Trump, trump, trump, trump, trump, trump, trump, trump....

[Banzai]

 

[Gold]

Trump Sandwich: White bread, full of baloney, with Russian dressing and a small pickle.

 

[Matador]

Trump Sandwich: White bread, full of baloney, with Russian dressing and a small pickle.

Which less than half the electorate ordered.

 

[DaveP]

Which less than half the electorate ordered.

And that less than half are being disenfranchised  and patronized by somebody who thinks he/she knows better.

This just reinforces the belief that the political elite know what's best for us  (and themselves)  and that we should just suck it up... yeah?

DaveP

 

[dmp]

Which less than half the electorate ordered.

Yes, Trump lost the popular vote by millions of votes.

But it's even worse because the senate is also Republican held - but Republican States have far less people in them.
Each state has two senators, so the 40 million people in California have the same say as the 1/2 million people in Wyoming, Vermont, or several other small population states.
If you roughly look at the population of all the Republican Senator's states it is something like ~40 million less.

Put on top of this Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression / disenfranchisement, and it's no wonder people are furious at them. Republicans have been passing voter ID laws, then closing DMV locations where people would go to get the required IDs. Republicans are trying to close polling locations in undesirable neighborhoods so people have to travel long distances to vote.  Georgia destroyed voter records on the weekend after a lawsuit was served about vote tampering.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/10/georgia_destroyed_election_data_right_after_a_lawsuit_alleged_the_system.html

There is a difference between protecting minority rights and imposing minority beliefs on the majority. The latter is seen as tyranny.

 

[DaveP]

Well your legendary founding fathers designed the system that has produced a result that you don't like now.

It has been used without too much controversy since the war, but now it's suddenly not fit for purpose?

As an outside observer, I would say that the system hasn't served the Trump voters very well either, that's why they voted for someone outside the system, with all his ego, tweets and other rubbish.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

At the ratification of the Constitution, the total US population was about 4 million and there were 13 states. The problems I was describing were not a reality at the time the Constitution was written.  But the intent was written in the first line: " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,..."

How does disenfranchising voters fit into that statement?

The "legendary founding fathers" created the electoral college to prevent a populist tyrant being elected with his "ego, tweets, and other rubbish".  A person that could manipulate the population to take control of the country. They envisioned a wise council of representatives as the electoral college.

From the Federalist papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

The fact that the electoral college benefits smaller population states was a painful compromise at the ratification to win over the smaller states.  I don't think there is any indication the "legendary founding fathers" thought this was a good or important characteristic of the government.

Additionally, a minor point, the Founding fathers did not have two senators elected by popular vote in each state, the were to be chosen by the state government, this would have hopefully compelled less two party polarization. This change was made with the 17th amendment, 126 years after the ratification of the Constitution. 

Later, Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address tried to define the USA and the democratic ideal: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

Again, how does disenfranchising voters reconcile with that ideal?

And finally, there has always been plenty of controversy throughout the last century. The administration of FDR and his social policies, the opposition of the minority party at the time, the role of SCOTUS, the threat to stack the court. The 1950s through 1980s saw a decline in partisanship and controversy - which coincided with the decline in wealth inequality of those decades.
With the Reagan led shift to the political right (both parties), and the great increase of wealth inequality, we are seeing a return to the higher level of partisanship and controversy. Whenever a small minority hoard wealth and power, and resort to tyrannical rule, there is bound to be controversy.
Donald Trump is not an outsider at all - this is a foolish observation. He is at the center of the swamp, surrounded by other corrupt wealthy people. 

 

[DaveP]

Thank you for the background info, it helps.  I also realise there were not so many states when the constitution was written.

Again, how does disenfranchising voters reconcile with that ideal?

Because they voted for Trump, wisely or foolishly, it doesn't matter which for this point, and then someone inside decides to circumvent their voting intentions with their own personal take on the situation.  This makes the voters vote null and void and so they are disenfranchised and patronized.

The more I think about the issue, the more it makes no sense.  If you really wanted to control Trump from the inside, wouldn't you keep quiet about it?  Why risk discovery by informing the NYT and the administration?  Is not Trump likely to be more distrusting as a result and be on the look-out for manipulation now?

It looks more like a co-ordination with the latest book release than a genuine person with the good of the country in mind.

DaveP

 

[dmp]

Because they voted for Trump, wisely or foolishly, it doesn't matter which for this point, and then someone inside decides to circumvent their voting intentions with their own personal take on the situation.  This makes the voters vote null and void and so they are disenfranchised and patronized.

That is the complete opposite of everything I've posted. Republicans have the support of only about 30% of the eligible voters. They are running roughshod over the political minority (Democrats) and the populist Majority, who live in non-red states or voted for the winner of the populist vote.
The fact that Trump can't run a competent administration is not disenfranchising his voters.  It's his (and there own) fault. It sounds like you've started talking about the anonymous op-ed in the NYT from a Trump White House staffer? That looks to me like someone setting up a book deal because the op-ed doesn't do anything at the moment but stir things up.
But what does it say about Trump's leadership ability that his White House staff is so dis-loyal? The resignations, dismissals, indictments, and guilty pleas out of his administration is astounding.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Well your legendary founding fathers designed the system that has produced a result that you don't like now.

I have nothing but respect for the founding fathers and the constitution (including electoral college).

It has been used without too much controversy since the war, but now it's suddenly not fit for purpose?

which war are you referencing (revolutionary?) ? There has always been dissent for hundreds of years, it is built into the system.

As an outside observer, I would say that the system hasn't served the Trump voters very well either, that's why they voted for someone outside the system, with all his ego, tweets and other rubbish.

DaveP

Indeed the founders anticipated much human frailty and designed remedies to avoid the obvious abuses, but the modern deep state, and media actively playing team politics for one side is a new challenge that wasn't completely anticipated.  We'll see if the constitutional remedies hold (I remain optimistic).

I suspect from a casual inspection of international media reports the wheels look like they have fallen off the bus. The actual accomplishment of this administration are buried beneath the noise of political sniping.

President Trump is a reality TV star, and all this media drama is playing to his strong suit. He pretty much controls the news cycle while he lacks message discipline.    I wouldn't underestimate his ability to work this audience.  I could even imagine him pivoting left if he loses the house in Nov, he is not a real conservative republican anyhow, but he is results motivated, and hitting his short list of campaign promises.

JR 

PS; More posts since I wrote this so maybe we will rehash the principles of our republic.  8)

 

[DaveP]

I suspect from a casual inspection of international media reports the wheels look like they have fallen off the bus

Yes, the media are fixated on the drama, but it all just evaporates very quickly as the next one comes along.

I also see that Trump has addressed issues that have been neglected by previous administrations as too hot to handle.

North Korea.

NAFTA.

US China trade imbalance.

Paying Pakistan for harbouring terrorists.

Other Nato countries not paying their way.

Cancelling aid to Palestinians who are basically anti US in any case.

All of these are important positives IMHO, the rest is all minor league.

If he changes his mind on climate change, it will cancel out a lot of his negatives.  Personally, I think his attitude to climate change will become irrelevant as individual states will abide by Paris as they are faced with ever increasing natural disasters, California fires being a good example.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

At the ratification of the Constitution, the total US population was about 4 million and there were 13 states. The problems I was describing were not a reality at the time the Constitution was written.  But the intent was written in the first line: " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,..."

How does disenfranchising voters fit into that statement?

The "legendary founding fathers" created the electoral college to prevent a populist tyrant being elected with his "ego, tweets, and other rubbish".  A person that could manipulate the population to take control of the country. They envisioned a wise council of representatives as the electoral college.

From the Federalist papers:
The fact that the electoral college benefits smaller population states was a painful compromise at the ratification to win over the smaller states.  I don't think there is any indication the "legendary founding fathers" thought this was a good or important characteristic of the government.

Additionally, a minor point, the Founding fathers did not have two senators elected by popular vote in each state, the were to be chosen by the state government, this would have hopefully compelled less two party polarization. This change was made with the 17th amendment, 126 years after the ratification of the Constitution. 

Yes I have written about this before... having the senators directly elected shifted power away from the state legislatures and into the federal government. Our founders were apprehensive about allowing the federal government too much power.  State/local governments are  closer to the voters and hopefully more responsive.

There is a similar movement to undo the electoral college which would also concentrate power in the federal and away from states.

Later, Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address tried to define the USA and the democratic ideal: "that government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

Again, how does disenfranchising voters reconcile with that ideal?

is that some new talking point?

I have written about this at length too... let everybody who wants to vote have a go, but if they lack ID, take a picture and thumb print. If the election is not close their data gets dumped, if the election is close, they get vetted as they should be. I vote about 100 yards from my house but still have to show ID, despite voting in the same place for 30+ years.

And finally, there has always been plenty of controversy throughout the last century. The administration of FDR and his social policies, the opposition of the minority party at the time, the role of SCOTUS, the threat to stack the court. The 1950s through 1980s saw a decline in partisanship and controversy - which coincided with the decline in wealth inequality of those decades.
With the Reagan led shift to the political right (both parties), and the great increase of wealth inequality, we are seeing a return to the higher level of partisanship and controversy. Whenever a small minority hoard wealth and power, and resort to tyrannical rule, there is bound to be controversy.
Donald Trump is not an outsider at all - this is a foolish observation. He is at the center of the swamp, surrounded by other corrupt wealthy people.

Opinions vary... I see President Trump as disrupting the old order inside the beltway, for better and worse. He is far from a DC insider.

I was angry for the last couple election cycles before 2016 and was steeling myself for losing that one too. I hope I was more thoughtful during that painful period than the opinionated anger I hear now. 

JR

 

[Scodiddly]

What I've come to realize since I gave up on fiction and started reading history is that the political situation of the "Founding Fathers" was just as messy as in any other American era. They did a pretty good job, though we've changed a few things since then (women's suffrage, ending slavery, etc). 

 

[JohnRoberts]

What I've come to realize since I gave up on fiction and started reading history is that the political situation of the "Founding Fathers" was just as messy as in any other American era. They did a pretty good job, though we've changed a few things since then (women's suffrage, ending slavery, etc).

1776 by David McCullough ia a pretty good read about the revolutionary war. That could have easily gone another way.

JR

 

[Script]

What I find interesting about the NYT article is not the content as such, cos we've known that for long, including under previous presidents. So basically it's just a shift from 'third person' to 'first person' narration.

What's intereting though is Mr. Trump's fury about it. But I guess that was the whole point. I'm quite sure Mr. Trump has known about it too, I mean everybody 'knows' it. There's an entire armada of Hollywood films and series about it. So really, where's the news?

 

[Matador]

There is something off about that article, and I think Charles Pierce just nailed why:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22998786/anonymous-trump-white-house-op-ed-new-york-times/

Enough of this stuff. Stand up in the light of day and tell your stories. All of them, right from the beginning. Admit that what you're confronting now is the end result of 40 years of conservative politics and all the government-is-the-problem malfeasance you've been imbibing since you were wingnuts in swaddling. The fire's licking at your ankles at last. Come out of the cupboards, you boys and girls. None of you are heroes.

 

[Tubetec]

Well as far as we know here Trumps visit to Ireland is off , the funny thing about it is first of all the trip was announced prior to any contacts between Irish and American politicians to organise it properly . Second of all the announcment that the trip was cancelled ,again without anyone here having a clue whats going on . Ireland doesnt even have a US ambassador at the moment , the leader of the main opposition party here has described Irish-US relations/communications as at an all time low . The inital planning of the trip would have seen Trump flying in on the day of the presidential inauguration  here, to assure the mans security litterally every member of the defence forces and police would need to be on overtime for the duration of the visit. I think the only people upset about the cancellation are the people of a little town in Co.Clare where Mr rumps owns a golf resort, their hope being the massive worldwide exposure would bring a much needed boost to the local economy .
A former minister for foreign affairs said he never saw this kind of confusion relating to a visit from a foreign leader .

 

[desol]

Cancelling aid to Palestinians who are basically anti US in any case.

An interesting perspective from a born and raised Israeli.
https://vimeo.com/261317721

 

[Tubetec]

Hi Desol ,
tried to watch that link but no go , I do know an Israeli living here for about 20 years , he did once have to return and do army in Israel , he was never right again afterwards . I'll try the link from another 'puter later and post my thoughts .

 

[cyrano]

Trump Sandwich: White bread, full of baloney, with Russian dressing and a small pickle.

LOL

That's gold, Gold!