What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

It's very possible that my views about what is happening in America is informed by media - it happened before. I guess I should really migrate to the US and see for myself some day.

Actually, you probably should visit here.  And don't just go to the big cities on the coast;  visit flyover country, too.  Yes, you'll run into some bigots, but you'll run into a lot of people who will surprise you, too.

Well yes one should visit more than  just the big cities.

[Savonarola]

Some of the Arabs I know have complained about increased harassment during the Trump campaign.  While I'm not so surprised to hear of that sort of behavior here in the swamp; I was caught by surprise by this:

Park in Brooklyn Dedicated to Beastie Boy Adam Yauch Vandalized With Swastikas, 'Go Trump'

I wouldn't have thought there would have been neo-Nazis in Brooklyn.  (Maybe the Black Führer of Harlem has joined the gentrification.)

Once again our resident cinephile forgets one true classic 



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzSrGWUyMuI

Awesome; that's definitely going on the movie list. 

[Admiral Yi]

Trump said he will not send Hillary up the river. 

And he disavows any connection to Neo-Nazis and white hate groups.

[mongers]

Trump said he will not send Hillary up the river. 

And he disavows any connection to Neo-Nazis and white hate groups.

Until such time as he runs into serious legitimate democratic, legislative or judicial opposition, at which point he may be tempted to call them* onto 'the streets'.

Why would he not think to resort to a power he's melded into a force for change or to use as his own vanity dictates?



* Doesn't ever have to address them directly in their terms, just the ones he used in the campaign, and they and more moderate trump disciples will take baby steps towards mob rule.

[CountDeMoney]

Trump said he will not send Hillary up the river. 

Wouldn't be able to, even if he wanted.  There's no There there.

And he disavows any connection to Neo-Nazis and white hate groups.

Can't even come close to walking that one back. 

[Eddie Teach]

Trump said he will not send Hillary up the river. 

Wouldn't be able to, even if he wanted.  There's no There there.

And he disavows any connection to Neo-Nazis and white hate groups.

Can't even come close to walking that one back.

He hasn't *done* anything yet, and his words are worth less than most.

[CountDeMoney]

He hasn't *done* anything yet, and his words are worth less than most.

He's done it most of his life, if you've bothered to pay attention.  His campaign and his "inner circle" are merely the latest extensions on a theme.

[DGuller]

As someone who believes in liberal ideals,

As someone who believes in liberal ideals, I call bullshit on this one.

[jimmy olsen]

The bigger issue isn't winning the White House, but Congress and the State houses. A lot of important governing happens at the State level, and only controlling (fully) 6 states sets you up for problems winning House/Senate races. I think the Dems had a bad beat this year for President, but are structurally in good shape to win the White House again, better shape than the GOP. But it looks near apocalyptic for Dems in the Congress, and that will cause serious problems with Dems actually governing long term. And the big demographic advantages the Dems have don't seem to translate into congressional and state elections. The electorate for those races in non-Presidential years is very different from general election years, and given the disproportionate power of "non-coastal" areas in Congress, running the Safe Space and fuck whitey playbook is at least in part why you've seen a complete collapse of Democratic support outside of ultra-liberal urban enclaves.

We could see gerrymandering getting overturned by Kennedy

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/11/22/wisconsin_partisan_gerrymander_the_supreme_court_could_take_the_case.html

called Vieth v. Jubelirer. In Vieth, five justices agreed that partisan gerrymanders are likely unconstitutional. But Justice Kennedy refused to actually strike them down. Kennedy wrote that extreme gerrymanders may unconstitutionally burden the "representational rights of voters," but that there was not yet any "manageable standard" by which to assess whether a gerrymander ran afoul of the Constitution. He hoped such a standard might "emerge in the future," leaving the door open to a future challenge.

That standard appears to have emerged. In an opinion written by Judge Kenneth Ripple, a Reagan appointee, the federal district court concluded that Wisconsin's gerrymander violated voters' right to freedom of association and equal protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Constitution prohibits a redistricting scheme, Ripple wrote, when it is intended to impede the effectiveness of a citizen's vote based on her political affiliation; does, in practice, dilute that vote; and cannot be justified on other legitimate grounds.

How can courts determine whether a gerrymander excessively dilutes votes? Simple, Ripple explained: They can use a mathematical formula called the efficiency gap. As the New York Times explains it:


The formula divides the difference between the two parties' "wasted votes"—votes beyond those needed by a winning side, and votes cast by a losing side—by the total number of votes cast. When both parties waste the same number of votes, the result is zero—an ideal solution. But as a winning party wastes fewer and fewer votes than its opponent, its score rises.

A fair redistricting scheme will create few wasted votes and thus an efficiency gap near zero. The more partisan the gerrymander, the higher the efficiency gap; a review of gerrymanders over the last four decades revealed that an efficiency gap of 7 percent will entrench the majority until new districts are drawn. The current Wisconsin gerrymander results in an efficiency gap of up to 13 percent.

The efficiency gap—and the bright line of 7 percent—appears to be precisely what Kennedy was hoping for when he opined in Vieth on the need for a clear standard. Should the efficiency gap be adopted, judges could examine the record for evidence that the legislature intended to dilute votes for the minority party and demand a legitimate justification for the advantage provided to the majority party. If there is none, the map must be invalidated and redrawn.

In recent years, Republicans have used gerrymanders to secure control of both legislative chambers in 32 states, as well as Nebraska's unicameral legislature, and to entrench their majority in the House of Representatives. This unfair consolidation of political power at the expense of Democratic voters is surely troubling to Kennedy, who cares deeply about representational equality. The Wisconsin ruling proves that we now have the tools to reverse these outrageous gerrymanders and restore representational rights to all voters. If Wisconsin appeals Monday's decision to the Supreme Court, the justices will probably feel compelled to take the case and settle this issue for good. And thanks to advances since Vieth, Kennedy may well provide the fifth vote to bust gerrymanders across the country.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The WaPo did a pretty big write up on gerrymandering and it's only like 6-7 seats worth of House seats; obviously even one is too many and I'd be happy if it was fixed, but it's not the magic wand people make believe it is. There are structural disadvantages even in the House, to liberal urban enclaves with very high percentages of Democratic voters, just a simple function of geographic reality.

If it applied more broadly to state legislative seats (where gerrymandering is probably both worse and more pervasive) that would definitely help on the state level, though.

[Eddie Teach]

As someone who believes in liberal ideals,

As someone who believes in liberal ideals, I call bullshit on this one.

As someone musing about how free speech has gone too far, you lack the authority to make that call.

[DGuller]

As someone who believes in liberal ideals,

As someone who believes in liberal ideals, I call bullshit on this one.

As someone musing about how free speech has gone too far, you lack the authority to make that call.

I've always been a pragmatic liberal.  I'm a liberal because I believe that for the most part liberal ideas result in the better kind of society, with better outcomes for the vast majority of people. 

If a certain liberal idea, when taken to extreme, can cause widespread destruction to the general liberal ideology, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to wonder out loud whether that liberal idea should not be taken as far as it has been.  Destruction of liberty wholesale is generally an undesirable outcome to a liberal.

[dps]

The WaPo did a pretty big write up on gerrymandering and it's only like 6-7 seats worth of House seats; obviously even one is too many and I'd be happy if it was fixed, but it's not the magic wand people make believe it is. There are structural disadvantages even in the House, to liberal urban enclaves with very high percentages of Democratic voters, just a simple function of geographic reality.

Here in North Carolina, a some of our Congressional districts were re-drawn by court order before this year's election to be less gerrymandered and more geographically compact.  It didn't have any effect on the D/R split of our Congressmen in DC.  None of the districts were even really competitive in the general election.

[MadImmortalMan]

Trump said he will not send Hillary up the river. 

And he disavows any connection to Neo-Nazis and white hate groups.

Until such time as he runs into serious legitimate democratic, legislative or judicial opposition, at which point he may be tempted to call them* onto 'the streets'.

Why would he not think to resort to a power he's melded into a force for change or to use as his own vanity dictates?



* Doesn't ever have to address them directly in their terms, just the ones he used in the campaign, and they and more moderate trump disciples will take baby steps towards mob rule.

Used them? When was that? AFAIK he's never NOT disavowed them, and they've been nothing but an embarrassment the whole campaign. I'm sure he wishes they'd never been there. Assuming he's got some sort of secret command over them is conspiracy nonsense.

[Eddie Teach]

Well, most of what Mongers believes is nonsense, so no surprises there.