[Silencer]

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:

I would keep Trump in charge over having Pence or Ruan as president because every other global leader will run circles around him, which is fine, but he won't enact policies that will crater this country for fifty years like Pence or Ryan will.

Look at Kansas after total Republican capture. It's nearly failing as a state and that's after a couple years under the Obama administration.

I do not think Trump will ever use nukes or do something like start a war over a handshake. He's volatile and incompetent, but he won't go that far because he can't actually do that.

Wow. Okay man. I think you're wrong from a global POV, but that's your prerogative to that opinion.

Also, he can do that. You might need to research the Football, and the accompanying biscuit? But he literally can do that and the only thing that stops the order from going through is a mutiny of the armed forces. There is no one who can veto him on it if he chooses to do it.

The Football case follows him around everywhere, and sleeps in a room below him so he has access to it 24/7. He carries a key card (biscuit) with the his personal codes.

This was all established in Kennedy's era.

I don't think 'phib is saying that he *can't* do that. Just that he "can't" do that. As in, the consequences would be catastrophic, Russia would likely retaliate (regardless of where Trump's nukes were aimed, as there is too short of a window once launch is verified to risk waiting to return fire), and it's also entirely possible that someone in the room at the time would tackle him.

The thing is, I don't entirely disagree with 'phib, RE: the danger of Pence and Ryan. Trump is a man-child, sure - but his incompetence actively limits the damage he can do, barring perhaps tarnishing the US in the eyes of the world, and setting back diplomatic relations by decades. Yes, he is trying to do some stuff that is bad - both for America and the world - but he is getting opposed at every turn, to varying degrees.
Ryan and Pence both have the political experience, connections, and lack of petulance to get some much, much worse legislation done - simply because they know how to choose their words and keep the noise on Twitter to zero (see the defeat of the immigration restrictions due to Trump's Tweets, for an example of the kind of mistake they wouldn't make).
And while they have essentially zero chance of causing nuclear armageddon, compared to Trump's non-zero chance, they can fuck the world over without that. Ryan and Pence hold some pretty extreme views, and the economic and social consequences of either of them ruling the country could easily beat whatever damage Trump can do. What's worse, because they wouldn't *look* like idiots, or be bad at hiding their intentions, they also wouldn't serve nearly as well as a warning sign to the people of the world - arguably Trump's best quality: a deterrent to other nations from electing the same kind of person. And that's not because he does bad or stupid things, it's because he gets *seen* to be doing them, and suffers appropriate criticism. Pence or Ryan could be doing worse, with much less drama. And that's bad in its own way for the world.

Fundamentally, Ryan or Pence may seem like safer choices. But in reality, it's being stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock may be dense and have a low chance of ROYALLY fucking the world, but the hard place is methodical and will almost certainly do more long-term damage to the US, with likely significant consequences for the rest of the world as well, all while everyone else fails to notice because it looks innocuous enough.



Long story short: despite how some Trump supporters act, his removal from office isn't going to somehow result in Hillary becoming President. Ever. Nor any Democrat. Unless the entire Republican party implodes somehow over a very short space of time. And the backup options on the Republican side are both just different kinds of bad.

[amphibian]

I'm telling you that thinking Trump will use nukes is a waste of your time.

He's going to use pretty much everything else, which is a hell of a lot more concerning. That giant bunker buster from a few months ago? It deafens people and animals within a 2.5 mile radius. The drones, the dumbass spec op raids, the sending 4k more troops to Afghanistan, is all being used more and more.

Trump got played on Qatar by the Saudis. He'll get played in every negotiation he ever engages with, which is actually fine by me.

But he won't get the full range of awful shit done in the foreign and domestic realms that Pence or Ryan would with their greater competence.

[amphibian]

What silencer said above is great. I will also add that what McConnell and Ryan are doing with the Healthcare stuff is a sign of what could come.

Around 8% of the country wants them to do that. That's it. They know it's massively unpopular (beyond being bad) and they still know that they're good enough at and secure enough in their positions to do it anyways.

That's who would be Prez if Trump/Pence was gone. Pence isn't as skilled as Ryan, but he's almost at that level.

[QuickTidal]

Again, anything that Pence & Ryan do can be rolled back by the next Dems in charge when the time comes. Yes, they can effectively hide more of what they are doing, and be more nefarious...but they will abide the "book".

Trump seems to be doing his level best to DESTROY the "book"

That's the difference. He's literally pushing the limits of Con Law on a daily basis with his tweets alone. He literally called the Judicial branch of the US government "so-called judges".

I agree with the notion that the line of Republicans who would replace him are not good options either. But this is the way the US system has allowed the cookie to crumble (Electoral college, disgruntled voters, poor Dem nomination). It sucks but it is what it is.

The way Trump blusters through the checks makes me think that one day the verbiage (or lack of it) in the Constitution may fail everyone and he'll do something drastic. Example. The Constitution has literally NO verbiage about who the President can fire. None. It talks about who and how people get hired....but nada about firing. That's a pretty big hole, and leaving it up to the SCOTUS (which is how traditionally it's been handled if there is a conflict about it) is another hole.

What happens when all this poking and prodding at all the systems the US govt has in place to septette the powers and prevent drastic things from coming into play...results in him finding loopholes?

I'm not sure anyone is acting like Hillary would get in if Trump were removed. It's not remotely about that. In fact, anyone who talks about Hillary at this point is silly. That's done. It's as bad as GOPers who still talk about Obama. He's not in office anymore. We are talking about the office now. Not then. Or not what "might" have been.

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'm telling you that thinking Trump will use nukes is a waste of your time.

I'm sure everyone thought that about any horrible event in human history before said horrible event. You're saying don't worry...it won't happen. Of course everyone thinks that...until it happens.

Sure the chances he'd do something that drastic are low...but the fact that it's not at 0% is the bit that should worry people.

As a citizen of this planet, I worry about it. As a parent I worry about the world we live in.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 16 June 2017 - 06:23 PM

[Mentalist]

as long as there's North Korea, the chances of nuclear Armageddon are always non-0.

That being said, the more people have to lose, the less likely they are to push the button.

Only way I can see Trump actually being removed is if they find him medically unfit.

And the SCOTUS is not going to toe his line when it comes to the stability of state- because even hardcore Republicans aren't dumb enough to try to turn the States into a dictatorship, where they aren't in charge.
-nevermind the potential setback to any civil/equality rights initiatives, but when it comes to the Constitution, Judiciary won't go all-in, because they realize that eventually the same set of enlarged powers might fall to the Dems.

All Trump is doing is effectively undermining the system. But in doing this, all he is achieving is sabotaging various elements of his own (executive) branch of govt. He's technically the overseer of the DoJ, the FBI, etc. These agencies end up paralysed, true- but they are not actively causing harm, which is how an actual savvy politician would co-op them.

Trump's comprehension of the complexity of state is comparable to that of a toddler in a machine shop. He just likes to press buttons and throws a tantrum everytime the foreman sternly tells him not to.

[Silencer]

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 06:16 PM, said:

I'm not sure anyone is acting like Hillary would get in if Trump were removed. It's not remotely about that. In fact, anyone who talks about Hillary at this point is silly. That's done. It's as bad as GOPers who still talk about Obama. He's not in office anymore. We are talking about the office now. Not then. Or not what "might" have been.

I'm only going to address this bit because it's 4:35 in the morning and I haven't slept in far too long, but:

I mainly brought that up *because* of the people who keep going on about Hillary and Obama. But it's also because the hardcore Trump supporters are *acting* like if Trump gets out, it will somehow lead to another election, or default to his opponent gaining the presidency. It won't. But there are people out there who seem to think it will. Then again, partially that's because a lot of Trump voters don't actually consider Pence or Ryan to be "their candidate" - they voted for Trump, they want Trump, and only Trump. So any departure from office would result in someone who is, if only on the most basic of levels, equivalent to Hillary.
It's relevance to the present discussion was more along the lines of: just because Trump goes, doesn't mean someone better gets the job.

Oh, and: we get it. Trump is concerning. For the world. Hell, Robert Reich is one of the only political folk I follow on Facebook, and even he regularly posts reassurances to the rest of the world that Trump is not America, and that they're doing everything they can to curb his destructive tendencies. But to hold Trump up as some sort of worst-case scenario is a bit too certain. Like, you're not necessarily *wrong*, but you could be. Because Pence and Ryan are *that* bad. No-one is trying to downplay how bad Trump is. It's just that there is a very genuine concern that he the lesser of two evils. For everyone. (And I currently live in a country whose Prime Minister just had tapes leaked of him insulting Donald Trump. XD)

[QuickTidal]

Yeah fair enough.

Let me ask a separate question...I guess to Amph.

If the investigation proves fruitful (be it with collusion, or obstruction ect.), and impeachment becomes an inevitability...what then? Is there anyone in the list of successors (if more than one person goes down with an impeachment)...who would satisfy you? I mean, isn't it just a list of Right Wing R politicians who would do bad things within the system? You don't exactly have ANY solid options, no?

[amphibian]

Waiting for the next time Democrats capture Congress or the presidency means that at least severe hundred thousand people die and millions get put at risk of serious health problems, hunger, becoming prisoners, and/or homelessness due to massive cuts in social service programs. Ryan talked about cutting free meals for poor children at schools. I think that was 3 million kids that would go hungry if he got his way.

That kind of ripple effect is why putting Pence or Ryan in power is less palatable to me than letting the still awful choice of Trump continue.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Yeah fair enough.

Let me ask a separate question...I guess to Amph.

If the investigation proves fruitful (be it with collusion, or obstruction ect.), and impeachment becomes an inevitability...what then? Is there anyone in the list of successors (if more than one person goes down with an impeachment)...who would satisfy you? I mean, isn't it just a list of Right Wing R politicians who would do bad things within the system? You don't exactly have ANY solid options, no?

I think Trump won't go down. This Congress won't impeach him.

Honestly, the best person in the presidential succession list is General Mattis, and we'd end up with a multi generation war with the nebulous concept of Islam. I'm not sure what Tillerson would do, but I figure he'd be similar to Dick Cheney in ultimate goals.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 06:57 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Yeah fair enough.

Let me ask a separate question...I guess to Amph.

If the investigation proves fruitful (be it with collusion, or obstruction ect.), and impeachment becomes an inevitability...what then? Is there anyone in the list of successors (if more than one person goes down with an impeachment)...who would satisfy you? I mean, isn't it just a list of Right Wing R politicians who would do bad things within the system? You don't exactly have ANY solid options, no?

I think Trump won't go down. This Congress won't impeach him.

If anything is proven from the investigation, they will either have to impeach him, or see themselves booted out come election time. I feel like impeachment might be more palatable to them in that case, no?

[Vengeance]

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 06:57 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Yeah fair enough.

Let me ask a separate question...I guess to Amph.

If the investigation proves fruitful (be it with collusion, or obstruction ect.), and impeachment becomes an inevitability...what then? Is there anyone in the list of successors (if more than one person goes down with an impeachment)...who would satisfy you? I mean, isn't it just a list of Right Wing R politicians who would do bad things within the system? You don't exactly have ANY solid options, no?

I think Trump won't go down. This Congress won't impeach him.

If anything is proven from the investigation, they will either have to impeach him, or see themselves booted out come election time. I feel like impeachment might be more palatable to them in that case, no?

The longer trump lasts and the longer the investigation goes on the tougher it is going to be on Republicans in 2018. If his approval ratings go below 30 and his son-in-law and others start to go down or cut immunity deals. You could see Democrats take a lot of seats.

Then he would have a chance to be impeached and possibly removed from office. But that is still a long away away.

[amphibian]

I don't know about that proposition of "the longer this goes on, it'll be worse for Republicans".

The Congressman who suplexed/assaulted a reporter two weeks before the election still won.

Rubio and Rick Scott got Trump to do the Cuba executive order that they tried to get going as a bill in 2015.

Other Republicans are defending Trump still and giving Sessions handjobs during investigations. They're not acting like this is politically dangerous. They're acting like their votes back home are secure, while the Democrats stupidly stick to the same lack of coherent message and politics that lost them the Senate and the White House and most governorships and state legislative bodies.

[worry]

There's a consequence imbalance in this country that goes hand in hand with the wealth imbalance and is just as poisonous. It's also harder to articulate. There are concrete examples -- too-big-too-fail entities, police murdering citizens with impunity, and of course gerrymandering -- but the overall phenomenon is like a burning coal in the guts of everyone in the country that never gets put out. Not by rightwing fascists who offer easy low level scapegoats that satisfy the pettiest of "rule of law" desires, and not by centrists (e.g. America's Democrats) who'd rather capitulate to fascists than upset the apple cart, largely because they benefit from the imbalance (sometimes directly, more often indirectly via their funders). The practical Left -- Bernie, Corbyn, to a large extent Liz Warren -- appeals to the same populist desires for fairness that the right does, but hopes to treat the disease and not just the easiest symptoms, which is why they scare the pants off the right and the centrists/moderates both.

I'm not sure where I fall in this debate between amph and QT. I do agree Trump's incompetence has been something of a buffer between his goals and his achievements (e.g. the Muslim ban), and Paul Ryan might be a craftier (and therefore more effective) force for evil. On the other hand, I think he's actually way dumber than people give him credit for, so who knows? Also I sooooo want to see right wing "populism" dealt the smackdown it deserves, and I think there are practical reasons to want that on top of the schadenfreude. Nearly as much though I want to see centrism staked through the heart. I'd prefer to break the cycle rather than just be content when it's the Dems' turn and discontent when it's the GOP's turn, over and over again, and getting DJT out of office just to be replaced by slightly more subtle fascists doesn't break the cycle.

To sum up, I mostly agree with amph's reasoning, but still side with QT about wanting Trump gone, but still side with amph that it won't help as much as it seems since GOP orthodoxy and Trump admin orthodoxy are like 99% overlapped anyway.

[Tiste Simeon]

Put it this way. The tears of anguish from The_Donald. That alone is enough to want him gone.

[worry]

You're in luck, Tiste.



That's from Associated Press, not like @TrumpRussia69
https://twitter.com/...844803455569920

[Tapper]

Vengeance, on 16 June 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

amphibian, on 16 June 2017 - 06:57 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 16 June 2017 - 06:47 PM, said:

Yeah fair enough.

Let me ask a separate question...I guess to Amph.

If the investigation proves fruitful (be it with collusion, or obstruction ect.), and impeachment becomes an inevitability...what then? Is there anyone in the list of successors (if more than one person goes down with an impeachment)...who would satisfy you? I mean, isn't it just a list of Right Wing R politicians who would do bad things within the system? You don't exactly have ANY solid options, no?

I think Trump won't go down. This Congress won't impeach him.

If anything is proven from the investigation, they will either have to impeach him, or see themselves booted out come election time. I feel like impeachment might be more palatable to them in that case, no?

The longer trump lasts and the longer the investigation goes on the tougher it is going to be on Republicans in 2018. If his approval ratings go below 30 and his son-in-law and others start to go down or cut immunity deals. You could see Democrats take a lot of seats.

Then he would have a chance to be impeached and possibly removed from office. But that is still a long away away.

Even so, who is going to run against Pence in 2020?

Personally, I highly doubt the "traditional" Republicans will last very long (the base of power that voted Bush into the White House). It already wasn't enough for McCain (not even with the Tea Party crazies on board), it wasn't for Romney, either. Soon, it might split into those who believe in the traditional values (let's say, the Reagan/ Bush types) and the ones who are willing to tap into the alt-right values to win.

In 2016 they needed that particular branch of populism that Trump brought in order to win.
I highly doubt Ryan or Pence are able to tap into the alt-right/ Tea Party segment of society by themselves.

However, impeach Trump and the alt-right will create a backstab-narrative.
Pence as his VP would then in the unique postion for an establishment Republican to unite the Trumpist voters with the traditional Republicans into his voting base once again.

Also, for over two years, all Democrats will have done is rage and rail against Trump. Their message up until now is only reactionary to whatever Trump tweets, and their message is almost as devoid of (counter-)policy, compromise or success as his. The "we're not with Trump" message might be enough to get them seats in the mid-terms, but they need to come up with
a) a figurehead for 2020, pronto, and it can't be Hillary.
a message better than "we're against what the talking orange wants";
c) need some succesful proposals/amendments.

QT brought up a while before that a Democrat president in 2020 can undo what Trump did.
I somewhat doubt that. Obama didn't close Guantanamo, wasn't able to reform the post-crisis investment banking by much, and all it takes right now is a presidential decree to undo his checks and balances, because that is how he created them.

Unfortunately, undoing and replacing by something better by making it law is hard and takes ages, especially if you don't also control Senate and House - which is what Trump has.

Also, Dems would be mostly undoing what was just done four years ago, which undid something that was done on average four years before that. Is that the way? The Democrats and their voters may be united in what they'd want to undo - will they be united in what they'll replace it with?

On top of that, there are plenty of options on which moving back and forth is no longer an option: I for example really doubt there will be a quick way back to global trade agreements, climate treaties or a Middle Eastern policy regarding Iran. If Trump does start a new war somewhere, solving that is also going to take way longer than a term, let alone the wars the US is still in, as it seems the White House has cynically (but from a press PoV correctly) decided that the easiest solution is to let the existing wars simmer and only react to escalations. And when reacting, a shortfire burst of violence with a show element intended more for the homefront than for actually solving something.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 19 June 2017 - 12:30 PM

[Aptorian]

Even if Bernie Sanders would be 103 years old in 2020 I would still vote for him if I could.

This post has been edited by Seduce Goose: 19 June 2017 - 12:41 PM

[QuickTidal]

Tapper, on 19 June 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

QT brought up a while before that a Democrat president in 2020 can undo what Trump did.

Technically, my point was that the Dems could roll back whatever Pence or Ryan might do (if Trump was impeached), and that rolling back what Trump might do would be way harder, considering he could start a war, and pulling out of the Paris accords hurts the environment since the USA is one of the three top polluters (luckily States are sticking to it, even if the country as a whole is not). I was aiming at a "he will hurt the planet" comment.

Tapper, on 19 June 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

I somewhat doubt that. Obama didn't close Guantanamo, wasn't able to reform the post-crisis investment banking by much, and all it takes right now is a presidential decree to undo his checks and balances, because that is how he created them.

I don't think this really had much to do with Obama. He spent 8 years being blocked at every avenue he tried to take by a room full of upset old conservative white men. He was handed a large mess by Bush...and was expected to clean it up...while the Republicans did everything in their power to block him doing so.

Tapper, on 19 June 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

On top of that, there are plenty of options on which moving back and forth is no longer an option: I for example really doubt there will be a quick way back to global trade agreements, climate treaties or a Middle Eastern policy regarding Iran.

^^This is an awfully nihilistic view. If things were going to be this bleak, why bother? I would hope that the left had more gumption than to just accept things as "status quo" like that.

I do agree that the Dems need to table a new leader post-haste. And I would not worry about it being Hillary. Her political career is most likely over now.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 19 June 2017 - 12:53 PM

[amphibian]

Obama had two years with a Democratic Senate. He couldn't get things done even then because the Democrats are actually incoherent as a party.

I think the neoliberal movement, which came about post-McGovern and best personified by the Clintons and Obama, has trashed the party. The loss of key leftist positions on union strength, on maintaining social services, and on strengthening civil rights has broken the country to a huge degree.

[Tapper]

QuickTidal, on 19 June 2017 - 12:48 PM, said:

Tapper, on 19 June 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

On top of that, there are plenty of options on which moving back and forth is no longer an option: I for example really doubt there will be a quick way back to global trade agreements, climate treaties or a Middle Eastern policy regarding Iran.

^^This is an awfully nihilistic view. If things were going to be this bleak, why bother? I would hope that the left had more gumption than to just accept things as "status quo" like that.

I don't know.... Kyoto was 1997 and was extended once, Paris took ages to be agreed.
NAFTA took four years between negotiation and confirmation (and is due a new round because clauses that are needed were only included in TTP), TTIP was under suggestion after 2006, had documents leaked in 2013, and was planned to be completed in 2014, which might now be much, much later.
TPP took also almost eight years between talks and ratification, and the US will surely demand renegotiation before they'll re-enter.

The US is not going to do anything under Trump, and while Paris is an open-ended treaty, I highly doubt it is in the best interest of the rest of the world to allow the US to sail on a different curve if it wants to re-enter after 2020.

Second, with all the withdrawals, reversals and generally untrustworthy attitude, the world is going to leave the States in their splendid isolation. Remmeber, it took only 150 days so far for everyone to take his measure and Merkel to say the EU is left to its own in her Bavarian speech.

Finally, China and Russia love this situation. They basically get room on the world stage without having to look over their shoulder, and so do (some) of their allies.

With regards to Iran being embargo-ed/ sanctioned again: Iran will say that despite them upholding their end of the bargain, they're sanctioned. Now what are they to do? Restart their nuclear program and be branded a supervillain, seek approachment to Russia?
Or still uphold the deal, and just weather the US sanctions because the UN and EU might not sanction as long as the IAEA says Iran respects the deal?

And if sanctions are now re-installed, what is Iran to do next time a president announces the US is willing to negotiate? Bend over backwards, abandon Russian support (what allowed them to build their program in the first place) when in X years time it might be reversed yet again because of internal US policies?

Quote

I do agree that the Dems need to table a new leader post-haste. And I would not worry about it being Hillary. Her political career is most likely over now.

I highly doubt she agrees.
For one, I am pretty sure she has a chip on her shoulder, and she is still a huge fundraiser. Age might hold her back, but she woul;dn't be that much older than Trump (plus, women live longer) and Biden is rumoured to consider running and he's older.
Also, she might be counting on more people to hold their nose and vote her if it came to a re-match of 2016. Finally, she's politically active: in May she launched an anti-Trump interest group, which will allow her to continue building her 'elder statesman' profile. Fpr her, contrasting direcly how she would do things compared with how Trump does them, is actually a smart move.