What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[alfred russel]

In another, it is better: as a coup attempt, it was beyond lame. Trump has, through his previous actions, shot himself in the foot - my guess is that the loss of seats in Georgia are directly attributable to him going on attacking elections. There was never any chance that a bunch of Trumpites attacking the capitol building would actually result in Trump retaining power.

As I understand it there were several important contributing factors:

1. Trump attacking the elections.

2. Stacey Abrams get-out-the vote organization (BTW, Georgia is apparently "clamping down" on absentee ballots in response).

3. Excellent campaigning by Warnock and Ossof.

4. Mitch blocking the most recent stimulus (the $2000 that even Trump endorsed).[/li][/list]

$2000 checks seem not to be happening. Joe Machin said he doesn't support them. Seems Mitch may not have really been the biggest roadblock after all.

[alfred russel]

I heard that Warnock and Ossof were relatively weak candidates.

Ossoff was (and is) a very weak candidate. The republicans had their own problems and combined with Warnock's strengths he got across the finish line.

[celedhring]

Never understood why Mitch played the checks thing the way he did, on the eve of a senatorial election. That was never going to help the GOP.

[Caliga]

Joe Machin said he doesn't support them.

Of course he doesn't.  $600 is like a million bucks to the people of his great state.

[Jacob]

Yes, the completion of the destruction of the Republican Party is one more step along the path.  That may have been inevitable without Trump but he certainly accelerated the process.

If you by "complete destruction of the Republican Party" you mean "the people calling themselves Republicans are the antithesis of what the Republican Party is supposed to be" then I agree that it may be inevitable.

If you mean the end of the Republican Party as an organization run by Trumpists, their ideological descendants, or others, then I think it's too early to call the destruction inevitable.

[Habbaku]

I heard that Warnock and Ossof were relatively weak candidates.

They were. That should really be changed to "excellent get-out-the-vote-efforts by Stacey Abrams" and great anti-campaigning by Trump for the bad guys.

[Barrister]

Never understood why Mitch played the checks thing the way he did, on the eve of a senatorial election. That was never going to help the GOP.

Because $2,000 per person is terrible, terrible public policy.  The cost is astronomic and doesn't differentiate between those in need and those who are doing fine.

[celedhring]

Never understood why Mitch played the checks thing the way he did, on the eve of a senatorial election. That was never going to help the GOP.

Because $2,000 per person is terrible, terrible public policy.  The cost is astronomic and doesn't differentiate between those in need and those who are doing fine.

Well, without debating the policy itself (you can always tax it back from those who didn't need it, imho), he was the visible blocker of it and probably put off a decent amount of poor voters that might wear MAGA hats but aren't particularly loyal to the party itself. He probably was blindsided by Trump being in favor of it, though.

[Admiral Yi]

Well, without debating the policy itself (you can always tax it back from those who didn't need it, imho), he was the visible blocker of it and probably put off a decent amount of poor voters that might wear MAGA hats but aren't particularly loyal to the party itself. He probably was blindsided by Trump being in favor of it, though.

He also put off a decent number of people who are not poor but like free money and don't think about the consequences.

[Eddie Teach]

Rumors of the death of the GOP may be exaggerated. 

[Valmy]

Never understood why Mitch played the checks thing the way he did, on the eve of a senatorial election. That was never going to help the GOP.

Because $2,000 per person is terrible, terrible public policy.  The cost is astronomic and doesn't differentiate between those in need and those who are doing fine.

It is a tons better policy than just giving trillions to institutions. I would rather those institutions demonstrate their value by getting the people to give them some of that money the government is giving them for stimulus. I would rather Joel Osteen stay afloat by convincing his congregants to donate some of their stimulus check than the government just give Joel Osteen lots of PPP money. Same with GM during their bail out. Same with Ted Cruz's billionaire buddies.

So in a vacuum where everything was being rationally run, like if this was 1998 or something, I would totally agree. But in a post-2008 world were we just power up the printing presses and toss out trillions to institutions when they need it I am totally supportive of this policy. If bailouts need to happen it should happen to the people, then we can decide whether Joel Osteen or GM deserves a bailout of not.

[Valmy]

Well, without debating the policy itself (you can always tax it back from those who didn't need it, imho), he was the visible blocker of it and probably put off a decent amount of poor voters that might wear MAGA hats but aren't particularly loyal to the party itself. He probably was blindsided by Trump being in favor of it, though.

He also put off a decent number of people who are not poor but like free money and don't think about the consequences.

Like GM and Joel Osteen.

Seems to me giving direct cash to the people has a better chance of getting to poor people than our current give trillions to big institutions policy.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5KyKxphDIU

Pelosi talked to JCS about disabling Trump's ability to launch nukes or initiate military action.

[Admiral Yi]

Like GM and Joel Osteen.

Seems to me giving direct cash to the people has a better chance of getting to poor people than our current give trillions to big institutions policy.

Obama's auto bailout was justified on the basis of saving auto worker jobs.  PPP was payment of wages to furloughed workers.  I don't see how your criticism stands up.

[garbon]

Never understood why Mitch played the checks thing the way he did, on the eve of a senatorial election. That was never going to help the GOP.

Because $2,000 per person is terrible, terrible public policy.  The cost is astronomic and doesn't differentiate between those in need and those who are doing fine.

Well it wouldn't be to everyone.