[Cause]

I don’t know if was today or Sunday but I just saw a clip today where a reporter asked him why he boasts about having the best testing in the world and what does it matter even if it’s true if Americans are still dying and it’s not good enough. He answered back why don’t you ask China. Now the reporter was Asian and maybe he was being racist. Or maybe he was just being trump. Either way that question wasn’t that hard, wasn’t unfair and he refused to answer it. Just the latest in a long line of his non sequitor unhelpful responses. Another report he pointed to didn’t immediately ask her question allowing the first reporter to ask a follow up. I imagine this is maybe standard practice or how can any reporter get a response that is meaningful. Trump than tried to punish her by not allowing her her own question and eventually just walked off the stage. It’s disfunctional and has been disfunctional for 3 years. The last press secretary server for over a year without ever holding a press conference. Something needs to be done.

[HoosierDaddy]

Cause, on 12 May 2020 - 12:14 AM, said:

I don't know if was today or Sunday but I just saw a clip today where a reporter asked him why he boasts about having the best testing in the world and what does it matter even if it's true if Americans are still dying and it's not good enough. He answered back why don't you ask China. Now the reporter was Asian and maybe he was being racist. Or maybe he was just being trump. Either way that question wasn't that hard, wasn't unfair and he refused to answer it. Just the latest in a long line of his non sequitor unhelpful responses. Another report he pointed to didn't immediately ask her question allowing the first reporter to ask a follow up. I imagine this is maybe standard practice or how can any reporter get a response that is meaningful. Trump than tried to punish her by not allowing her her own question and eventually just walked off the stage. It's disfunctional and has been disfunctional for 3 years. The last press secretary server for over a year without ever holding a press conference. Something needs to be done.

The means of correction are right there. Many people love Trump's asshattery, though. They cheer for insults, rebukes, and non-answers. But, the means ARE there.

[Cause]

No one is commenting! Today is a crazy news day!

Fauci reporting to congress and trumps toes before the Supreme Court. This day seemed so far away and now it’s here. Could his tax returns finally sink him?

[Tiste Simeon]

I have zero hope that it will do anything of any consequence to the orange bellend.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Trump wants negative interest rates: 'U.S. stock markets turned negative on Tuesday as President Donald Trump renewed his pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates further, hitting financial stocks in particular. [...] "As long as other countries are receiving the benefits of Negative Rates, the USA should also accept the "GIFT". Big numbers!" Trump tweeted.'

https://finance.yaho...-101827507.html

That could counter deflationary pressures, pressuring consumers to spend any further stimulus... or put it into the stock market.

'Negative interest rates: Banks are coming for your money

Thought the money stashed away in your bank account was safe? Think again.

[...] customers will have to pay banks interest on their savings.
This could theoretically incentivize spending, helping to revitalize the economy.'

https://decrypt.co/2...-for-your-money

About 70% of US GDP is consumer spending, so this might not be a bad idea, provided it's accompanied by stimulus (which the Republican Senate seems opposed to)... though it's hard to imagine a populist who wants to be reelected advocating for this, unless he's counting on his base plus wealthy donors....

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 12 May 2020 - 06:26 PM

[Terez]

Cause, on 12 May 2020 - 06:07 PM, said:

No one is commenting! Today is a crazy news day!

Fauci reporting to congress and trumps toes before the Supreme Court. This day seemed so far away and now it's here. Could his tax returns finally sink him?

They probably won't make a decision until next month or maybe even later.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Republicans have already decided Trump is going to lose

Come with me to a fantasy land where President Trump and his aides and allies have a sensible view of the political challenge he now confronts. Between the pandemic and a horrific economic crisis, they realize that Trump cannot be reelected without heroic measures. So not only do they stand up the kind of monumental testing and tracing effort that enabled countries such as South Korea to contain the coronavirus, they also throw everything they can at the economy.

Monthly checks to every family, payroll support to every business, hundreds of billions to prop up state governments crushed by the crisis, a massive new infrastructure plan — whatever it is, they'll spend it. With interest rates bottomed out and a worldwide flight of capital to secure investments, the United States can borrow money basically for free.

[...] In our fantasy land, that's what every Republican would want to do right now. But it's not. And the fact that Republicans don't want to do this raises the possibility that at least some of them are starting to view Trump as a lost cause.

Despite the urgent need for more action, Republicans are in no hurry to pass another rescue package, leaving it to House Democrats to figure out what the economy needs. What you get from the Republican side is mostly resignation. The government has done what it can, they say, and now we just need to remove the stay-at-home orders and let the economy heal itself.

[...] resuming the deficit fear-mongering that was such an effective tool to hamstring Barack Obama's presidency. It also means adjusting their policy and spending agenda to the defensive. They aren't bothering to talk much about new tax cuts or anything else they'd like to pass. Instead, the focus is shifting to cutbacks and constraints. "Automatic spending cuts as the economy improves" is something a Republican would want only if there's a Democrat in the White House. It shows that that's precisely what at least some of them are anticipating.'

https://www.washingt...hC2lSMmwCJCsHnw

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 12 May 2020 - 06:32 PM

[Malankazooie]

It's been crazy town since Sunday for Trump, more so than usual. Trump has been tweeting about 'Obamagate'. What is that? Is he back to questioning where Obama was born? Or does it have something to do with 'Pizzagate'? Today Trump live tweeted Morning Joe on MSNBC and brought up some conspiracy about Joe Scarborough killing someone. Never heard that one either. At yesterday's task force update, he called on a reporter then stopped her from asking a question and called on another reporter, he walked off when the reporter persisted. Oh, and google for the vid of Trump explaining about testing and his logic about how testing will come back as negative for coronavirus and then testing again later, will come back positive for coronavirus. Oh and Trump has a new branding campaign for winning the coronavirus - "transition to greatness". You're gonna see that a lot.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Another potential near-future Supreme Court time bomb: 'The Supreme Court Considers Exempting Religious Employers From All Discrimination Laws'

https://slate.com/ne...rimination.html

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'But Republicans haven’t given up on Trump just yet. Biden has been doing well in national and swing-state polling. He may even be a favorite for November at the moment. He is still, however, a nearly 78-year-old man who is either locked in a Delaware basement or doesn’t know how to get out of it.

But if they still have hope for November why are Republicans “pausing” relief efforts, for now, ahead of a national referendum on their relief efforts? Because—again, for now—they’ve gotten what they wanted.

Between the Federal Reserve going to unprecedented lengths to prop up capital markets and the CARES Act’s enormous relief for large corporations, the constituencies for whom the Senate Republican conference serves as concierge are taken care of.

Though the Paycheck Protection Program has been far from a perfect success, it’s served areas dominated by small- or medium-size community banks that already have strong relationships with the Small Business Administration well. Those areas are often red states.

[...]

Republicans’ priority, now, is not providing additional relief money as efforts to stamp out the virus continue. It is getting businesses to reopen and commerce to recommence, virus be damned. And if that’s your view, then certainly liability protection for business owners would be your top legislative priority going forward, as it is for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

What might snap Republicans from the spending “pause,” though, is when America reopens but Americans stay in their homes. Georgia and Texas moved ahead aggressively with allowing businesses to under certain conditions. That does not mean, however, that commerce has roared back. As long as businesses are operating at limited capacity, and as long as customers are concerned about getting sick and dying from a pandemic, America’s reopening will be a bust. Without a national test-and-trace system in place—hint, hint!—the money printers are the only way through.'

https://slate.com/ne...f-strategy.html

[Tavvar]

Looks like I missed a good chat over the weekend and having a few busy days at work!

The US was designed to only change slowly (hence the difficulty of amending the Constitution). ON the plus-side, this means that the parties can't change the underlying rules of the game with each election. On the negative-side, we can't make any changes at the moment to fix problems in a 200+ year-old document (I do "love" the idea of textual originalism and worship of the Constitution as sacred - the first thing the Founders did was change it! The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) was required to be passed along with the Constitution. Even the guys who wrote it found mistakes/omissions/gaps in the first edition! Why do we have to stick to it exactly as written when it was out-of-date the moment the ink dried????)

The current Supreme Court cases about Trump's tax returns should be a slam dunk for allowing a House investigation, but apparently the House lawyer is a moron and may give the Republican justices the excuses they need to shield Trump and possibly all future Presidents from investigations. The Supreme Court has always held itself as neutral, but the last few years have shown that it is anything but; it is just as political as the rest of the government. (Part of this is driven, I think, by Conservative fears that they are getting outnumbered and will soon lose power, so if they yank the Courts super far to the Right, they can still stop Liberals once they lose power).

This whole crisis should mean that Trump loses in a landslide in November, but I don't trust Biden to be able to fully take advantage, and Trump's fans are as loyal as you can get. I am cautiously optimistic that he'll be gone on January 21st, 2021, but also absolutely terrified that he'll manage to stay in office.

[Tiste Simeon]

You think that even if Biden wins the election Trump will be gone by January?

That's a little naive tbh...

[QuickTidal]

Tiste Simeon, on 13 May 2020 - 03:47 PM, said:

You think that even if Biden wins the election Trump will be gone by January?

That's a little naive tbh...

That will come down to the people in the orbit of the White House...the Secret Service mostly. As of January, they will serve the POTUS, if that is Biden, then they serve Biden and can escort Trump from the WH...I think anything else by the Secret Service would smack of Coup, and I don't know that even in this crazy timeline I can see the entire Secret Service going rogue to support someone who is not the POTUS.

[Tiste Simeon]

I just can't see him not stirring up his followers to rebel against the decision and claim foul play at every level. People are so used to him making outrageous claims and NOTHING being done about them that if he started ranting about democrats cheating and that he would not be ceding the election I can see it causing some serious problems.

[Primateus]

Oh, I have no doubt that were he to lose the election, he would definitely cry foul from here to the end times. It doesn't even matter if he secretly doesn't want to be president, it's not about that. He just seems unable to accept him "not winning".

[HoosierDaddy]

There is a gross difference between allowing the legitimate POTUS to act within his powers (or fight legally to say that they are his powers until a Court or Congress via the Courts stops him) and letting him remain in office after he was legitimately defeated in an election. They can cry all they want to about "rigged elections" etc., but I am firmly of the belief that the vast majority of civil servants (which include the Secret Service), the military, and other politicians (including Republicans) have far more loyalty to the rule of law and the republic than Trump. Even if I am naive in that notion, they have a VESTED INTEREST in not upsetting the status-quo by de-legitimizing the entire electoral process by following anything that blowhard says to such a degree. Most of them kowtow to him because he IS legitimate right now, and they are afraid of his people voting against them. If he loses? They'll go back to being "Never-Trumpers" again.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

HoosierDaddy, on 13 May 2020 - 08:08 PM, said:

There is a gross difference between allowing the legitimate POTUS to act within his powers (or fight legally to say that they are his powers until a Court or Congress via the Courts stops him) and letting him remain in office after he was legitimately defeated in an election. They can cry all they want to about "rigged elections" etc., but I am firmly of the belief that the vast majority of civil servants (which include the Secret Service), the military, and other politicians (including Republicans) have far more loyalty to the rule of law and the republic than Trump. Even if I am naive in that notion, they have a VESTED INTEREST in not upsetting the status-quo by de-legitimizing the entire electoral process by following anything that blowhard says to such a degree. Most of them kowtow to him because he IS legitimate right now, and they are afraid of his people voting against them. If he loses? They'll go back to being "Never-Trumpers" again.

What if they're afraid of demographic changes putting them permanently out of power (at the national level and in many states)? Trump judges can probably only do so much....

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 13 May 2020 - 08:13 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Azath Vitr (D, on 13 May 2020 - 08:12 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 13 May 2020 - 08:08 PM, said:

There is a gross difference between allowing the legitimate POTUS to act within his powers (or fight legally to say that they are his powers until a Court or Congress via the Courts stops him) and letting him remain in office after he was legitimately defeated in an election. They can cry all they want to about "rigged elections" etc., but I am firmly of the belief that the vast majority of civil servants (which include the Secret Service), the military, and other politicians (including Republicans) have far more loyalty to the rule of law and the republic than Trump. Even if I am naive in that notion, they have a VESTED INTEREST in not upsetting the status-quo by de-legitimizing the entire electoral process by following anything that blowhard says to such a degree. Most of them kowtow to him because he IS legitimate right now, and they are afraid of his people voting against them. If he loses? They'll go back to being "Never-Trumpers" again.

What if they're afraid of demographic changes putting them permanently out of power (at the national level and in many states)? Trump judges can probably only do so much....

Then they'll need to adapt to demographic changes? Political parties evolve along with the rest of society. If Republicans can no longer shape policy because they are so drastically outnumbered, a new party will form if they don't adapt their platform. Same thing with Democrats.

Like all other changes, this happens slowly. From the zero party election of 1789 to the Federalist v. anti-Federalists til now, political parties have come and gone and will continue to do so if they don't adapt or get caught in a rare maelstrom of political upheaval.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

HoosierDaddy, on 13 May 2020 - 08:47 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 13 May 2020 - 08:12 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 13 May 2020 - 08:08 PM, said:

There is a gross difference between allowing the legitimate POTUS to act within his powers (or fight legally to say that they are his powers until a Court or Congress via the Courts stops him) and letting him remain in office after he was legitimately defeated in an election. They can cry all they want to about "rigged elections" etc., but I am firmly of the belief that the vast majority of civil servants (which include the Secret Service), the military, and other politicians (including Republicans) have far more loyalty to the rule of law and the republic than Trump. Even if I am naive in that notion, they have a VESTED INTEREST in not upsetting the status-quo by de-legitimizing the entire electoral process by following anything that blowhard says to such a degree. Most of them kowtow to him because he IS legitimate right now, and they are afraid of his people voting against them. If he loses? They'll go back to being "Never-Trumpers" again.

What if they're afraid of demographic changes putting them permanently out of power (at the national level and in many states)? Trump judges can probably only do so much....

Then they'll need to adapt to demographic changes? Political parties evolve along with the rest of society. If Republicans can no longer shape policy because they are so drastically outnumbered, a new party will form if they don't adapt their platform. Same thing with Democrats.

Like all other changes, this happens slowly. From the zero party election of 1789 to the Federalist v. anti-Federalists til now, political parties have come and gone and will continue to do so if they don't adapt or get caught in a rare maelstrom of political upheaval.

At least three issues there:

- They are currently in power, except in the House, and will not want to cede it

- Particularly under Trump, their core constituents are unlikely to enter into a coalition with the new demographic majority

- Attempts at 'Compassionate Conservatism' and running relative moderates such as McCain, Romney, and Jeb! have failed

[HoosierDaddy]

Azath Vitr (D, on 13 May 2020 - 08:56 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 13 May 2020 - 08:47 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 13 May 2020 - 08:12 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 13 May 2020 - 08:08 PM, said:

There is a gross difference between allowing the legitimate POTUS to act within his powers (or fight legally to say that they are his powers until a Court or Congress via the Courts stops him) and letting him remain in office after he was legitimately defeated in an election. They can cry all they want to about "rigged elections" etc., but I am firmly of the belief that the vast majority of civil servants (which include the Secret Service), the military, and other politicians (including Republicans) have far more loyalty to the rule of law and the republic than Trump. Even if I am naive in that notion, they have a VESTED INTEREST in not upsetting the status-quo by de-legitimizing the entire electoral process by following anything that blowhard says to such a degree. Most of them kowtow to him because he IS legitimate right now, and they are afraid of his people voting against them. If he loses? They'll go back to being "Never-Trumpers" again.

What if they're afraid of demographic changes putting them permanently out of power (at the national level and in many states)? Trump judges can probably only do so much....

Then they'll need to adapt to demographic changes? Political parties evolve along with the rest of society. If Republicans can no longer shape policy because they are so drastically outnumbered, a new party will form if they don't adapt their platform. Same thing with Democrats.

Like all other changes, this happens slowly. From the zero party election of 1789 to the Federalist v. anti-Federalists til now, political parties have come and gone and will continue to do so if they don't adapt or get caught in a rare maelstrom of political upheaval.

At least three issues there:

- They are currently in power, except in the House, and will not want to cede it

No party ever wants to cede power. But they have and will. Most of these groups of people (see below) can do the pragmatic math of the downside of NOT ceding power to duly elected governments. If they don't, the system is broken and it will require a replacement. Political systems do not mildly die, and most of these people have far more to lose under that prospect than to in giving the Democratic side the Presidency (which won't see gross change because of all I laid out in the previous few posts, more aptly evolution than revolution).

Quote

- Particularly under Trump, their core constituents are unlikely to enter into a coalition with the new demographic majority

Who are their "core constituents"? In a two party system isolating "core constituents" is not so easy. Is it the religious right? The religious right has certainly hijacked the social platform of the Republican Party since Reagan. Is it the fiscal conservative? The Nixonians or Reaganites with trickle down/supply side believers? Is it the oligarchs at the top of society (Koch's, Duvoss', etc.?) Is it the alt-right/neo-nazi's? Or is it mostly regular Americans that have a mild lean towards the conservative? The Republican Party is currently a sum of these groups, and each can easily be wooed by another party and don't altogether care about the Republican Party. For those who are independents (and most claim to be [even if they almost always vote one way or the other they can be swayed and are regularly... see Obama]) there really isn't all that much change. The others care about their issues and thus winning elections. If there is a better platform/alternative platform or this one is unable to win (which is going to happen eventually, see the demographic changes we are discussing) then there will be adaptation or death. Political Darwinism.

I don't think a new coalition is as impossible as you imply. It will happen sooner or later, but maybe not right now, yes; I'd say it is probably not likely. But it will happen.

Quote

- Attempts at 'Compassionate Conservatism' and running relative moderate.s such as McCain, Romney, and Jeb! have failed

They have failed recently. Let us not grow too bold with predicting the future because of the past 20 years or so.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 13 May 2020 - 09:28 PM