What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[dps]

I suspect the previous conditions will be restored after the inconvenient Democrat is gone.

I wouldn't be surprised.

[alfred russel]

Now all this is perfectly legal but goes against tradition. Most of what makes our government work is everybody making a half hearted show of solidarity and going through the motions of being a loyal opposition after an election. The knives are only supposed to come out at some point later. Obama showed expected restraint during the election, everybody expects the President to not mobilize his full power to influence the election in some way. But what if the next guy doesn't? What if the North Carolina thing, lame ducks re-arranging things before the next guys come in, becomes the norm? Then we enter third world territory. Then the party that wins makes it so they don't lose for awhile by using the mechanisms of government.

The next guy is not going to take Obama's (and every other previous president in a succession) lead. Assuming that guy is Trump, we don't have to wait for the answer.

[CountDeMoney]

At least Republicans have unmasked themselves now.  They're not a legitimate political force inside the democratic system, they're an authoritarian movement hijacking the democratic system.

I think they realized that enough voters really care about Jim Crow II much more than they care about anything else, and that dog whistles are a nice to have but not a necessity.  Sure, the voters may believe in some truly stupid facts or employ some really stupid reasoning when explaining their voting decision, but get through to them and convince them their facts and reasoning are stupid, and they'll just find some other stupid facts or reasoning.  It's not about a bad decision coming from bad facts, it's about bad facts rationalizing evil decision.

I don't know about all that. But the legacy of the 'Party of No' seems to be weakening the foundations of our nation. So far nobody seems to be taking things too far, they are just chipping away at the traditions that surround the structure.

The Republicans are pulling this stuff in North Carolina and elsewhere with jerrymandering, voter suppression, and now rewriting Constitutions. So will the other team follow suit? There is some kind of movement to convince the EC voters to go rogue and block Trump, I don't think it directly involves any elected officials or anything so it is not on the same level but still that would be a crazy, unprecedented, and destabilizing thing to happen. At least it might gain some Republican support for doing away with the institution though

Now all this is perfectly legal but goes against tradition. Most of what makes our government work is everybody making a half hearted show of solidarity and going through the motions of being a loyal opposition after an election. The knives are only supposed to come out at some point later. Obama showed expected restraint during the election, everybody expects the President to not mobilize his full power to influence the election in some way. But what if the next guy doesn't? What if the North Carolina thing, lame ducks re-arranging things before the next guys come in, becomes the norm? Then we enter third world territory. Then the party that wins makes it so they don't lose for awhile by using the mechanisms of government.

One of the talking heads on tonight said it simply added up to, "When the Republican win, they act like they won.  When they lose, they act like they won. Democrats act the complete opposite."

It really is ridiculous.  There's always been a sense of entitlement to power from the GOP since Reagan--and if they don't have it, then they have to de-legitimize Democrats when they do.  They have discovered what works to get their way, even if it means making sure everybody's going nowhere.  They've found what works--from shutting down the government, to letting a Supreme Court nominee sit for almost a year--the amount of obstructionism is unprecedented in its damage.

Quite frankly, I'm wondering if all this one-sided obstructionism isn't doing more damage than if the Democrats didn't become "the Other Party of No."

[CountDeMoney]

Trump Chooses Hard-Liner as Ambassador to Israel

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Thursday named David Friedman, a bankruptcy lawyer aligned with the Israeli far right, as his nominee for ambassador to Israel, elevating a campaign adviser who has questioned the need for a two-state solution and has likened left-leaning Jews in America to the Jews who aided the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Mr. Friedman, whose outspoken views stand in stark contrast to decades of American policy toward Israel, did not wait long on Thursday to signal his intention to upend the American approach. In a statement from the Trump transition team announcing his nomination, he said he looked forward to doing the job "from the U.S. embassy in Israel's eternal capital, Jerusalem."

[CountDeMoney]

One of the talking heads on tonight said it simply added up to, "When the Republican win, they act like they won.  When they lose, they act like they won. Democrats act the complete opposite."

The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributors
The New York Times
Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans

By DAHLIA LITHWICK and DAVID S. COHEN
DEC. 14, 2016

On Monday, members of the Electoral College will vote in Donald J. Trump as president. Though he lost the election by nearly three million votes and almost daily generates headlines about new scandals, the Democratic Party is doing little to stop him. If you've been asking yourself "Where are the Democrats?" you're not alone.

Since the election, top Democrats have been almost absent on the national stage. Rather, they have been involved largely in internecine warfare about how much to work with Mr. Trump. The Hillary Clinton campaign, trying to encourage a peaceful transition, has gone almost completely dark, with her most notable appearances coming in selfies with strangers. Nobody deserves downtime more than Mrs. Clinton, but while she is decompressing, the country is moving toward its biggest electoral mistake in history.

We have recently learned that President-elect Trump has ethical and business conflicts that seem to violate the Constitution; is skipping his national security briefings while dangerously departing from longstanding bipartisan foreign policy; has criticized union workers and protesters on his Twitter feed; and plans to staff much of his cabinet and high-level leadership with billionaires dedicated to eradicating the very programs they are tasked with overseeing. In the meantime, the most recent reports from the C.I.A. are that Russia interfered with the election.

There's no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump's anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party. The most we've seen is a response to the C.I.A. revelations, but only with Republicans onboard to give Democrats bipartisan cover.

Take the recount efforts in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. While the Democratic Party relitigates grudges in the press, Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who received about 64 million fewer votes than Mrs. Clinton, has led the effort. The Democrats have grudgingly participated from the sidelines, but only because public perception forced them to. This effort has proved feeble, with a Pennsylvania judge denying the request because it was "later than last minute."

Contrast the Democrats' do-nothingness to what we know the Republicans would have done. If Mr. Trump had lost the Electoral College while winning the popular vote, an army of Republican lawyers would have descended on the courts and local election officials. The best of the Republican establishment would have been filing lawsuits and infusing every public statement with a clear pronouncement that Donald Trump was the real winner. And they would have started on the morning of Nov. 9, using the rhetoric of patriotism and courage.

How can we be so certain? This is what happened in 2000. When Florida was still undecided after election night, the Republicans didn't leave their fate in the hands of individuals or third-party candidates. No, they recruited former Secretary of State James A. Baker III to direct efforts on behalf of George W. Bush. They framed their project as protecting Mr. Bush's victory rather than counting votes. They were clear, consistent and forceful, with the biggest names in Republican politics working the process.

Moreover, they didn't cop to the possibility that their theories might lose or look foolish in retrospect. Take the theory that ultimately succeeded in the Supreme Court. There was no precedent for the idea that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause required a uniform recount within a state. However, the Republicans pressed that theory and convinced a majority, even though the justices acknowledged that the argument was both unprecedented and not to be used again. It was a win for pure audacity.

Fast forward to 2016, and the Democrats are doing nothing of the sort. Instead, they are leaving the fight to academics and local organizers who seem more horrified by a Trump presidency than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. The Republicans in 2000 threw everything they could muster against the wall to see if it stuck, with no concern about potential blowback; the Democrats in 2016 are apparently too worried about being called sore losers. Instead of weathering the criticism that comes with fighting an uphill, yet historically important battle, the party is still trying to magic up a plan.

As Monday's Electoral College vote approaches, Democrats should be fighting tooth and nail. Instead, we are once again left with incontrovertible proof that win or lose, Republicans behave as if they won while Democrats behave as if they lost. What this portends for the next four years is truly terrifying.[/b]

[MadImmortalMan]

One of the talking heads on tonight said it simply added up to, "When the Republican win, they act like they won.  When they lose, they act like they won. Democrats act the complete opposite."

I've been hearing Republicans saying the exact same thing the other way around since the 90s. Heck, part of the reason Trump was able to win the primary was because of GOP voters' perception that their normal GOP leaders always cave in because bipartisanship and the other side never gives anything in compromise.

If now our side is beginning to say the same thing, that just means the polarization and populism has now fully engulfed the remaining holdouts of the electorate. There's nobody left on the high road.

[The Minsky Moment]

So what do the NYT op-ed guys recommend?  What lawsuit to file where, requesting what relief?

Bush v. Gore was a lousy decisions but the writers seem to forget the Bush people didn't actually bring the case to begin with.  Gore did.

[CountDeMoney]

  Jerry Brown, fuck yeah.  Learn from the Master himself, Bernie.

'California Will Launch Its Own Damn Satellites,' Governor Brown Tells Trump

In case there was any doubt, he added: "We've got the scientists. We've got the lawyers. We're ready. California will continue in support of research."

Brown briefly veered away from his main topic to skewer Trump's nominee for energy secretary, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a fierce opponent of action to reduce carbon emissions.

...

"Rick, I got some news for you: California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas. And we've got more sun than you have oil," he said.

[DGuller]

Quite frankly, I'm wondering if all this one-sided obstructionism isn't doing more damage than if the Democrats didn't become "the Other Party of No."

Definitely unilateral disarmament is the worst of both worlds.  But I wonder whether Democrats are capable of getting away with it the way Republicans have been. 

Republican politicians are part of a ruthless insurgency, backed by voters with similar mindset.  They can get away with this shit because their voters are not going to be turned off by it.  If anything, the voters are going to be turned off by lack of this shit.  Democratic voters, up until now at least, have never been even remotely that radicalized, not even during W's term.  They may actually be turned off by their politicians brazenly hurting their country for cynical political gain.

[Tamas]

You can't fucking win a race to the fascist bottom. So what if the Democrats follow suit and radicalise? You want to see a radicalised formely center-left big party? Look at Corbyn in the UK.

The only way you avoid becoming a fascist isolationist state on the long run, if you keep the modern democratic society on the table as an alternative.

The thing with a democratic system is that it is extremely fragile. The only reason it works is that its actors want it to work. You cannot join in with Republicans in undermining it.

Moral reasons aside, that would be just political suicide: if people lose faith in the democratic institutions, they start looking for a strong guy to end the chaos and they will NOT be looking at the radical left in America.

[jimmy olsen]

I agree with Tamas.

Bloomberg's predictions for 2017. World economic collapse. NATO and European Union dissolve. Open cyberwar between great powers. War between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/pessimists-guide-to-2017/

[CountDeMoney]

You can't fucking win a race to the fascist bottom. So what if the Democrats follow suit and radicalise? You want to see a radicalised formely center-left big party? Look at Corbyn in the UK.

The only way you avoid becoming a fascist isolationist state on the long run, if you keep the modern democratic society on the table as an alternative.

The thing with a democratic system is that it is extremely fragile. The only reason it works is that its actors want it to work. You cannot join in with Republicans in undermining it.

You sound like every goofy assed batty mother of a bullied kid.  "If the kids at school are beating you up at recess, you just be the better man and ignore it, here's some ice for your face."  OK, Mom.

Moral reasons aside, that would be just political suicide: if people lose faith in the democratic institutions, they start looking for a strong guy to end the chaos and they will NOT be looking at the radical left in America.

The "radical left in America" will be bankrolling the only effective entities remaining: non-profit political action groups such as the ACLU that have a shitload of lawyers.


Or, let Germany rearm.  Because we love trilogies. 

[CountDeMoney]

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/pessimists-guide-to-2017/

#CrookedChina 

[Tamas]

Seedy, I have seen this process with my own eyes. The far-right cranks it to 9, so the left cranks it to 10, but the far-right immediately turns it up to 11 without blinking.

It just doesn't work. For example, the popular vote thing. If you start working out of the far-right scriptbook and use that to proclaim Trump's presidency "illegal" - what do you actually achieve? His supporters will be more entrenched, public discourse will be 100% about the legality of the entire existence of your leadership, and the "left's attempt at a coup" will be a totally legal argument in the eyes of the right, which will be especially painful after Trump loses the next election.
And let's say, due to a weird miracle, this narrative actually wins: the electors decide to turn on Trump and elect Hillary. Do you honestly think the country would be in a better shape at this stage? The Trumpites would be up in arms, in automatic ones at that thanks to your gun laws. All the dictator assholes on the world would use the example to discredit the US and democracy in general. It would be an unmitigated disaster. Sure, Trump's presidency will be one as well, but there is a chance to preserve the institutions of a modern democracy for the time after.

[Tamas]

Besides, I am afraid Trump needs to stay in power so he has a chance to crash and burn, hopefully just personally, and not bringing the whole world down in the process. Otherwise clones of him will dominate politics for decades to come.