OT: Go Blue

[burrrton]

He's against roe vs wade, against sane sex marriage, transgender equality etc.

He's been a supporter of all those things to various degrees at various times, though (remember him hugging the rainbow flag, or bragging about letting Caitlyn Jenner use the women's toilet, etc)- that's a big reason I think so many of the people who voted for him thinking he's going be ramming through some ultra-conservative agenda across the board are in for a rude awakening.

I've gotten very little right in the prediction department with this guy, but I can see him being just as likely to cut deals with Pelosi as with Ryan. As someone said earlier, if you look beyond mere campaign rhetoric, based on how he's lived his life and conducted himself, it's more likely he's a rather typical NY liberal than some born-again ultra conservative.

[burrrton]

In total, fewer than 26 percent of eligible American voters cast their ballots for the man who will occupy the Oval Office come January.

For the record, this is among the few predictions I got right this election season- I strongly believed this would be the case for two reasons:

First, I knew how bad a candidate Hillary was (and yeah, I thought *she* was going to win, not him, so... partial credit, I guess).

Second, more importantly, that's always how it is.

When you win ~50% of the vote with only ~60% of eligible voters casting a ballot (which is most elections), you end up with ~30% of the eligible voters having cast their ballot for the winner. Obama in 2012, for instance, won ~51% of the vote with 57% turnout- are we supposed to be OK with Obama winning with 29% (yes) but outraged about Trump winning with 26% (no)?

[HumanCockroach]

I seriously doubt that the majority are outraged, scared, worried, terrified, embarrassed, sad, disgusted, freaking out that a dude who insults everyone he meets will have Nuke codes, terrified, lost, etc sure. Outraged though? Maybe way down that list of emotions, but the overriding feelings I'm picking up is terror on one side, and elation on the other. Being that I didn't vote for either person of the two real nominees myself, I'm a little more removed from the emotions, but the truth is, I'm scared or greatly concerned this guy will be in the Whitehouse.

Outraged? Nope, that doesn't feel right. Nor does it really look right, people are scared plain and simple, no matter what a Trump voter claims at this point, they have every right in the world to BE scared, until they figure out if his statements and promises and hate and division statements were just low blows to get votes, OR if he actually plans on enacting policies to back up those statements.

I'm still baffled by working class white males voting overwhelmingly for the guy, just makes no sense, none whatsoever.

[RiverDog]

I'm still baffled by working class white males voting overwhelmingly for the guy, just makes no sense, none whatsoever.

Yea, that's one of the surprises of the election. IMO pollsters, media, et al underestimated the amount of dislike that particular demographic group had for Hillary. Next to Trump, who was getting a 70% disapproval rating, at 59% HRC had what was by far the highest unfavorable rating of any nominee for POTUS since they started taking the survey some 60 years ago. George W. Bush, who was absolutely reviled by the left, only had a disapproval rating in the low 40's.

This election was similar to the Truman-Dewey election in 1948 when the press thought they had it all figured out. I thought that the statisticians had improved their forecasting ability by leaps and bounds since then and that we would never see that kind of surprise upset again, but as usual, I was wrong. The results of this election will be studied and debated for decades to come.

[Hawk Sista]

I think Trump himself doesn't care if I'm married. He's more liberal on this issue. But, his SCOTUS appointments will be über conservative which is where the rubber meets the road. AND, like Bob, I think Trump will be lucky as F### to make it 4 whole years w/o breaking the law. Pence is a giant bigot and thinks I need conversion therapy, whatever that means.

Thanks for the support, Bob and others. I appreciate ya. See you in 1955.

[obiken]

Yea, that's one of the surprises of the election. IMO pollsters, media, et al underestimated the amount of dislike that particular demographic group had for Hillary. Next to Trump, who was getting a 70% disapproval rating, at 59% HRC had what was by far the highest unfavorable rating of any nominee for POTUS since they started taking the survey some 60 years ago. George W. Bush, who was absolutely reviled by the left, only had a disapproval rating in the low 40's.

This election was similar to the Truman-Dewey election in 1948 when the press thought they had it all figured out. I thought that the statisticians had improved their forecasting ability by leaps and bounds since then and that we would never see that kind of surprise upset again, but as usual, I was wrong. The results of this election will be studied and debated for decades to come.

No it doesnt, there a boatload of Racist and quasi racist out there River, I have them in my own family, but IF you call them a racist, oh gosh oh dear!

[burrrton]

No it doesnt, there a boatload of Racist and quasi racist out there River, I have them in my own family, but IF you call them a racist, oh gosh oh dear!

There are, and too many of them are feeling emboldened, but they're not who got the buffoon elected. Areas that voted overwhelmingly for a black man for POTUS (twice) recoiled at Hillary and (I think) are pretty much what put Trump over the top.

I know you can slice up exit polls six ways to Sunday to demonstrate a lot of odd shifts, but when you lose WI and MI (and others) to Trump after Obama won them decisively, it seems pretty weak to call it a "racist" vote that put him in office.

[edit]

There's also the small matter of Hillary being *white*, not black, that makes the cries of "stupid racist white people!" ring so ridiculous.

[Hawk Sista]

Trump was interested in winning, not at ALL interested in actually governing. HE HAS NO EFFIN' CLUE how much time, energy, effort it takes to be the POTUS. NONE. The A-hole doesn't even want to live in the Whitehouse. He's a narcissistic ADHD blow hard. I just don't think he has the intellect, understanding etc. to effectively run the country.

Now that he's the POTUS elect, he's choosing a lot of Washington insiders to help his stupid ass. So much for draining the swamp.

[NorthHawk]

I think Trump himself doesn't care if I'm married. He's more liberal on this issue. But, his SCOTUS appointments will be über conservative which is where the rubber meets the road. AND, like Bob, I think Trump will be lucky as F### to make it 4 whole years w/o breaking the law. Pence is a giant bigot and thinks I need conversion therapy, whatever that means.

Thanks for the support, Bob and others. I appreciate ya. See you in 1955.

Like I said above, it depends on who Trump has surrounding him and giving advice as well as his selections for important posts.
Steve Bannon (sp) now has an important role, so that could be unsettling for some, but he might be countered by Preibus (sp) who is closer to the center but still quite right wing in the larger scope.
In any event, the Democrats have to quickly find out what went wrong, get it sorted out and start focusing on two years down the road where they might be able to effectively counter some of what they see as the excesses that might come about, not to mention take advantage of the expected gaffes that all administrations make at first.

[RiverDog]

Trump was interested in winning, not at ALL interested in actually governing. HE HAS NO EFFIN' CLUE how much time, energy, effort it takes to be the POTUS. NONE. The A-hole doesn't even want to live in the Whitehouse. He's a narcissistic ADHD blow hard. I just don't think he has the intellect, understanding etc. to effectively run the country.

Now that he's the POTUS elect, he's choosing a lot of Washington insiders to help his stupid ass. So much for draining the swamp.

I can't disagree very much with that take. One of Trump's first moves was to seek top secret clearance for his children? WTF for?

I'm anxious to see what his cabinet selections are. If he's not interested in governing, hopefully we'll have some decent department heads to run the nation.

[NorthHawk]

One of Trump's first moves was to seek top secret clearance for his children? WTF for?

Isn't there some law restricting family from working in Gov't? I thought that was the case after JFK had his brother as AG.
If they aren't working for the Gov't, they have no business seeing any top secret documents and if they are working for the Gov't, they should put the business in a blind trust.

[burrrton]

One of Trump's first moves was to seek top secret clearance for his children? WTF for?

I think I read that was only a rumor.

And yeah, what North describes is how ridiculous it would be on virtually every level for him to do so, so much so that I'd be willing to bet it's a rumor despite my low opinion of him.

[Hawk Sista]

Good points, North. What scares me as much as anything is that he really doesn't understand the fundamental rules of govt.

[NorthHawk]

I think most people want their President to clearly separate their personal business from the Gov't, but I wonder if Trump thinks similarly.
It would seem not if in fact he wants his kids involved in both the business and his Presidency.
I'm not sure the idea of "Trust me to be above board" would really fly.

The only other democracy of late that I can think of with a billionaire as leader was Italy with Burlesconi (sp), and there were a lot of slimy things going on there.
They have a different government setup, so it may be that it was a lot easier to bend the rules - or perhaps more tempting.

[burrrton]

FYI: Trump camp denies seeking clearances for his children:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2607389/

[RiverDog]

Isn't there some law restricting family from working in Gov't? I thought that was the case after JFK had his brother as AG.
If they aren't working for the Gov't, they have no business seeing any top secret documents and if they are working for the Gov't, they should put the business in a blind trust.

Yea, there was a nepotism statute that was motivated by JFK putting his brother in the cabinet, but it was easily circumvented when Bill Clinton appointed Hillary as Co-President back in 1993.

[jshawaii22]

If you've watched any of the interviews with Trump's kids, you'd realize that they are very intelligent, very grounded, not spoiled at all and all are highly educated and I would prefer them over a lot of other potential choices.

They are also all very free minded and on live TV will argue and disagree with "Dad" --

These are not the Paris Hilton's of the world, that's for sure.

[RiverDog]

If you've watched any of the interviews with Trump's kids, you'd realize that they are very intelligent, very grounded, not spoiled at all and all are highly educated and I would prefer them over a lot of other potential choices.

They are also all very free minded and on live TV will argue and disagree with "Dad" --

These are not the Paris Hilton's of the world, that's for sure.

Doesn't explain why he wants them to have security clearances, if it's true that he did.

[obiken]

Yea, there was a nepotism statute that was motivated by JFK putting his brother in the cabinet, but it was easily circumvented when Bill Clinton appointed Hillary as Co-President back in 1993.

Your analogy of Robert Kennedy is false and pejorative, he was approved by the Senate to be Attorney General of the US.

Hillary ran the Healthcare bill for Bill that's it. I think because she was the first female to have a legit shot at POTUS, she was a lightning rod legit or not.

[EmeraldBullet]

Can a mod or admin move this to the off topic section. I personally come here to escape the political bs, it's burning my eyes seeing it in this section.

[obiken]

Can a mod or admin move this to the off topic section. I personally come here to escape the political bs, it's burning my eyes seeing it in this section.

I was going to say that this thread could go on for another 4 years!

[c_hawkbob]

Can a mod or admin move this to the off topic section. I personally come here to escape the political bs, it's burning my eyes seeing it in this section.

That's where it should have been in the first place.

[RiverDog]

Your analogy of Robert Kennedy is false and pejorative, he was approved by the Senate to be Attorney General of the US.

Hillary ran the Healthcare bill for Bill that's it. I think because she was the first female to have a legit shot at POTUS, she was a lightning rod legit or not.

I wasn't comparing Kennedy's appointment of his brother to Trump's supposed attempt to get security clearances for his kids. North Hawk asked if there was a law that was passed with regard to that appointment that outlaws nepotism in the administration and I merely confirmed that there was.

Hillary did more than try to shove Hillary Care down our throats, although that was one huge part the Clinton Administration's efforts. As husband of the President, she should have never been permitted to formulate public policy on something that is so far reaching.

[Hawktawk]

I didn't vote for him and was adamantly opposed to him from day one. I agree he is the president elect and deserves a chance but the early returns are positively terrifying.
Hes flipping and flopping on many campaign pledges. His transition team is a train wreck.Christie who had led the transition effort was dumped AFTER THE ELECTION!!!!.

It is reported Trump expected to lose and wasn't putting a lot of thought into transition to the most important job on the planet. Its a joke but it aint funny. Its institutionalized incompetence.
8 days after the election he has not even contacted the state department about the 4000 employees he will need to hire for the national security team.These are basically unprecedented hiccups in a transition.
Hes on twitter denying it is a disaster when it clearly is.Hes picking up the phone and calling foreign leaders without state department briefings. He has lied about calling a couple more who he DID NOT CALL.
His policy strategist is far right Breitbart editor and borderline racist anti semite Steve Bannon. His chief advisor is his son in law Jarred Kushner for whom he is trying to attain top secret clearance.

Anyone but me think its weird and scary for dad to be asking the kids for advice when hes flying the airplane called USA?Shouldn't that be the other way around?
His loyalists are getting first crack at cabinet positions including some career establishment hacks like Giuliani.Shouldn't these jobs be filled based on who is most qualified instead of paybacks a mofo?
I guess if the guy on top isn't qualified for the job it really doesn't matter who he has under him.The Trump empire is rife with the potential for abuse of power that will make the clinton foundation look measly by comparison and basically there will be no divesting, no blind trust.

OK rant over.

As always HT will eat the crow if wrong and I really want to be wrong about this.
But I believe our national security has never been more imperiled than with this madman in control.

[burrrton]

I'm not going to make a habit of defending this idiot, but some things have to be said...

Hes flipping and flopping on many campaign pledges.

This is why I think his supporters are going to be just as disappointed as his opponents- he has a fairly long history of supporting just as many causes dear to liberal hearts as to conservatives'.

Doesn't mean he can't still fck things up, but I bet he's equally reviled by the end (few remember what someone does for them, most remember vividly what someone does *against* them).

8 days after the election he has not even contacted the state department about the 4000 employees he will need to hire for the national security team.These are basically unprecedented hiccups in a transition.

I don't know if he's planned anything, and I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't, but no, it's not unprecedented. Most staffs aren't decided on until early December.

Shouldn't these jobs be filled based on who is most qualified instead of paybacks a mofo?

*sigh* Look at who filled most of Obama's, and every other POTUS', positions. They're mostly "yes men" and political favors. I don't *like* it, but that's reality.

Again, I have no idea how this administration is going to work out, but quit lighting your hair on fire- he's doing roughly what most do and we're going to be fine.

Sheesh.

[Steady_Hawk]

Hawktalk,

What media outlets do you get your information from?

Hawktalk, Trump's son in law is Jewish, his daughter converted to Judaism. Bannon isn't anti Semitic. He's anti Establishment and that scares the hell out of the Main Stream Media. The National Jewish Coalition came out in defense of Bannon! The MSM is lying again.

[Hawktawk]

So that's how Obama did it so its fine if trump does? What is so different about the guy from other politicians other than a bipolar disorder and a mean streak?

And as you say Democrats will like the guy more than republicans. Back when he was grabbing P@##s 11 years ago he was a registered democrat contributing repeatedly to Hillary Clinton's senate campaigns.
His chief advisor son in law Jarred Kushner is from a Democratic iconic family and Ivanka is the reason Trumps platform embraces a child care entitlement.
He spent an hour and a half with Obama and he is ready to try to save the most controversial components of health care.Hey what happened to repeal and replace?
Muslim ban? Walked away from the question by a reporter and it was scrubbed from his website.
Wall? Gingrich" it wont happen but it was a nice campaign device".
Hes flopping like a dead fish, sort of like a guy who says hes self funding and nobody owns him then opens a fundraising operation the day he clinches the nomination.
Just another dirty lying politician and crazy to boot.

And I hope were fine, I really do but we are being governed by the germanwings pilot. Scary.

[Hawk Sista]

Agreed. This should be in the other OT place, but A. it ain't and I have something to say, & B. DON'T READ IT IF YOU DONT WANT TO. IT IS NOT LIKE YOU CANT FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT FROM THE FIRST POST (ooops - left all caps on too long. I'm not yelling).

Trump's first lyin' ass days after election are unprecedented. I do not see this as a dem vs. rep discussion. I see it as a "oh holy hell, WTF have we done" discussion. He's a madman and I will LITERALLY eat crow (Bob's recipe w/ the pear onions) if this maggot is still the Prez in 4. I've never hoped to be more wrong. Hell with my rights as a tax paying American who wants what all y'all have. I'm worried about the effin planet.

[burrrton]

So that's how Obama did it so its fine if trump does?

It's not fine *because* that's how Obama did it, but you should take it as an indication that, in that regard (who they're picking to fill cabinet et al positions, and how quickly they're picking them), it *is* fine- it's what all POTUS elects do.

Obama hadn't named *anybody* at this point in 2008, and from what I've read, there are some people universally considered horrible, but that was the case with Obama, it was the case with W, it was the case with WJC (I'd go back further, but I didn't pay enough attention that far back).

That said, I'm not going to get in the habit of defending him- I just think that people are over-reacting to some of these things when we're only a week into this. *So far*, he's done little differently than his predecessors.

In the long run I think he's likely to be a disaster, too, due to almost comically thin skin and long history of erratic behavior and decision-making. I'd like to punch DNC leadership in the nose for running the most dishonest candidate in recent history against him.

[Hawktawk]

[

In the long run I think he's likely to be a disaster, too, due to almost comically thin skin and long history of erratic behavior and decision-making. I'd like to punch DNC leadership in the nose for running the most dishonest candidate in recent history against him.

I hear that. Im furious with both parties for allowing us to choose one or the other of the most unpopular and mistrusted candidates in US history.
I thought Priebus should kill himself when Trump got nominated and hey hes the chief of staff.

The dems got what they deserved putting forth the utterly repugnant stale corrupt Hillary.But we all have to pay.

I hope to be WAY WAY WRONG. But you describe Trumps personality perfectly. Hes the most quirky unpredictable president elect in my lifetime.
And people don't just flip a switch and become "presidential" at age 70.

[NorthHawk]

He seems unpredictable.
Maybe if you look at it as a glass half full, he's a critical thinker and as his understanding of situations increase, his view also changes.
Not sure that it's true, but we can hope.

In any case, buckle up, I suspect we're in for a bumpy ride.

[RiverDog]

Sis and Cbob;

It is highly unlikely that Trump will be impeached. Impeachment proceedings must begin in the House, and Trump's party has a commanding lead, 247-188. There is a mid term election in 2018, but the Democrats would have to swing 29 seats to regain control of the House. Possible but not probable. So for an article of impeachment to arise with enough R's breaking ranks to obtain a majority, Trump would have to do something so over the top that it causes his base to abandon him.

Bottom line is that we're stuck for at least 2 years, most likely 4. Personally, I blame both parties equally, the R's for nominating him and the D's for putting up a dishonest, corrupt candidate with nearly as high of negatives as Trump has to oppose him.

So like North Hawk says, we might as well get used to it. Thankfully Trump only controls 1/3 of the government and there is this little document called the Constitution that limits what he can do.

[HumanCockroach]

It's doubtful Trump is impeached, that said, the man still faces fraud and Racketeering lawsuits currently... By the letter of the law, they are indeed impeachable offenses, personally I'm not sure that is a positive. Pence isn't some sort of enticement in that regard to be honest....

Truth is there's two pretty unstable guys running this country for the next four years, both who have shown an unwillingness to do anything with everyone's best interest at heart ( one financially, one religiously). Ultimately, it's difficult to tell which one is the bigger trainwreck.

[Hawk Sista]

The thing is, RD........... he scares the republicans in the house and senate too. They'd MUCH rather deal with Pence (I agree HC - he ain't a peach either) than trump. There is uncertainty and volatility that will be difficult to navigate and they are not gonna like it. Again, I would love nothing better than to be wrong and to laugh at how idiotic all my hand-wringing was someday. I am rooting for that to be true; right now, I have little confidence that it will be.

[RiverDog]

It's doubtful Trump is impeached, that said, the man still faces fraud and Racketeering lawsuits currently... By the letter of the law, they are indeed impeachable offenses...

There is no "letter of the law" with regards to impeachment offenses. The Constitution is not specific, it merely says "bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", and the term "misdemeanors" had a different definition to it during the time the Constitution was written than it is today. Otherwise, spitting on the sidewalk could be considered an impeachable offense.

That being said, I would tend to agree that any criminal act, such as those you mention associated with Trump, would fit the Constitutional definition of a "high crime."

[RiverDog]

The thing is, RD........... he scares the republicans in the house and senate too. They'd MUCH rather deal with Pence (I agree HC - he ain't a peach either) than trump. There is uncertainty and volatility that will be difficult to navigate and they are not gonna like it. Again, I would love nothing better than to be wrong and to laugh at how idiotic all my hand-wringing was someday. I am rooting for that to be true; right now, I have little confidence that it will be.

The Republicans in the House were elected by many of the same voters that voted for Trump, so it's going to be difficult for them to bite the hand that feeds them unless that constituency turns on Trump. IMO the only way Trump gets impeached is that the Democrats win back the House in 2018, and 29 seats is a tall order. That's another argument against a 2 party system. If there were a 3rd party and none had a majority, the other two could form a majority coalition and oppose a president like Trump. That's one of the reasons why I voted Libertarian, because I want to see a viable 3rd party get some traction.

Just as a side note, I'm more than likely going to vote for a D in my district's next congressional election in 2018 for just that reason. I don't like it when a single party controls both the executive branch and the legislative branch. I've voted for D's for governor and other state and local offices, but never for a federal office. Regardless of the man's politics, Trump is the type of person that needs some type of viable threat to oppose him.

[burrrton]

I suspect there is a very large chunk of people who are stumbling onto a newfound respect for divided government and the brakes Congress is intended to be able to put on Executive power (yeah, mixed metaphors- sue me).

Welcome to the party.

[NorthHawk]

I suspect there is a very large chunk of people who are stumbling onto a newfound respect for divided government and the brakes Congress is intended to be able to put on Executive power (yeah, mixed metaphors- sue me).

Welcome to the party.

It's also a good time in schools to teach the varying responsibilities of the different parts of government and their limits of power.
The immediate relevance can make things much more interesting for kids who might otherwise be bored to death.

[HumanCockroach]

There is no "letter of the law" with regards to impeachment offenses. The Constitution is not specific, it merely says "bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", and the term "misdemeanors" had a different definition to it during the time the Constitution was written than it is today. Otherwise, spitting on the sidewalk could be considered an impeachable offense.

That being said, I would tend to agree that any criminal act, such as those you mention associated with Trump, would fit the Constitutional definition of a "high crime."

RiverDog
Legacy

Posts: 5566
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Poor choice of words... My point was that both instances would be considered "high crimes", and are impeachable offenses.. it also is true that crimes committed prior to presidency are considered valid offenses in the case if impeachment....

It does surprise me that somehow Trump despite over 400 cases currently pending was propped up as the "honest" candidate despite Clinton having zero pending litigation... Doesn't mean I liked or voted for her, just that of the two, Trump admitted to underhanded politic involvement, amongst other shady practices ( I'm the only one who knows how to fix it, because I did it. Is far too similar to I can stop murders because I've committed them , for my personal comfort), yet it was "crooked" Hillary and "voice of the forgotten" Trump in the end...

To this day I remain baffled not just by the support he seemed to find despite these admissions, but the support he received by groups of people that have destroyed political careers over comparatively minor "failings" ( IE: drug use in college, extra marital affairs decades before etc). I really just don't get it. There's a difference between not liking an insider it career politician, and burying ones head and basically committing willful political punishment not just for those you don't like, but yourself and loved ones as well. The "statement" was made, but at what cost?

[burrrton]

It does surprise me that somehow Trump despite over 400 cases currently pending was propped up as the "honest" candidate despite Clinton having zero pending litigation.

Well, he's never, as far as I've heard, taken obvious and extraordinary steps to blatantly dodge Federal law (correct me if I'm wrong)- Hillary has- and Comey's tortured, byzantine thought process to avoid charging her doesn't erase that from the minds of those of us who've held clearances (and especially with those of us who also work in enterprise-level IT).

I can't speak for everyone, but that's what I can't let go, and I think Trump's crap seems less fundamental or something.

Most people know what FOIA is, at least loosely, and what she did was so obviously an effort to dodge it, I think it resonated.