate; McConnell is a demonstrably destructive force and controlling Congress has had limited effect. President Warren is all well and good, but ultimately toothless if the Republicans control the upper house and Mitch McConnell continues to run roughshod over normal governance in favour of partisanship. Not that as minority they'd be any better, they'd immediately default back to the "tax and spend" attack narrative ..

That is something of a dilemma. Warren for example, would be superb as the leader of the Dems in the Senate. I would hesitantly agree that wresting back control of the Senate would go much further in righting the ship, so to speak.

The GOP has been entirely complicit in Trump's wrongdoing and indeed is fully to blame for McConnell ''s debasement of the Senate. So the GOP should control nothing for at least a full 4-year time frame to allow the venom of current politics to be washed out.

Brian?

thecretinhop wrote: »

yes indeed. hillary had a 95pc chance of winning before 2016 vote

Actually now. It was close enough to 70/30 in favour of Hilary according to the 538 model.

Water John

A shift by voters to the Dems, or the Dems coming out and voting would probably take the Senate too. The 2020 Senate election favours the Dems AFAIK.

AbusesToilets

The Democrats need to control both houses in order to push through proper electoral reforms, which would work to save the Republic and also benefit them in future elections. An end to gerrymandering, reform of the electoral college (personally in favor of PR split by state for votes), ended Citizens United, making Federal elections public holidays, automatic enrollment, strengthening protections from foreign interference, the list goes on and on.

Leroy42

The Democrats have little intention of doing any of that stuff.

TomOnBoard

Water John wrote: »

A shift by voters to the Dems, or the Dems coming out and voting would probably take the Senate too. The 2020 Senate election favours the Dems AFAIK.

Republicans currently control 22 of the 34 Senate seats up for 2020 decision.

So that gives the Dems a much better chance overall of being able to flip seats IF they can create a Blue Presidential wave. If they only standstill in the House, such a Blue Wave would give control of two branches of Government in the hands of the Dems. If Trump can keep the White House, then it's likely status quo would reign in the Senate and the Reps would take back the House.

pixelburp

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The Democrats need to control both houses in order to push through proper electoral reforms, which would work to save the Republic and also benefit them in future elections. An end to gerrymandering, reform of the electoral college (personally in favor of PR split by state for votes), ended Citizens United, making Federal elections public holidays, automatic enrollment, strengthening protections from foreign interference, the list goes on and on.

Won't happen cos I can tell you straight away the tactic to be taken by minority leader McConnell: "the democrats are trying to steal democracy". Washington coups, etc etc. They've done it before and the moment any board or hearing was set up to look at reform, the republican smear machine would be out in force, and it goes double now that the democrats are leaning further to the left. The narrative is writing itself

Still, like I said a democrat president will be an utter lame duck if the Republicans control the senate. McConnell may get ousted but the stain is strong in that party. Power loves power, and won't hand it over without a fight.

Itssoeasy

And if the democrat voter base decide that because the person they believe is a political born again unicorn and should be the democratic nominee doesn't get the nominee, and get thick and don't vote for whoever the democrat nominee is then tough ****. They can't complain that their rights and everything else that a second term Trump will do. They have their chance in 2020 to correct it.

TomOnBoard

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Democrats have little intention of doing any of that stuff.

Not only that, but if they did have such intentions, Supreme Court rulings (for example that have already led to Citizens United) won't be capable of being overturned because of Conservative decisions already made regarding Constitutionality.

AbusesToilets

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Not only that, but if they did have such intentions, Supreme Court rulings (for example that have already led to Citizens United) won't be capable of being overturned because of Conservative decisions already made regarding Constitutionality.

They can pass laws will overturn such rulings.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Democrats have little intention of doing any of that stuff.

Debatable. They would likely secure continued electoral success by doing so, as elections have consistently shown that they have won the turn out battle but lost elections because of gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement.

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Not only that, but if they did have such intentions, Supreme Court rulings (for example that have already led to Citizens United) won't be capable of being overturned because of Conservative decisions already made regarding Constitutionality.

They can pass laws will overturn such rulings.

Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned by the Congress.

AbusesToilets

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned by the Congress.

New laws can be passed which change previous ones, which can break from precedent set in SC rulings.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

New laws can be passed which change previous ones, which can break from precedent set in SC rulings.

Sort of.

The SCOTUS rules purely on whether something is constitutional. If they rule a law unconstitutional it can’t be overturned. If they rule something is, a law can always be changed.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Sort of.

The SCOTUS rules purely on whether something is constitutional. If they rule a law unconstitutional it can’t be overturned. If they rule something is, a law can always be changed.

There's been a number of Amendments proposed to overturn the impact of the ruling. No easy thing granted

aloyisious

Watching the Bloomberg TV news scrollbar of a failed Trump golf course being turned into a dilapidated national park so I googled for info. It seems that Don bought the NY state-located course in 1998 but due to unforeseen circumstances it didn't work out so he donated it to NY state in 2006, around the time he had finance problems with 3 casinos in Atlantic City. However he may have inflated the estimated sale value of the failed NY course = no legal problem there - but it remains to be seen if he put the inflated price on his tax returns, which would be an offence in law.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-14/failed-trump-golf-course-turned-into-dilapidated-n-y-state-park

Bloomberg also reported that Don has signed an executive order telling US federal agencies to ease rules governing artificially induced agricultural crops amd related issues.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There's been a number of Amendments proposed to overturn the impact of the ruling. No easy thing granted

There have. But to be pedantic, a constitutional amendment isn’t a law. It’s a rule on what laws can be created.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

There have. But to be pedantic, a constitutional amendment isn’t a law. It’s a rule on what laws can be created.

This.

Actually, I don't believe SCOTUS purely makes Constitutional judgements, they are able to rule on application of federal laws in general. However, since any State-level cases which make it to SCOTUS are usually based on Constitutional law, the cases tend to be disproportionately Constitutional-facing.

That said, Citizens United was ruled on Constitutional grounds, it would be an extremely drastic law (such as disincorporation, which is for practical purposes all but impossible) to get around it.