What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[DGuller]

You can go fuck yourself.

This post has about as much thought as any of yours from the last two years.

And this post is as objective and insightful as any of yours since you started your contrarian phase.

[Syt]

"Phase"?

[Habbaku]

I remember when Teach didn't just post two sentences of "nuh-uh". It is definitely a phase.

[Maximus]

Congressional Democrats have been,  if anything,  too conciliatory.

[The Brain]

It's actually not called "Congressional Democrats". It's just Democrats.

[Valmy]

As I have said previously there is just no political reason to try to compromise these days. If you do your own party will attack you and the other party will still hate you. Without political points to score, most politicians will not do it.

[crazy canuck]

As I have said previously there is just no political reason to try to compromise these days. If you do your own party will attack you and the other party will still hate you. Without political points to score, most politicians will not do it.

Was there ever a time when the reason for compromise was that the other party will not hate you?  Hasn't the American system always been based on what political points can be scored by individual representatives in their own individual political interests?

[Valmy]

As I have said previously there is just no political reason to try to compromise these days. If you do your own party will attack you and the other party will still hate you. Without political points to score, most politicians will not do it.

Was there ever a time when the reason for compromise was that the other party will not hate you?  Hasn't the American system always been based on what political points can be scored by individual representatives in their own individual political interests?

Yeah there was a time when having a reputation for being able to work with the other party was a big plus and you could draw voters from the other party doing it. It was not that long ago. So yes the system was always based on scoring political points, bipartisanship used to score political points and now it does not. Ergo there is much less of it.

[Razgovory]

As I have said previously there is just no political reason to try to compromise these days. If you do your own party will attack you and the other party will still hate you. Without political points to score, most politicians will not do it.

Was there ever a time when the reason for compromise was that the other party will not hate you?  Hasn't the American system always been based on what political points can be scored by individual representatives in their own individual political interests?

Yes, but not really in my lifetime.  It was pretty bad in the 1990's, people were noting it then, and it has gotten worse since then.  There was a brief period of bipartisanship after 9/11 but it really fell apart over the Iraq war.  Can't speak to the 1980's, I was born in '81.

[crazy canuck]

As I have said previously there is just no political reason to try to compromise these days. If you do your own party will attack you and the other party will still hate you. Without political points to score, most politicians will not do it.

Was there ever a time when the reason for compromise was that the other party will not hate you?  Hasn't the American system always been based on what political points can be scored by individual representatives in their own individual political interests?

Yeah there was a time when having a reputation for being able to work with the other party was a big plus and you could draw voters from the other party doing it. It was not that long ago. So yes the system was always based on scoring political points, bipartisanship used to score political points and now it does not. Ergo there is much less of it.

Those are different things though Valmy.  You (and I) wish to a return to a day when reasonable cooperation was seen as a future by your own party and the people who support your party.   That is different than what the other party and their voters think of you.  Your concern is more with the primary system and what voters within the candidate's own party thinks of them.

[Valmy]

I was just pointing out Eddie is not wrong. There is no political reason, and tons of political risk, to reaching across the aisle as things stand. I would be surprised if either party does much of that, at least at the Federal level, going forward for awhile.

Those are different things though Valmy.  You (and I) wish to a return to a day when reasonable cooperation was seen as a future by your own party and the people who support your party.   That is different than what the other party and their voters think of you.  Your concern is more with the primary system and what voters within the candidate's own party thinks of them.

I am just saying you are paying a price of having your own party see you as a traitor and not gaining any sort of political benefit to offset that. No need to get too hooked on my choice of words there.

[jimmy olsen]

As I have said previously there is just no political reason to try to compromise these days. If you do your own party will attack you and the other party will still hate you. Without political points to score, most politicians will not do it.

Was there ever a time when the reason for compromise was that the other party will not hate you?  Hasn't the American system always been based on what political points can be scored by individual representatives in their own individual political interests?

Yeah there was a time when having a reputation for being able to work with the other party was a big plus and you could draw voters from the other party doing it. It was not that long ago. So yes the system was always based on scoring political points, bipartisanship used to score political points and now it does not. Ergo there is much less of it.

Actually, politicians are still rewarded for it in the general, it's just that they don't usually make it out of the primary now.

[crazy canuck]

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/aug/09/michael-moore-fahrenheit-11-9-trailer-trump-documentary

"Hope is passive," Moore said about the movie. "Hope gives you permission to let someone else do the work. Hope leads people to believe that tax returns, or a pee tape, or the FBI or an adult film star will save the country. Hope, and the passivity that comes with it, is what helped get us here to begin with. It's the lazy way out. We don't need hope. We need action."

[Syt]

You know who was unfairly exempted from the Trump tax breaks? Banks.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fine-print-on-new-treasury-rules-gives-banks-big-tax-break

A new Treasury Department proposal would give U.S. banks a huge tax cut by somehow no longer classifying them as "financial services." When it was being argued in late 2017, the Republican tax bill stated that financial services companies were not eligible for massive tax cuts given to other corporations in order to silence critics who noted the bill would give more money to big banks. A joint report from Splinter News and the investigative-reporting blog Capital & Main notes the fine print of a rule issued by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin on Wednesday would change some 2,000 banks' classification to S corporations, making them eligible for the tax cut. "Commenters requested guidance as to whether financial services includes banking," the Treasury Department rule now states. "The Treasury Department and the IRS agree with such commenters [that] financial services should be more narrowly interpreted here." "Financial services" would now only include services like those provided by investment bankers and financial advisers. "The notion that financial services excludes banking should be quite a surprise to members of the House Financial Services Committee, which thought that it had jurisdiction over banking," Daniel Hemel, a University of Chicago tax law professor, told Capital & Main.

Original article: https://capitalandmain.com/trumps-treasury-department-hands-banks-a-windfall-0808

[jimmy olsen]

Interesting

JohnJHarwood/status/1027618535630163969

big divergences btwn 2016 exits and new Pew retrospective:
-non-college voters were 63% of total, not 50%
-HRC won (diminished) share of white college grads by 17 pts, instead of losing them by 4
-women were 55% of vote, not 52%
-65+ were 27%, not 15%
-under 30 were 13% not 19%