The long term effect of the failed Trump presidency?

[Opoponax]

Again to the OP: How awful is Trump?

Spicer isn't taking anymore questions on the Russia thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...russia-investigation-sean-spicer-no-questions

The White House said on Wednesday it will no longer answer questions about the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump’s alleged links to Russia.

Asked about Comey’s evidence and whether the president had engaged in obstruction of justice, his press secretary Sean Spicer replied: “We are focused on the president’s agenda and going forward all questions on these matters will be referred to outside counsel Marc Kasowitz.”

Trump doesn't seem to understand that he's President of the United States. As if this is just another bad deal gone wrong and if he doesn't speak about it publicly he can eventually throw enough money at it to make it go away.

If Comey testifies to the effect that Trump actively pressured him to drop the investigations and in some manner threatened him, then the only question (again) is whether the Republicans will do their duty.

It doesn't feel like we have until January of 2019 for both Houses of Congress to become majority Democrat so that we can be saved from Trump.

Trump is a weakling. A fragile ignoramus who's only widely approved act was to ineffectually lob $50 million worth of missiles in the direction of a Syrian airbase. Like a child who received approval for a given act, it seems only too likely that Trump would be willing to make his next military action bigger, more tremendous and wonderful. And we have only the GOP to save us.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right now, the Republicans have a disingenuous cover to use. If Comey thought the Trump conversation was "obstruction" he should have formally reported it. But he 'didn't', therefore, end of conversation. This will ignore the whole issue of Comey being fired and the remarks Trump made to the Russians. The oddity of Trump is our nation has never needed to fire a President so quickly, so there is a bit of national inexperience here because the electoral college didn't do its fucking job.

 

[rousseau]

Agreed. The dems need to get some of the old white people vote in the mid east states. They aren't going to vote for socialists. They are scared. They are scared of Muslims; scared of losing their jobs; scared of immigrants; scared of losing their culture; and etc. We need a sliver of them to return to the democratic party.

It's probably easier and quicker to wait for them to die, than it is to get enough of them to change.

That being the case, the real priority is to inoculate their children against the same fear-driven conservatism.

The jobs, the comfortable unquestioned racism, and the bolted-on religion are gone; and they are never coming back. Rural and small town America is massively overpopulated; and the only solution is mass migration to the cities, where there is at least the possibility that jobs will be available. Going back to the 1950s boom-times is simply impossible - the world has changed, largely for the better, and it's never going to change back, so the people need to change with it, or get trampled underfoot.

The only thing that could possibly soften the blow is socialism - taxing the people in the cities to provide handouts for the rural and small town folks (of course, these can be disguised as 'subsidies' and 'incentives' to generate busywork and salve their pride). It's not a solution, but it will perhaps mitigate some of the worst effects of the problem. Except that it's the one thing they are adamant that they will not allow. Which makes it hard to be even slightly sympathetic to their plight.

At the end of the day, these people are scared and angry, because they have been systematically lied to. They were told all their lives that hard work, self reliance, and support for a rigid social structure would result in prosperity. But this is neo-Marxism - The idea that hard work is always rewarded is just a re-wording of the idiotic labour theory of value. Hard work doesn't get you wealthy, it gets you a bad back. Self reliance makes you weak, because you refuse to accept the help you need - or to allow it to be offered to your neighbour. And the rigid social structure - belief in God, and the innate superiority of the white Christian American over all others - sows the seeds of a destructive rage, when it turns out that neither of those things are actually real.

You can no more get these people to vote Democrat than you could get the high priests to stop sacrificing virgins, and start running away from the lava flow. They know that what they are doing isn't working; But they conclude that this means they haven't done enough of it yet.

This is a great paragraph.

I recall a thread on Twitter that went over this, but as usual tweets usually get lost in the wind. It mentioned something along the lines of rural America starting to have their legitimacy, or self-identity.. something like put under question. The move to Trump was done to regain their identity and legitimacy. The problem is that this process has started to escalate too quickly, and now looks to be on a run-away course. Until rural America can be socially re-oriented, the problem is probably just going to get worse and worse.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Again to the OP: How awful is Trump?

Spicer isn't taking anymore questions on the Russia thing.

Holy Ghost of Nixon, Batman!
Didn't Nixon's spokesman once say, 'for the purpose of these briefings, Watergate no longer exists.'?

If Comey testifies to the effect that Trump actively pressured him to drop the investigations and in some manner threatened him, then the only question (again) is whether the Republicans will do their duty.

Does he need to show a threat, though?
We just had us some sexual harassment training, and it was made clear that if you have THAT much power over a person's job, you don't have to make a clear threat. if you say 'I hope you can see your way clear to showing me your goodies,' you've sexually harassed them, whether or not you tie their nudity to their job security.

It would seem to me that it's the same thing, asking him to drop an investigation, from someone who can fire and replace him, he doesn't need to add a threat. Rather, the threat would be implied unless the President went to some substantial effort to defuse the possible threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Holy Ghost of Nixon, Batman!
Didn't Nixon's spokesman once say, 'for the purpose of these briefings, Watergate no longer exists.'?

If Comey testifies to the effect that Trump actively pressured him to drop the investigations and in some manner threatened him, then the only question (again) is whether the Republicans will do their duty.

Does he need to show a threat, though?
We just had us some sexual harassment training, and it was made clear that if you have THAT much power over a person's job, you don't have to make a clear threat. if you say 'I hope you can see your way clear to showing me your goodies,' you've sexually harassed them, whether or not you tie their nudity to their job security.

It may be worth pointing out that Trump did actually fire Comey. The meeting establishes the motive for Comey's firing.

 

[Elixir]

Trump is safe until and unless the House flips in 2018.
The current crop of rethuglicans are spineless yes-men who will support whatever narrative Putin Trump tells them to.

It is increasingly obvious that Putin has dirt on Trump. He has used it to threaten Trump and get the properties that Obama kicked them out of returned to them, and probably a whole lot more.
The question is whether Putin will EVER play that card. Why burn it when all he has to do is keep reminding Cheato that he MIGHT play it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump is safe until and unless the House flips in 2018.

The investigation has now indicated there was possibly a meeting with the Russian Ambassador/spy with Sen. Session in April 2016. Some may remember that March/April was when Trump's campaign shifted to 'I love Ruskies!' both in staff and talk. If there was another undisclosed meeting, that early in the campaign, when Trump clearly wasn't headed to victory in November, this could implicate Sessions in the hacking leaks. There are limited good reasons for Sessions to meet with the Russian Ambassador as a member of Trump Campaign group in April.

If this meeting is confirmed, there is serious trouble for many people in Trump's Administration.

 

[funinspace]

Reagan was a governor, he was a good politician, he worked well with other people, he did not piss off world leaders after meeting them. Trump is nothing like him. Trump is an ignorant infant that does not know how to do more than bribe and threaten. That is how he has gotten through life.

Reagan was also very ignorant of history and did not read.

So in that one dangerous trait Trump is like Reagan.

I think they've just forgotten all the dumb shit he did. Reagan pissed off everybody. What he had going for him is that he worked very hard in protecting the world from communism. That was a real threat people in the west and around the world felt. That allowed him to get away with the most horrendous idiocies and still be popular.

https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/21reasonsReaganwasaterriblepresident

I’d say the linked article (Grenada gets a mention, seriously?) is quite off base on quite a few points, especially in trying to paint Ronald Reagan (RR) as ‘terrible’. One cannot understand RR without understanding the preceding decade. Carter, like RR, let Paul Volker do his job of taming the inflationary beast that was consuming the 1970’s and many feared threatened to get worse in the 1980’s. The high unemployment had little to nothing to do with emergent RR policies. And once the inflation was broken, the economy rebounded nicely, and that is what made his presidency…aka "It's the economy, stupid". RR had decent job approval ratings. Of course, it was bad at the peak unemployment in 1983 over 10%. The Iran-Contra scandal took its toll as well, but he still ended his presidency with decent numbers. Notable scholar surveys also rank him on the higher side. So clearly he didn’t piss “everyone off”. RR was fairly focused in his first 100 days and built up a real agenda. He had to work with a Democratically controlled House, and still managed to pass some major legislation that he wanted. He was charismatic, much as Clinton and Obama were.

Ref:
https://www.usnews.com/news/history...ed-his-agenda-of-tax-cuts-and-less-government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/p...ings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx

He also lied about as much as Trump does.

I’m not sure how one would measure such, but Don the Con lies so much, it would almost be easier to reference when he doesn’t lie. Don the Con also regularly makes and fights for utterly obtuse lies.

He was also about as fickle and untrustworthy.

Not sure what this is even being driven by, but whatever…

He said lots of really dumb shit. There's pages of idiot quotes by that man.

Yes, he was noted for having foot-in-mouth disease for quipping before thinking.

History hasn't been kind to that man. He kept supplying arms to anybody who said they supported America, even when they didn't. Quite a few of the dictators Reagan supported eventually turned on USA. He didn't care about democratic rights, nor economic reforms. He only cared that they weren't communist. I don't know about you, but whether the Taliban is more or less freedom loving than communists is splitting hairs. His hate for communism blinded him and led to him financially supporting groups way worse.

Reagan made our world a hell of a lot more dangerous. We're still living in a world that inherited problems he created.

You have just described US foreign policy since the end of WWII, nothing there is unique to RR. How were the massive bombing campaigns in SE Asia not as bad as any of this? Laos still has roughly 50 casualties a year from our left-over bombs, even after decades of effort to clear them out. How was Eisenhower’s toppling of Iran’s government not as bad? RR didn’t get the US into bed with the House of Saud. What was the value added by the Korean and Vietnam wars? The US has never cared about what its pet dictators did, with Carter as the rare exception, as long as they were not in Russia’s/USSR’s bed. But yes, RR’s foreign polices around Iraq-Iran were terrible.

I don't think there's any doubt he's the worst American president in modern times.

Yet, Notable scholar surveys do not agree with your “no doubt he’s the worst”.

 

[Elixir]

Trump is safe until and unless the House flips in 2018.

The investigation has now indicated there was possibly a meeting with the Russian Ambassador/spy with Sen. Session in April 2016. Some may remember that March/April was when Trump's campaign shifted to 'I love Ruskies!' both in staff and talk. If there was another undisclosed meeting, that early in the campaign, when Trump clearly wasn't headed to victory in November, this could implicate Sessions in the hacking leaks. There are limited good reasons for Sessions to meet with the Russian Ambassador as a member of Trump Campaign group in April.

If this meeting is confirmed, there is serious trouble for many people in Trump's Administration.

"Serious trouble" meaning a lot of Democrats whining in the houses of Congress, with complete impotence and futility. They have no power to pursue any kind of repercussions for the individuals involved, and the Pugs have no inclination to do so. Per Cheato's boast, they could stand up on the Senate or House floor, declare that they willingly and knowingly supported Russian interference in the election and failed to disclose their activities, and nothing would come of it under the current distribution of power. Only if there is clear and indisputable evidence of criminal wrongdoing (and in this era, NOTHING is indisputable) would there be any consequences. And in such case(s) you might get a Sessions and/or a Flynn thrown in jail, while the rest of the rats carry on business as usual, having effectively distanced themselves from the "bad apple(s)".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The investigation has now indicated there was possibly a meeting with the Russian Ambassador/spy with Sen. Session in April 2016. Some may remember that March/April was when Trump's campaign shifted to 'I love Ruskies!' both in staff and talk. If there was another undisclosed meeting, that early in the campaign, when Trump clearly wasn't headed to victory in November, this could implicate Sessions in the hacking leaks. There are limited good reasons for Sessions to meet with the Russian Ambassador as a member of Trump Campaign group in April.

If this meeting is confirmed, there is serious trouble for many people in Trump's Administration.

"Serious trouble" meaning a lot of Democrats whining in the houses of Congress, with complete impotence and futility.

Except that a meeting in April 2016 has all sorts of really negative possibilities, most specifically it is timed around when the Russians really start getting involved and Trump has Ruskied up his campaign. It potentially implicates Sessions as being directly involved in the scandal. And is kind of an uber-perjury, having lied about how much he lied. The Democrats can get perjury charges placed on him and he can be forced to resign.

And if Sessions resigns, the Republican party needs new underwear.

A bunch of if's, but the perjury would be extremely easy to demonstrate.

 

[Elixir]

"Serious trouble" meaning a lot of Democrats whining in the houses of Congress, with complete impotence and futility.

Except that a meeting in April 2016 has all sorts of really negative possibilities, most specifically it is timed around when the Russians really start getting involved and Trump has Ruskied up his campaign. It potentially implicates Sessions as being directly involved in the scandal. And is kind of an uber-perjury, having lied about how much he lied. The Democrats can get perjury charges placed on him and he can be forced to resign.

And if Sessions resigns, the Republican party needs new underwear.

A bunch of if's, but the perjury would be extremely easy to demonstrate.

Sessions won't resign, and there is, incredibly, no clear law against colluding with the Russians to influence a US election. The magic phrase "I forgot" is sufficient (so far) to dispense with any accusations of perjury, as long as Republicans are the ones evaluating it.

 

[bilby]

It's probably easier and quicker to wait for them to die, than it is to get enough of them to change.

That being the case, the real priority is to inoculate their children against the same fear-driven conservatism.

The jobs, the comfortable unquestioned racism, and the bolted-on religion are gone; and they are never coming back. Rural and small town America is massively overpopulated; and the only solution is mass migration to the cities, where there is at least the possibility that jobs will be available. Going back to the 1950s boom-times is simply impossible - the world has changed, largely for the better, and it's never going to change back, so the people need to change with it, or get trampled underfoot.

The only thing that could possibly soften the blow is socialism - taxing the people in the cities to provide handouts for the rural and small town folks (of course, these can be disguised as 'subsidies' and 'incentives' to generate busywork and salve their pride). It's not a solution, but it will perhaps mitigate some of the worst effects of the problem. Except that it's the one thing they are adamant that they will not allow. Which makes it hard to be even slightly sympathetic to their plight.

At the end of the day, these people are scared and angry, because they have been systematically lied to. They were told all their lives that hard work, self reliance, and support for a rigid social structure would result in prosperity. But this is neo-Marxism - The idea that hard work is always rewarded is just a re-wording of the idiotic labour theory of value. Hard work doesn't get you wealthy, it gets you a bad back. Self reliance makes you weak, because you refuse to accept the help you need - or to allow it to be offered to your neighbour. And the rigid social structure - belief in God, and the innate superiority of the white Christian American over all others - sows the seeds of a destructive rage, when it turns out that neither of those things are actually real.

You can no more get these people to vote Democrat than you could get the high priests to stop sacrificing virgins, and start running away from the lava flow. They know that what they are doing isn't working; But they conclude that this means they haven't done enough of it yet.

Bilby: you make some good points, however, why should we "soften the blow"? I don't think that the rich, college educated, liberal, cities should be taxed to support the poor, blue collar, scared republicans in the rural parts of the country. I might not have been so blunt before, but fuck them. Their crazy policies are going to damage the environment, decrease scientific spending, increase the debt, hurt access to college, hurt world peace, and etc. We have to live under their crazy religious practices. And etc. If the dems ever win again (and they will), I don't think that our reward should be our taxes being increased to help out the knuckle draggers. Higher taxes for education, economic development, infrastructure spending, health care, sure.... But to help out bubba, forget it!

Enlightened self interest.

Desperate people do dangerous things.

Your attitude is at the root of so many of the problems in the USA - but the fact is that paying taxes to keep strangers from destitution is almost always cheaper than paying to fix the damage destitute people do to your property.

If rural and small town Americans had had more support from the cities, fewer of them would have voted for Trump. It wouldn't have taken much tax money to save your country from the worst President ever; Refusing to help those people has come back to bite you on the arse - as shortsighted individualism so often does.

 

[J842P]

Bilby: you make some good points, however, why should we "soften the blow"? I don't think that the rich, college educated, liberal, cities should be taxed to support the poor, blue collar, scared republicans in the rural parts of the country. I might not have been so blunt before, but fuck them. Their crazy policies are going to damage the environment, decrease scientific spending, increase the debt, hurt access to college, hurt world peace, and etc. We have to live under their crazy religious practices. And etc. If the dems ever win again (and they will), I don't think that our reward should be our taxes being increased to help out the knuckle draggers. Higher taxes for education, economic development, infrastructure spending, health care, sure.... But to help out bubba, forget it!

Enlightened self interest.

Desperate people do dangerous things.

Your attitude is at the root of so many of the problems in the USA - but the fact is that paying taxes to keep strangers from destitution is almost always cheaper than paying to fix the damage destitute people do to your property.

If rural and small town Americans had had more support from the cities, fewer of them would have voted for Trump. It wouldn't have taken much tax money to save your country from the worst President ever; Refusing to help those people has come back to bite you on the arse - as shortsighted individualism so often does.

Exactly this. Essentially, establishment Democrats and the Republicans throughout the 80s, 90s, and 2000s in collaborated in gutting social programs and regulations at the same time. This was part of a winning political philosophy at the time: neoliberalism. The result of the gutting of regulations has been the financialization of the economy, which essentially resulted in a bunch of paper-based growth that made a bunch of people on Wall St. very, *very* rich, but this was all based on speculative bubbles which, when they finally burst, devastated the middle/working class. This was also concomitant with downright idiotic trade liberalization policies, which were enacted by people who either knew what they were doing and didn't give a shit because that is what their donors wanted, were economic illiterates, or were beholden to an extremist, reality-denying economic philosophy sometimes called "The Chicago School," (the creationism of Economics) which are essentially acolytes of people like Von Mises and Hayek.

And, I really don't blame Hayek et al but their stupid, ideological followers. Sort of like how I don't really hate Foucault, but really hate everyone influenced by him. Hayek himself conceded that there was no reason why prosperous societies shouldn't guarantee basic services, including health care, to the poorest citizens. And made much the same arguments as you have here.