« A dozen historic elections | Main | Live through this »

November 09, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Cal, I didn't complain about Obama pushing hard on the left. That was somebody else. Probably a Trump apologist.

If anything, I wish Obama had pushed harder.

In fact, you know all those boogeyman right wing talk radio rumors about him declaring martial law and throwing people in FEMA camps? At this point, facing what we're facing, I kinda wish they were true.

My error, Speaking of martial law and Fema camps. More likely under Trump. As is the white mans next Civil War.

And, Hope? from Daily Kos.
with Donald Trump in the White House the tables are turned and Republicans are the ones who will be in a defensive position in 2018 as they now control both the White House and Congress and will have to give full account of their agenda and results to voters. In this scenario, Democrats are likely to make significant gains in the 2018 midterm elections.

Then building on that, Republicans will again be on the defensive in the 2020 general election with Trump in the White House. The core of Republican policy is set up to hurt the working and middle classes and benefit the rich and powerful. Ironically, these are the same working class people who voted for Trump. They will inevitably feel disappointed over the next four years as they realize that Trump can't magically solve their problems.

Going into 2020 Republicans will face die-hard opposition from Democrats, a likely disillusioned white working class GOP base (the manufacturing jobs are never coming back) and an even more diverse electorate than today. All these factors will put them in a very weak position in that election. If Hillary had won this year, Democrats would be the ones on the defensive.

Ruben, that's my reason not to fear the apocalypse yet. That he doesn't have the brains and skills of Putin or Chavez. That there are still enough roadblocks and safeguards in the system. Baseline scenario: after four or eight years people will be simply fed up. Like with Berlusconi, another billionaire media hustler who made it to the top.

Though it's disturbing to see the pathetic kowtowing of the former nevertrumpers.

Cal, just read that Myron Ebell will be heading Trump's EPA. Doesn't sound like he has your strain of Scottish background.

There are roadblocks and safeguards in the US political system, unfortunately, they are all manned by right wing Republicans. The New Order will be implemented fast and the roadblocks and safeguards will later be used to protect the New Order.

Timing is everything.

Why Michael Moore may be right again.
IF
Pence finds way to get rid of The Donald.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/10/mike-pence-promotes-christian-theocracy/

So along with everything else the Donald promised, Atheists will be interned in Fema camps prior to being burned at the stake.
Salem witches burners are back.

Talton is right when he says few have a clue about how bad its going to get.

Such handwringing from the old liberals.

I thought we had another 4 to 8 years before the man on the white horse coming save middle America.

Nope, it is here.

And one begins to ponder the changes in America when you deport 20 million minority people- which is what is about to start.

The drop in demand for goods and services will be deflationary in some things, and our paroled prison population will take over all of the jobs nobody wants to do.

The biggest losers?

Oddly enough small real estate investors who rent on the bottom half of the real estate market, and commercial property owners in the minority communities.

One of the most interesting things I have ever read was how the railroads got cheap labor off of the Native reservations during WW2, thus pushing people into real employment and finally pushing the subsistence economies into decline.

We have large American communities of poor that are not efficiently involved in the economy, so if jobs are offered, they will be taken. When you call a labor broker today for oncall labor, it is mostly illegal. On the other hand,if the business community has to pay more for labor, that is the only way to give Trump a true mandate.

He knows this, he took the course of power to now smash the republican party of business. That was the outcome of this vote.

Business as usual, that is what the pundits are saying, it will just be like Bush2- and I say he will deliver, or his mandate will evaporate.

Just contemplate what the hole in the demographic story will be without those 20 million people that have been built into all the business models.

Now begin to see how this will not crash the system, but change it beyond what has been predicted.

The minority white part of the country may yet return to majority status.

There will be more hostile changes. I predict the end of citizenship for children born here to noncitizens, retroactive to the last 20 years, with exceptions of course.

As for Cal, I remember plenty like him who blew through the last 20 years of state guv, just another management seagull who flew through the ether, made some minor changes, and flew out with the big paycheck- see who runs GTO today, lol.

Concern Troll, Interesting, time will tell.
What is GTO?
I didn't take the big paycheck, I left as it was obvious to this Republican that the Republican Governor that hired me was not keeping to our agreement. And as I suspected went onto have serious legal issues.
I suppose you call yourself Concern Troll because you may be a fearfull white person or you are such an important person using your real name would damage your reputation if it were known you visit these hallowed halls of Rouge Columnist.
My real name is here, if U like U can email me at coper1658@aol.com.

Cal,

The email you posted doesn't work.

Really it has been working for since AOL WENT ON LINE.
coper1658@aol.com

I checked that email, it's working.

Cal, The host can contact me at anytime. My experience is far more recent than Fyfe. I don't use my real name here because my wife could possibly face problems based on what I say, and given the vindictive nature of the current administration, I would not subject my family to further damage- I would add I am certain that I personally am already on the DD blacklist- so I have no illusions.

In short, if you were insulted, sorry, but my experiences with the "consultants" were very negative. And having spoken yesterday with a former colleague who is retiring before the end of the year it is even worse than when I left 20 months ago.

State government is now the employer of last resort- and now you can basically be fired just like in the private sector.

What is in the paper is just the tip of the iceberg- but the public loves him just like Shurf Joke.

Doug Ducey and the Arizona Republican Party are proud to present "The Kansas of the Southwest!"

It has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

Sure to bring in those tourism dollars.

I mean, after all, who needs government?

Concern Troll, thanks for the clarification. I understand. And its really hard to insult me and you didnt. I agree state governments are returning to that time old system of patronage. No job protection, buddy needs a job, fire someone, give friend job.

PS my job with the state was hands on and on the ground manager not consultant.

Since 68 I have been in this battle to bring awareness to corruption no matter where it lies. Not winning a lot but I am proud of some of the battles I have fought. Not sure political crime can be defeated it's participants are like heroin addicts. Always trying to achieve that initial rush they had.


"There are many rational reasons to vote Trump in this election" ?

Perhaps you might list some.

Posted by: B. Franklin | November 12, 2016 at 02:33 PM

1. Big money. Personally, I love that Trump ran his primary campaign on a shoestring budget compared to his major opponents and solicited no donations. It would have been nice if it were possible for him to continue self-funding, but even in the general, his campaign was relatively low budget and he is not beholden to big donors. The Clintons are the poster children for big money politics.
2. War risk. Conventional wisdom is that Trump is risky and his temperment will get us into wars and conflicts. Consider that he owns a large real estate company with properties around the world, the exact type of person who would stand to lose greatly in wars generally and would have personal incentive for global stability. He takes a lot of heat for talking about trying to get along with Russia and makes a lot of Reaganesque statements about having a strong military to deter war. He said in the primaries that Bush made a huge mistake going to war in Iraq. That was a big political risk in the republican primary. He does rather implausibly claim to have a “secret plan” on Syria and ISIS. We’ll have to see what that is! On the other hand, Clinton has received speaking fees and foundation donations from defense companies that benefit from war. She has a history of hawkish foreign policy stands. She says the Iraq war was a mistake now that this is democratic party orthodoxy, but did support it at the time.
3. Clinton’s Immigration policies are more likely to allow in terrorists. There is obvious risk in bringing in even larger numbers of hard-to-vet Syrian refugees. Trump has called for providing refuge in the middle east for refugees, but not bringing them here, as well as decreased numbers and greater screening for any immigrants from the middle east. Regardless of one’s opinion on the overall wisdom and morality of it, rationally speaking, his policies would decrease the risk of importing terrorists. Homegrown terrorists are a whole other issue, which actually favors Trump as well. The Obama administration has developed the Countering Violent Extremism program for dealing with domestic terrorism. The term sounds benign enough, the program looks reasonable on paper and there’s no denying that a good number of small scale (other than OKC) terrorist incidents have been committed by non Muslims. However, the program in action sounds like a train wreck and the ideology being applied here to federal law enforcement started in the Bush administration. This is a link to a senate subcommittee hearing put on by Ted Cruz (everybody here’s favorite senator, of course) and Sen. Coons (a democrat promoting the administration’s views). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST0OIRGhRuY It’s long, but I dare you to listen to the testimony, especially Philip Haney, Andrew McCarthy, Chris Gaubatz and Zudhi Jasser and not come away discomforted. I am fairly comfortable that this sort of nonsense will get tossed in the Trump administration and certainly would not in a Clinton administration.
4. Clinton drama. To anyone who is not a democratic partisan, the most recent Clinton controversies regarding email and the Clinton Foundation should be concerning. Even if you don’t believe she committed a crime, the judgement and pathological need for secrecy she demonstrated by having an unauthorized email server are very questionable. See the State Department’s report and Director Comey’s public statement. The most generous thing you could say about the Clinton Foundation is that perhaps the foundation is a great organization and the many generous donations by foreign countries are pure charity, but even the appearance of impropriety is something that one would think that a secretary of state and aspiring president would want to avoid. Certainly the exorbitant speaking fees received by her and Bill Clinton by many of those same donors add greatly to that appearance. Avoiding four or eight years of endless Clinton dramas is a pretty good reason to vote against her. By the way, with all the talk of Trump being unqualified (of course he would be if it was a normal job that you submitted a resume for and got hired by a manager), I believe you could say that Hillary Clinton is literally unqualified for the job because if she was anybody besides Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of former president, former Secretary of State and current democratic nominee during a democratic administration, the email investigations by the state department and FBI would have resulted in her losing her security clearance. Getting back to the if-this-was-a-normal-job test, is this the person you would want to give the big promotion to? Personally I would rather hire the guy with no specific experience but who has been very successful in his previous careers.
5. Drinking. Hillary Clinton says she is a social drinker. Not a big deal except when you consider that the presidency is a 24/7/365 job that could call on the President to make high quality decisions on short notice at any time. Fortunately the President never has to drive, but he or she does potentially have to make nuclear launch decisions. There is some evidence that calling her a social drinker may be generous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYlDUSEadpY http://truthfeed.com/new-wikileak-exposes-drunk-hillary-needed-sobering-up/32162/ Trump has claimed for decades that he has never had a drink (or a cigarette or drugs) and I’ve never heard anyone dispute it. Personally I trust him with the launch codes. I just wish they could keep him away from his Twitter password.
6. Annoying celebrities endorsed Clinton. Many entertainers think their political opinions are very important and almost none of them support Trump. Ok, that is more of an emotional than rational reason, but it’s still a damned good reason to vote Trump!
So, this is of course not an exhaustive list and I didn’t venture much into policy or platforms. I know there are lots of concerning things one could list for Trump, my point is simply that there are rational reasons to vote for him (or against Hillary).

Personally, it's refreshing to me that A-list celebrities, scientists, the intelligentsia, Republican foreign policy experts, macro-economists, people with advanced degrees, and other toffs didn't endorse Trump. Real Americans don't truck with these pointy-heads. They prefer Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio, David Duke, et al.

I saw during the debates how Clinton looked as if she were in the advanced stages of dementia, making baseless assertions, illogical segues, pouty interruptions, etc. The scourge of social drinking was no doubt responsible for her inability to stay on point for longer than 10 seconds.

We all know the story how Clinton's e-mail server was a hot line to Moscow, disgorging state secrets not to mention the nuclear codes to Putin. On top of that, she had the temerity to treat one document marked "classifed" rather cavalierly, risking its exposure to our mortal enemies around the world. The State Department said it was mismarked, but make no mistake, the damage was irreparable. We need a president who doesn't continually praise authoritarian leaders and abet their interests! Who could that be?


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-trump-help-transition

Just in case you were still under the illusion that Donald Trump was qualified to be president.

Barack Obama is once again showing what a class act is. He gets that Trump needs special help and is there to provide it for him. Think long and hard how horrifying Republicans have been to Obama and how he repays their ignorance and meanness with amazing grace. We won't see the likes of him again for a long, long time.

There are a LOT of comments here, but INPHX's list of "failed" needs to be addressed first.

Obamacare and the lies told to sell it. >> The "you can keep your doctor" line was said in good faith; Obama was dealing with insurance companies, who are the opposite of good faith.

Drawing a line in the sand on Syria. >> I'll give you this one. Tell me, what president has had success in the Middle East? We're still dealing with the disaster Bush left us.

Bringing terrorists to NYC to face trial. >> Americans are pansies. This would have worked. Clinton managed it.

Letting the federal deficit explode. >> The deficit has gone done under Obama, AND he added the war spending to the budget, which Bush refused to do because it would make his budget look bad.

Union expansion in a global economy. >> We need more unions and their protections, not fewer.

Minimum wage laws. >> They're being passed by the voters everywhere they're up for a vote, and history shows us that they're not damaging.

Dodd Frank-the banks are bigger than ever. >> Would that the Republicans, who allowed the banking disaster, did something other than say no.

No solution on immigration. >> The Senate had a bipartisan bill, but John Boehner refused to bring it up in the House because he knew IT WOULD PASS.

Supporting the estate tax. >> This affects about 1,300 extremely wealthy families. It's a bullshit issue.

Not enforcing the border. >> Obama set a record for the number of people who have been deported, and he greatly increased the Border Patrol's numbers.

Allowing Sanctuary cities. >> So?

Crappy GNP growth. >> 70-plus consecutive months of job growth, with the unemployment rate falling under 5%, and the Dow breaking records. I read someone's post the other day crediting Trump with breaking the record. Notice that Obama doesn't get the credit even though he's still president? Or for $2 a gallon gas?

Didn't close Gitmo. >> Congress refused to do it.

Paralysis in Washington. >> The Republicans met on Inauguration Day 2009 and made a pact to vote no on anything Obama wanted, even if it would help the country, which was mired in two wars and its worst economy since the Great Depression. Patriots all in the GOP.

Jon7190:

5. Drinking.

You're kidding, right?

You ever heard of Winston Churchill? FDR?

You ever read Lincoln's response when told that Ulysses S. Grant drank?

As for the rest of your "rational reasons", well, I guess we must have very different concepts of rationality.

Jon7190, to say that Trump self-funded his campaign is folly. He received around $2 billion in free airtime because he was so, um, colorful. The ratio of his coverage to Sanders' during the primaries was 28 to 1. He played the media, which got paid in return, so they were happy to do it. As for those Clinton scandals, we would have been in for at least four more years of that. They would be bogus, as the previous ones were. I'm just wondering when Trump launches his first military action. It might be if we fall into a recession, or it might be whenever his poll numbers drop. Nothing props up a president like a little bit of war, especially in the short term, and his thinking is solely in the short term.

Greg,

With all due respect, I believe the correct wording is, "I'm just wondering when the MIC launches Trump's first military action." MIC runs the show. Trump will just be along for the ride. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's just the reality of who really calls the shots in this country.

Franklin, good post
and
West Coast Straussians: "The sane response to an apocalypse is to provoke another one".
Why Trump is the Right Man from:
The "Conservative" mind.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/rise-of-the-reactionary

Stalin and Lenin and freedom of the press under Trump?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/11/sean-hannity-major-news-outlets-shouldnt-get-white-house-press-credentials-231324?utm_source=Communications&utm_campaign=1fae531e8f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2016_11_14&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c67d07604c-1fae531e8f-248114149

Don't despair, I can already feel the DC bureaucracy tightening it's grip around Trump's neck. He hasn't even slipped his head into the noose yet.

Fair warning to the Democratic Diva ladies, Pence is going to be way, way, way worse than that gargoyle Cathy Herrod.

5. Drinking.

You're kidding, right?

You ever heard of Winston Churchill? FDR?

You ever read Lincoln's response when told that Ulysses S. Grant drank?

Posted by: B. Franklin

I think my point may not have been clear enough on drinking. I am not saying that drinking is in any way incompatible with leadership qualities. I’m saying that in the nuclear age, a president is always on duty. He may go to sleep, go golfing, go on vacation or what have you, but he is always close to the codes. Having a president whose decision making abilities are ever diminished at any time is a risk, however small. All other things being equal (of course they’re not), it would be safer to have a president who never drinks.

Greg Hilliard wrote: Jon7190, to say that Trump self-funded his campaign is folly. He received around $2 billion in free airtime because he was so, um, colorful. The ratio of his coverage to Sanders' during the primaries was 28 to 1. He played the media, which got paid in return, so they were happy to do it.

The fact that the media benefited Trump in the primaries for their own reasons doesn't really have any bearing on my point about big money. I was speaking to the effects of big money and big donors in politics. Trump came out of the primaries owing nothing to donors, which is what I liked.

On the rational reasons list, I forgot one point I was thinking of: Accountability. Imagine a worst case scenario in which either candidate were elected and turned out to be even worse than their opposition expected them to be, making a mess of things and taking flagrantly illegal actions. Who’s going to hold Donald Trump accountable? First there is the press, who hates him. Anything scandalous or even questionable would get unrelenting scrutiny. The first line of defense in the government would be the professional civil service, who tend overwhelmingly to be democratic. He may lead the executive branch, but the civil service will not be owned by him. If significant shenanigans were going on, it’s hard to imagine there wouldn’t be leaks or whistleblowers. If it were necessary to take the administration to court, it would be heard by a federal judiciary currently dominated by Obama appointees and if it got that far, a Supreme Court which will still be pretty evenly split for the foreseeable future (and we know Kennedy and Roberts have a mind of their own). If congress needed to oppose or impeach him, it would not be hard to find enough republicans who don’t like him to get the votes. A healthy system of checks and balances will be in place. Heck, the people have taken to the streets in protest and he’s not even president yet!
Now who would hold Hillary Clinton accountable? Would the press be as aggressive with her as they would be with Trump? Would the civil service resist her? Would a judiciary appointed mostly by Obama and herself rule against her? Would a Supreme Court with five very reliable liberals? As long as congress is republican, they may be able to oppose her, but all she would really need is the money and the last few years, congress has been willing to give it to Obama and not willing to even consider resisting to the point of a shut down. The checks and balances don’t seem nearly as robust in her case.
One’s partisan lens will color how one sees issues like these. People vote for a president mostly on personality, ideology and policies. Some of that can be rational, but often it’s as much emotional and cultural. I’m sure that is the case for me. I can’t claim to be 100% rational in my voting, or probably in anything else!

Jon--

Here's the fourth paragraph of your essay, turned up to 11 by Jonathan Pie. If you're at work you might want to lower the volume a tad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs&feature=youtu.be

A Trump impeachment makes matters worse with Pence as back up. No doubt Ryan and the Republican Establishment would love to replace him with Pence. Democrats are irrelevant for the next four to eight years so the issue is Republican terrible versus Republican worse.

Jon7190, I am guessing you haven't work in DC given your statements about the federal civil servants standing up to Trump. Where were the brave federal intelligence and foreign service bureaucrats when Bush scammed the country to invade Iraq?

First rule of survival inside the Beltway: leave your backbone at the door as you enter.

"Now who would hold Hillary Clinton accountable? Would the press be as aggressive with her as they would be with Trump?"
Jon7190, is this the same press that hounded the Clintons about Whitewater, Travelgate, the emails and the server, not to mention the Benghazi bullshit? And a GOP Congress has done a pretty good job of constraining Obama. When was the last time Congress passed an actual budget?

Jon 7190:

"Having a president whose decision making abilities are ever diminished at any time is a risk, however small."

Looks like we're going to test that theory for the next 4 years.

Not if Michael Moore calls it right again.
I'll ask the guys at campfire.
Will Trump be replaced by a KKK theocrat?

"Having a president whose decision making abilities are ever diminished at any time is a risk, however small."

Looks like we're going to test that theory for the next 4 years.

Posted by: B. Franklin

LOL, that’s a good one! (not sarcastic) Of course, I meant diminished from baseline.

That brings up an interesting question of what is Trump’s baseline? He certainly made a lot of apparently terrible decisions during the election, especially in the area of nonsensical statements, reactions and tweets. Even his overall strategy of relying mainly on rallies and media attention and not traditional things like advertising and ground game looked dumb. But in light of the way things turned out, you have to wonder how much was intentional and how much was lucky? Is he the Keyser Soze of politics? Was everything he did perfectly calculated to get exactly the votes he needed? Hillary is a smart and calculating person who had a campaign organization that contained the aggregated wisdom of 25+ years of democratic politics including four presidential victories. Did Trump outsmart her and the entire republican establishment or was he just the right idiot in the right place at the right time?

"Did Trump outsmart her and the entire republican establishment or was he just the right idiot in the right place at the right time"

I'm thinking the latter. Clinton and the DNC should have known in 2008 that her time had passed.

Points for a Keyser Soze mention.

The Republican Party has spent the last decade working diligently to suppress the vote.

Didn't matter which Republican ran, the process was in place.

Throw in the actions of Comey and the state supported Russian hackers just for fun.

And yet "she" still won the popular vote.

Some mandate, huh?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)