so much for draining the swamp

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 03:20 PM)samhain Wrote: I also think he and Obama may end up being better buddies than anyone could ever imagine.  People hated Bill Clinton and George W Bush, but the level of antipathy toward Trump and Obama is on a whole different level.  There may be no other person for him to talk to that will understand the kind of seething hatred he will face on a daily basis for the next 4 years. 

Don't count on this.  Obama will not enjoy a beer on a relaxing afternoon with the racist who questioned his legitimacy and then proceeded to undo his most important policy achievements. Add to this Trump has become a social pariah of sorts because of the public racism and sexism. Only people expecting direct gains from his office or obligated to for official reasons will be publicly socializing with him.

Both presidents are indeed hated, but for such different reasons. Obama is a black American with a Muslim name, and a practitioner of constitutional law who takes the side of the poor and the middle class against the rich--i.e., what passes for a "socialist" in the US--the perfect storm for a right wing hate fest, which works largely by innuendo and free association rather than logic and factual evidence.  Early on he fell into the sights of the Right Wing Noise Machine which has targeted the Clinton's since the 80s with a series of faux scandals.  Despite that, he brought us out of a recession and reestablished US credibility abroad, and leaves with one of the most scandal-free administrations in history.

Trump, on the other hand, is a white male with an Anglo name and a history of racist business practices, who knows little of the Constitution or government, and whose political rhetoric targets minorities and encourages violence. He is the beneficiary of the Right Wing Noise Machine, which, along with Putin, essentially gave him this election by destroying just enough credibility in the more qualified candidate. His election campaign was week after week of chaos and scandal. Expect more of the same until he resigns or is impeached.

Both men will no doubt continue to be hated--Trump even more than now, Obama much less as it becomes clear how competent he actually was. But the hatred each experiences is so qualitatively different, proceeding from such diametrically opposed sets of values and constituencies, that neither will experience it as a "shared" quality.

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-12-2016, 05:13 PM)Dill Wrote: Don't count on this.  Obama will not enjoy a beer on a relaxing afternoon with the racist who questioned his legitimacy and then proceeded to undo his most important policy achievements. Add to this Trump has become a social pariah of sorts because of the public racism and sexism. Only people expecting direct gains from his office or obligated to for official reasons will be publicly socializing with him.

Both presidents are indeed hated, but for such different reasons. Obama is a black American with a Muslim name, and a practitioner of constitutional law who takes the side of the poor and the middle class against the rich--i.e., what passes for a "socialist" in the US--the perfect storm for a right wing hate fest, which works largely by innuendo and free association rather than logic and factual evidence.  Early on he fell into the sights of the Right Wing Noise Machine which has targeted the Clinton's since the 80s with a series of faux scandals.  Despite that, he brought us out of a recession and reestablished US credibility abroad, and leaves with one of the most scandal-free administrations in history.

Trump, on the other hand, is a white male with an Anglo name and a history of racist business practices, who knows little of the Constitution or government, and whose political rhetoric targets minorities and encourages violence. He is the beneficiary of the Right Wing Noise Machine, which, along with Putin, essentially gave him this election by destroying just enough credibility in the more qualified candidate. His election campaign was week after week of chaos and scandal. Expect more of the same until he resigns or is impeached.

Both men will no doubt continue to be hated--Trump even more than now, Obama much less as it becomes clear how competent he actually was. But the hatred each experiences is so qualitatively different, proceeding from such diametrically opposed sets of values and constituencies, that neither will experience it as a "shared" quality.

I hold out for the possibility of Obama exploring where Trump may be in even slight harmony with some of his accomplishments, and then exploit that possibility into a preservation of those parts of his legacy. I doubt Obama will be an 'all or nothing' type on matters benefiting his supporters. 

[THE Bigzoman]

If Trump really wants to hit the ground running with his "drain the swamp" mantra, he can start by pardoning Manning, Snowden, and Assange.

I'm just hoping he follows through with a flat tax. Possibly remove some taxes on investment as well. I've wanted that for years.

[samhain]

(11-12-2016, 06:32 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: If Trump really wants to hit the ground running with his "drain the swamp" mantra, he can start  by pardoning Manning, Snowden, and Assange.

I'm just hoping he follows through with a flat tax. Possibly remove some taxes on investment as well. I've wanted that for years.

No way in hell hard line conservatives let him do this.  

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 05:26 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: I hold out for the possibility of Obama exploring where Trump may be in even slight harmony with some of his accomplishments, and then exploit that possibility into a preservation of those parts of his legacy. I doubt Obama will be an 'all or nothing' type on matters benefiting his supporters. 

Obama will do or has certainly done this already with their meeting. He is a tactful compromiser; a reasonable man concerned with long-term consequences. He knows offending Trump during the transition won't help the nation.

But I think except for the race wall, much of Trump's domestic agenda will be set by Ryan and others. He has is 5 policy goals, for sure, but they are very underdeveloped and opened to direction/exploitation by others who have the policy knowledge. Much of the time he will have to react to suggestions/directions by people who actually know, and these will be conflicting.

If Trump really wants an infrastructure bill, Democrats may support him on that because it is good for the country.  But for most of the rest, especially heathcare, I forsee a mess. Democrats will be ready to preserve parts of Obamacare, and Trump may be willing to do this (even pulling some of the recalcitrant state governors back on board), but many Republicans won't. Trump's base, many of whom still don't understand he won't be able deliver on his policies, will expect it to be gone by January 31, 2017. Trump may buy some time saying he has to get his own "great" program in place before throwing 20 million off Obamacare.  Everyone will find out you can't just "repeal" the thing now without generating tremendous insecurity and economic instability.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 04:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No they won't. We won't see another Democratic House until after the next district realignments, if then. The Senate will remain in the hands of the GOP after the midterms, and they may even gain a seat or two.

You might be right regarding the House. But I think you expect a more "normal" two years ahead than I do.

I don't see why after two years of Trump the Senate will not change hands though. And I really don't see why Republicans would gain anything. With a Republican House, Senate and presidency, the coming tax, labor, education, treasury, defense and foreign policies--or inaction on said--are going to be closely identified with one party now.

 Either two years of rearranging the economy and foreign policy will produce a strong backlash. Or two years of failing to meet extravagant campaign promises will--embracing rather than draining the swamp--will do the same. 

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 06:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Obama will do or has certainly done this already with their meeting. He is a tactful compromiser; a reasonable man concerned with long-term consequences. .

LMFAO....the liberal airbrushing of Obama's legacy has already started.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 04:50 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: As much as I don't want this to be true, I can't help but agree. The Dems have too much to do to become a winning party again, with less than two years to achieve that.

People said the same thing about the GOP in 2008.  That party was dead.  Over.  Heck, Trump blew it up again, remember?

No matter how often we're told these things are cyclical, we keep forgetting.

It will be good for liberals to be reminded of the importance of the minority party, and checks & balances.  They may come to understand that "obstruction" isn't the right word when bad policy can't get a single vote from across the aisle.  And that no one is obligated to compromise and pass bad legislation.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 04:50 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: As much as I don't want this to be true, I can't help but agree. The Dems have too much to do to become a winning party again, with less than two years to achieve that. You just can't turn back around to significant portions of your base and say "Sorry we ignored you. We're gonna be your champion again next time. Promise!"

Unless a major implosion happens with the GOP before '18, it's going to be a long row to hoe for the Democratic Party.

It is not clear to me how the Democratic party has turned its back on its base, unless you go back to Clinton's embrace of Republican legislation in the mid-90s. Or maybe I am just sleepy and can't remember. I think Republicans have won the noise battle over the last thirty years, defining liberal "elites" and "illegals" as the real source of stagnating wages, and convincing people the US has devolved to little more than a 3rd world country with an inadequate military.  But now THEY are on the hot seat of accountability.  

Hillary only lost because enough Democrats stayed home or left the presidential box unchecked on their ballots in critical states--and she still won the popular vote.  US demographics continue to shift in favor of their party. Pence may be finishing Trump's term, and millenials won't like him a bit.

If the president Trump embarrasses the US nationally, doesn't keep his domestic policy promises--or does keep them and they screw his base--then it may become clear that embracing the party whose policies screw you--have always screwed you since 1980--may not be the best way to protest being ignored.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 07:40 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO....the liberal airbrushing of Obama's legacy has already started.

Presidential legacies are valued comparatively. Obama's will be sandwiched between W.s and Trump's.

That's about all the airbrushing it will need.

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 07:53 PM)Dill Wrote: It is not clear to me how the Democratic party has turned its back on its base, unless you go back to Clinton's embrace of Republican legislation in the mid-90s. Or maybe I am just sleepy and can't remember. I think Republicans have won the noise battle over the last thirty years, defining liberal "elites" and "illegals" as the real source of stagnating wages, and convincing people the US has devolved to little more than a 3rd world country with an inadequate military.  But now THEY are on the hot seat of accountability.  

Hillary only lost because enough Democrats stayed home or left the presidential box unchecked on their ballots in critical states--and she still won the popular vote.  US demographics continue to shift in favor of their party. Pence may be finishing Trump's term, and millenials won't like him a bit.

If the president Trump embarrasses the US nationally, doesn't keep his domestic policy promises--or does keep them and they screw his base--then it may become clear that embracing the party whose policies screw you--have always screwed you since 1980--may not be the best way to protest being ignored.

You're right that Clinton lost because people stayed home, but let's keep in mind that the Democrats were the party of the working class for a long time. They don't feel like they are being represented by the Democrats any longer, that they aren't being listened to. They feel like the politicians elected to represent them are paying more attention to "special interests" (I hate that term, lobbyists are only special interests when they are lobbying for something a politician doesn't like) then they are to them. It's no coincidence that Michigan and Wisconsin, states that hadn't gone red since the 80s, went for Bernie in the primaries. That warning sign went ignored.

I'm not a Bernie fan. His anti-establishment rhetoric is ironic given that he is an old, white, cultural Jew that has been in politics since the New Deal (yes, I am being hyperbolic). But, we can't deny that his message was getting the Democratic party back to its roots. Back to what won over those union members in the industrial areas in the first place. Let's be frank, the Democrats have focused more on social issues than economic. I have been one avoiding looking at this election as a repudiation of anything, but if there were one I would agree with it was that it was a repudiation of that. Yes, it is extremely important that we work to ensure the rights and liberties of all of our people are protected. Civil rights is a hallmark of progress, but I think why so many people are sneering at the idea of it is because their economic concerns are being left behind in this push forward. We need to make sure that we focus our efforts on the economic concerns more.

We also need to stop lumping voters into groups. We need to focus on issues. There are issues that certain groups care about more, sure, but in all we need to stop courting the black vote, the Latino vote, the LGBT vote. We need to focus on the issues. We need to find the issues that all of the people care about and explain how we can help them.

[treee]

(11-12-2016, 08:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're right that Clinton lost because people stayed home, but let's keep in mind that the Democrats were the party of the working class for a long time. They don't feel like they are being represented by the Democrats any longer, that they aren't being listened to. They feel like the politicians elected to represent them are paying more attention to "special interests" (I hate that term, lobbyists are only special interests when they are lobbying for something a politician doesn't like) then they are to them. It's no coincidence that Michigan and Wisconsin, states that hadn't gone red since the 80s, went for Bernie in the primaries. That warning sign went ignored.

I'm not a Bernie fan. His anti-establishment rhetoric is ironic given that he is an old, white, cultural Jew that has been in politics since the New Deal (yes, I am being hyperbolic). But, we can't deny that his message was getting the Democratic party back to its roots. Back to what won over those union members in the industrial areas in the first place. Let's be frank, the Democrats have focused more on social issues than economic. I have been one avoiding looking at this election as a repudiation of anything, but if there were one I would agree with it was that it was a repudiation of that. Yes, it is extremely important that we work to ensure the rights and liberties of all of our people are protected. Civil rights is a hallmark of progress, but I think why so many people are sneering at the idea of it is because their economic concerns are being left behind in this push forward. We need to make sure that we focus our efforts on the economic concerns more.

We also need to stop lumping voters into groups. We need to focus on issues. There are issues that certain groups care about more, sure, but in all we need to stop courting the black vote, the Latino vote, the LGBT vote. We need to focus on the issues. We need to find the issues that all of the people care about and explain how we can help them.

The lack of actual discussion of the numbers by the candidates was disappointed. I'm hoping that the appeal to emotion that both sides have taken a liking to is just a short term trend. I like how Bernie was honest that universal healthcare would raise taxes. He came right out and said it. Then he also relayed how the financially average family would actually save money in total due to the big decrease in out of pocket healthcare spending.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 08:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're right that Clinton lost because people stayed home, but let's keep in mind that the Democrats were the party of the working class for a long time. They don't feel like they are being represented by the Democrats any longer, that they aren't being listened to. They feel like the politicians elected to represent them are paying more attention to "special interests" (I hate that term, lobbyists are only special interests when they are lobbying for something a politician doesn't like) then they are to them. It's no coincidence that Michigan and Wisconsin, states that hadn't gone red since the 80s, went for Bernie in the primaries. That warning sign went ignored.

I'm not a Bernie fan. His anti-establishment rhetoric is ironic given that he is an old, white, cultural Jew that has been in politics since the New Deal (yes, I am being hyperbolic). But, we can't deny that his message was getting the Democratic party back to its roots. Back to what won over those union members in the industrial areas in the first place. Let's be frank, the Democrats have focused more on social issues than economic. I have been one avoiding looking at this election as a repudiation of anything, but if there were one I would agree with it was that it was a repudiation of that. Yes, it is extremely important that we work to ensure the rights and liberties of all of our people are protected. Civil rights is a hallmark of progress, but I think why so many people are sneering at the idea of it is because their economic concerns are being left behind in this push forward. We need to make sure that we focus our efforts on the economic concerns more.

We also need to stop lumping voters into groups. We need to focus on issues. There are issues that certain groups care about more, sure, but in all we need to stop courting the black vote, the Latino vote, the LGBT vote. We need to focus on the issues. We need to find the issues that all of the people care about and explain how we can help them.

That makes a lot sense, Belsnickel. I like your idea about shifting to "issues," though in fact courting those demographic groups was originally about issues.  You are probably right that what I would call addressing the universal rights of these aforementioned demographics has come to be (or to be perceived) as pleading for special interests.  Hard to speak of the "black vote" without implying a "white vote," and hard to work hard publicly for one without seeming to neglect the other.  

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 08:21 PM)treee Wrote: The lack of actual discussion of the numbers by the candidates was disappointed. I'm hoping that the appeal to emotion that both sides have taken a liking to is just a short term trend. I like how Bernie was honest that universal healthcare would raise taxes. He came right out and said it. Then he also relayed how the financially average family would actually save money in total due to the big decrease in out of pocket healthcare spending.

This was not an issues election, this was an emotions election. No other way to describe it, really.

I am the type that would like a return to the days of campaign ads where the candidate looks into the camera and tells you why you should vote for them, what the issues are. So I know where you are coming from.

[Dill]

(11-12-2016, 08:21 PM)treee Wrote:  I like how Bernie was honest that universal healthcare would raise taxes. He came right out and said it.

LOL that's the wrong kind of honesty in US politics.

[treee]

(11-12-2016, 08:33 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL that's the wrong kind of honesty in US politics.

Unfortunate but true. Both sides of the aisle say they're going to create these programs or legislation but when you try to get them to admit that doing so will increase the deficit or raise taxes they will run away with their tail tucked between their legs or pretend you're suddenly speaking a foreign language.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2016, 07:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Presidential legacies are valued comparatively. Obama's will be sandwiched between W.s and Trump's.

That's about all the airbrushing it will need.

Your ability to see into the future is amazing. How do you know Obama won't be a bookend to Trump's Presidency? 

[GMDino]

(11-12-2016, 08:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your ability to see into the future is amazing. How do you know Obama won't be a bookend to Trump's Presidency? 

Can't it be both?

Obama - Trump - Obama.  

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-12-2016, 08:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're right that Clinton lost because people stayed home, but let's keep in mind that the Democrats were the party of the working class for a long time. They don't feel like they are being represented by the Democrats any longer, that they aren't being listened to. They feel like the politicians elected to represent them are paying more attention to "special interests" (I hate that term, lobbyists are only special interests when they are lobbying for something a politician doesn't like) then they are to them. It's no coincidence that Michigan and Wisconsin, states that hadn't gone red since the 80s, went for Bernie in the primaries. That warning sign went ignored.

I'm not a Bernie fan. His anti-establishment rhetoric is ironic given that he is an old, white, cultural Jew that has been in politics since the New Deal (yes, I am being hyperbolic). But, we can't deny that his message was getting the Democratic party back to its roots. Back to what won over those union members in the industrial areas in the first place. Let's be frank, the Democrats have focused more on social issues than economic. I have been one avoiding looking at this election as a repudiation of anything, but if there were one I would agree with it was that it was a repudiation of that. Yes, it is extremely important that we work to ensure the rights and liberties of all of our people are protected. Civil rights is a hallmark of progress, but I think why so many people are sneering at the idea of it is because their economic concerns are being left behind in this push forward. We need to make sure that we focus our efforts on the economic concerns more.

We also need to stop lumping voters into groups. We need to focus on issues. There are issues that certain groups care about more, sure, but in all we need to stop courting the black vote, the Latino vote, the LGBT vote. We need to focus on the issues. We need to find the issues that all of the people care about and explain how we can help them.

You hit on the points about turning our backs to voters that I was referring to previously. Michigan is a prime example, in that HRC didn't even go there in the few weeks running up to the election. She took Michigan for granted, same as she did Wisconsin and likely Pennsylvania. Beyond that, to a point made by Dill, the Democrats did little to nothing about refuting the claims about a "weak military" etc. HRC's arrogance bit her in the ass, by acting like anything Trump said could not possibly be on target. She stopped listening.

I am a Bernie fan, and the main reason is he does bring forward issues. The policy list he presented was about the problems we all face in some varying degrees. He has some good comprehensive explanations for how some if his proposed solutions could work, while others needed some work. The main point with him was the passion he showed in conveying the belief in making things better for as many as possible. Make fun of his mannerisms if you must, but I don't think he deserves ridicule for the care and effort he has put in over his entire career, all for the betterment of the public. The rest of the clown show we've been exposed to pale in comparison. 

How long it will take for Democrats to regroup depends on how well they identify their problems, and who they pick to solve them. Plus who they choose to front the new and improved Party, which that in itself will take a good amount of time to establish the needed credibility to draw the majority back 'home'. I am not one to root for immediate GOP failure as a means to shorten this time span. I do hope that Trump does push for infrastructure programs right off the bat, then come up with a decent 'repaired' Obamacare plan. Neither of these two can be done quickly but ideally buys some time while things settle down. 

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 07:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Presidential legacies are valued comparatively. Obama's will be sandwiched between W.s and Trump's.

That's about all the airbrushing it will need.

Well, consider that it took Obama/Pelosi/Reid just 2 years to wreck a massive mandate and near supermajority...and finish the jobs 6 years later with "Repubs" controlling on 3 branches.

Truthfully, if you're a Democrat and being honest - those 3 are failures because they were given a blank check and unprecedented mandate to make lasting, productive change and more or less shit the bed.

If you add Hillary to the mix, in 8 short years they've achieved a total 180 in the direction/momentum of the Democratic party. Almost as damaging as Bush was to the Republican party by 2008.