What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

Remind me again plz, which team is mine?

The Republicans.

You know, the ones who believe in social and fiscal conservatism, that lowering taxes and regulation is good, that social spending is wasteful, that racism is more of a joke than a social problem, that the US is a Christian nation, that you've worked hard and deserve what you've got and that poor people mostly have themselves to blame, that the government shouldn't worry about things like housing and health care and that if people can't get the things they need it's basically their own tough luck.

I don't think that racism is a joke, and I'm well aware that the US isn't a Christian nation.  And while I certainly believe in fiscal conservatism, I have almost no confidence in the Republican party to deliver it (though there's not even any hope of the Democrats to deliver it unless there's a seismic shift if Democratic policy positions).  And I'm not 100% opposed to the government worrying about housing.  Other than that, yeah, that's my team, but yes, I also certainly don't consider President Trump a member of the team.  Does he strike you as a team player?

Unless the team rejects him, he's a member of the team.

[frunk]

Unless the team rejects him, he's a member of the team.

That's been the biggest surprise to me, how willing the Republicans have been to embrace a guy who is so obviously ready to throw them under a bus whenever one drives by.

[FunkMonk]

As long as Donald doesn't fuck with their legiative priorities much I think they're fine with letting him play President. I think they see how weak and ineffectual the Presidency and the WH actually is right now.

[garbon]

Congress has been pretty ineffectual too though so...

[FunkMonk]

True. The modern Republican party is all about proving that government doesn't work.

[mongers]

Last night I dreamt Trump had been deposed and replaced by a sensible president, can't recall any of the details or how it happened, but it's a start. 


Now I just need to start shifting 'reality' into that dream state. 


Alternatively maybe this reality is a dream/AI state and the researchers controlling the experiment are getting increasingly agitated about waking the patient, so injecting Trump into it was a sure-fire way of rousing the slumbers from this now unreal state.

After all no one dreaming this would think it likely and wake with the sensation, 'Damn that dream got stupid and unrealistic'. 

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/22/donald-trump-says-he-doesnt-want-a-poor-person-in-cabinet-roles

Donald Trump has said he doesn't want "a poor person" to hold economic roles in his administration as he used an Iowa rally to defend his decision to appoint the wealthy to his cabinet.

The US president told a crowd on Wednesday night: "Somebody said why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy? No it's true. And Wilbur's [commerce secretary Wilbur Ross] a very rich person in charge of commerce. I said: 'Because that's the kind of thinking we want.'"

The president explained that Ross and his economic adviser Gary Cohn "had to give up a lot to take these jobs" and that Cohn in particular, a former president of Goldman Sachs, "went from massive pay days to peanuts".

Trump added: "And I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions I just don't want a poor person. Does that make sense?"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/21/donald-trump-congressional-black-caucus-no-meeting

Congressional Black Caucus refuses to meet with Donald Trump

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has declined a proposed meeting with Donald Trump citing its conviction that the Republican president's policies "will devastate black communities", and the administration's unresponsiveness to the CBC to date.

"Given the lack of response to any of the many concerns we have raised with you and your administration, we decline your invitation for all 49 members of the Congressional Black Caucus to meet with you. The CBC, and the millions of people we represent, have a lot to lose under your administration. I fail to see how a social gathering would benefit the policies we advocate for," the caucus said in a letter.

The caucus, which bills itself as the "conscience of the Congress" was founded in 1971 to represent black issues in US government, and has historically enjoyed the membership of virtually all black lawmakers. Of the 49 current members, 48 are Democrats.

Caucus chair Cedric Richmond noted in the letter eight times where the CBC had sent a letter outlining concerns to the Trump administration since 19 January, claiming that the body had not received a single substantive response back yet.

"We took advantage of every opportunity to educate you on the needs of the black community and provide you with the information and solutions necessary to act on them in good faith ...

"We have seen no evidence that your administration acted on our calls for action, and we have in fact witnessed steps that will affirmatively hurt black communities," the letter read.

Sounds like that black reporter forgot that she was supposed to setup the meeting with her friends.

[garbon]

Your point would be stronger if the Dems spent an unprecedented amount and the Republicans spent as per usual, but since both sides devoted a lot of resources why isnt it significant that the Dem candidate came so close in a contest where the Dems historically do very poorly?

My point is that when there is so much attention and money involved (and FWIW the Dems spent more), it skews things.  You're not going to get "normal" election results.  But if the Democrat candidate in that district wins next year (or gets 48% of the vote), you guys can all laugh at me and tell me you told me so.

But why do you think "attention" skews the result?  Do you think Democratic voters in that area are less likely to vote normally?

Seems like it always happens in these special elections.  Polls hint at an upset win, tons of money and media attention flow in, upstart candidate narrowly loses, then next election things are back to normal.

But I could be wrong.  Maybe next year the Dems will get supermajorities in both houses, Trump and Pence will both be impeached and removed from office, and Nancy Pelosi will then become our next president.

They're not going to put someone that old in the White House, they'll elect a different speaker.

Yes, there is already some talk in calling for her head.

What I really don't get is the progressives who complain that the Dems failed to be left wing enough and that's what Ossoff lost.  Oh, so when the voters drift to the right, best way to grab them up is run hard to the left?

I've a sneaking feeling that the reality is that if voters are falling for Conservative lies, the solution isn't to try to pull them back with rationality but rather spew out some left wing lies to distract them to the 'correct' side.

[Jacob]

I've a sneaking feeling that the reality is that if voters are falling for Conservative lies, the solution isn't to try to pull them back with rationality but rather spew out some left wing lies to distract them to the 'correct' side.

Yeah, the left could do with some juicy simplistic rhetoric and red meat for its potential voters.

[Jacob]

Looks like the Senate's version of ACHA is being made public now. What do you reckon, will it pass the Senate?

[The Minsky Moment]

It's basically the House bill, but restoring mandatory community rating and adding a couple of tweaks.  Since like the House bill it is scrapping the mandate, were it actually to pass it would likely lead to a death spiral.

It's a purely political document.  It makes zero sense as policy.

[CountDeMoney]

MM, the policy is to roll back the safety net.  All the way before Rousseau.

[Valmy]

And while I certainly believe in fiscal conservatism, I have almost no confidence in the Republican party to deliver it (though there's not even any hope of the Democrats to deliver it unless there's a seismic shift if Democratic policy positions).

See that is where I think we are different. I am much more confident the Democrats could.

[Admiral Yi]

See that is where I think we are different. I am much more confident the Democrats could.

I'm inclined to agree.  It helps that Democrats derive joy from taxing certain people.

[Zanza]

After years of talks, Japan, EU near 'broad agreement' on free trade pact

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-eu-idUSKBN19C1B6

Thank you, Donald!