Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

01-31-2017 , 12:30 AM
WWE has more credibility and more professional script writing than Trump administration.
01-31-2017 , 12:30 AM

01-31-2017 , 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heroball
Perhaps I'm not making this clear: the revolt (such that it might occur) will more likely come from a constituency that wants the GOP to hew MORE closely to Trump's xenophobia.
You can make that point if you want. However, if you look at protests from your seat in Washington, D.C. and it is happening in your district and you're Republican you have to start worrying about your future at some point.

I don't see Trump's xenophobia growing any further than it has. Granted I could be wrong on that.
01-31-2017 , 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewsavman
Oh, hey! We agree on something!
We probably agree on a fair amount of abstract positions. How did you feel about The Patriot Act in 2001 though?
01-31-2017 , 12:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cut

[/IMG]
This thread got me shook and spooked. Can't even grind now O_o
01-31-2017 , 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
I don't see it. It's not Trump supporters up in arms and protesting and calling their representatives.



Trump supporters are the minority. They always were and always will be. That's why Trump/Bannon are doing the **** they are doing. They are trying to fuel the flames of hatred and intolerance. It's the only way they can win the long game and they know it.



There's a reason why the Resistance is growing. It's because a lot of people are fed up w/ this **** and are uniting together to stop this **** stain of a president. Why do you think Trump is trying to de-legitimatize the voting by saying 3-5 million illegals voted against him? Voter suppression is the only way he can stay in power.

I hope you're right.
01-31-2017 , 12:47 AM
So far the Trump supporters have mostly demonstrated by murdering 6 people in Quebec and burning down a mosque in Texas.
01-31-2017 , 12:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Yeah Heroball is a little too pessimistic. We've seen a vast mobilization of the left twice in 10 days. North Dakota's Republican Senator already said she's a no on DeVos because of constituent calls.

It's a struggle for the very soul of America, and the right is deeply committed to their goals.
Heitkamp's a Democrat up in 2018. She won the 2012 race 50.2-49.3
01-31-2017 , 12:49 AM
If there are any Democrats on the GOP side of something Heitkamp is always among them.
01-31-2017 , 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heroball
I hope you're right.
All those nationwide protests on a Sunday night about the Muslim ban at AIRPORTS is a good sign. Airports have to be among the hardest places to stage protests in the first place. They are a pain the ass to get to; you have to park and walk 1/2 mile to where you need to go. And thousands of people did this in numerous airports throughout the country. Add in the fact that hundreds of lawyers showed up pro bono? Talk about holy ****.

These are all good things.
01-31-2017 , 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RV Life
I don't see it. It's not Trump supporters up in arms and protesting and calling their representatives.

Trump supporters are the minority. They always were and always will be. That's why Trump/Bannon are doing the **** they are doing. They are trying to fuel the flames of hatred and intolerance. It's the only way they can win the long game and they know it.

There's a reason why the Resistance is growing. It's because a lot of people are fed up w/ this **** and are uniting together to stop this **** stain of a president. Why do you think Trump is trying to de-legitimatize the voting by saying 3-5 million illegals voted against him? Voter suppression is the only way he can stay in power.
Trump supporters aren't the minority where it matters though.

Racism has driven this from the beginning. Even Trump knows. That's why he opened with the wall. People aren't going to turn on him for banning Muslims.
01-31-2017 , 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
If there are any Democrats on the GOP side of something Heitkamp is always among them.
You do realize where she if from, don't you?
01-31-2017 , 12:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D
You can make that point if you want. However, if you look at protests from your seat in Washington, D.C. and it is happening in your district and you're Republican you have to start worrying about your future at some point.

I don't see Trump's xenophobia growing any further than it has. Granted I could be wrong on that.
One problem...

Quote:
However, 54 percent of registered voters in districts represented by Republicans viewed Mr. Trump favorably compared with only 42 percent who view him unfavorably. More important, people who identify with the party overwhelmingly view him favorably. In districts represented by Republicans, fully 87 percent of registered Republicans view Mr. Trump favorably.

Support for Mr. Trump in G.O.P. districts is even higher among registered Republicans who are extremely interested in politics (94 percent favorable), identify as strong Republicans (92 percent favorable) or say they are very conservative (94 percent favorable). These groups are especially likely to vote in primaries and are key constituencies in nomination contests for higher office. As a result, they wield disproportionate influence on legislator behavior.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/u...smtyp=cur&_r=0
01-31-2017 , 12:54 AM
Are we really relying on polls with an 85k sample size?
01-31-2017 , 12:55 AM
how he can be over 90% with any type of group including nazis is beyond me

he's not even 90% favorable among his wife and kids
01-31-2017 , 01:04 AM
In the life sometimes takes a while, but still at some point will come at you fast department, there's this:



Kicker: Sessions voted against Yates' confirmation.
01-31-2017 , 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D
You do realize where she if from, don't you?
Home of Quentin Burdick, progressive Senator from 1960-1992.
01-31-2017 , 01:05 AM
01-31-2017 , 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amurophil
This is cute and all, but it is meaningless unless the GOP cares.
01-31-2017 , 01:12 AM
Goddammit. I only looked away for a few hours. How can one dude produce a ****pile like this so fast?
01-31-2017 , 01:13 AM
Massachusetts Attorney General

01-31-2017 , 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amurophil
obscure

https://twitter.com/dandrezner/statu...96716982878209
01-31-2017 , 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
how he can be over 90% with any type of group including nazis is beyond me

he's not even 90% favorable among his wife and kids
Ditto. Those Putinesque ratings are as scary as anything so far. It corresponds with the Gallup poll released yesterday.
01-31-2017 , 01:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klingbard
In the life sometimes takes a while, but still at some point will come at you fast department, there's this:



Kicker: Sessions voted against Yates' confirmation.
Beyond priceless, thanks for that.
01-31-2017 , 01:24 AM
A decent response by a political science professor to the 'Coup trial balloon' article that went viral yesterday. Calmed me down a little bit.

https://tompepinsky.com/2017/01/30/w...trong-leaders/

Quote:
One of the many things that studying authoritarian politics has taught me is that from the perspective of the outsider, weak leaders often act like strong leaders, and strong leaders often act like they are indifferent. Weak leaders have every incentive to portray themselves as stronger than they are in order to get their way. They gamble on splashy policies. They escalate crises. This is just as true for democrats as for dictators. (Note the parallels with Jessica Weeks on constraints on authoritarian rulers and their foreign policy behavior.)

The consummate strong ruler is one who does not issue any command or instruction at all because she does not have to—her will is implemented already. Indonesia’s strongman leader Soeharto was sometimes portrayed as The Smiling General, an almost aloof Javanese sultan. How incongruous this is: When Soeharto came to power, at least 500,000 people were killed! That is strength. More precisely, it is power.

How to square my perspective on President Trump’s new administration with the more frightening alternatives? The problem is what a social scientist would call “observational equivalence” of two diametrically opposing arguments. We have two theories of why something is happening, and yet we cannot tell which is the “correct” theory based on the data that we observe. We have precious little evidence about what is happening within President Trump’s administration. What we observe is its output: executive orders, staffing decisions, and personnel management. What we don’t observe is everything that we need to know to interpret those outputs.

Observational equivalence is a big problem when studying political power, as political scientists have known for decades (PDF, PDF). We cannot infer what someone wants, or whether power is being exerted effectively, based on outcomes alone. It is probably for this reason that there is a genre of political science writing comprised of carefully revisiting an administration’s history and reinterpreting it to show either (1) the surprisingly effective use of power behind the scenes or (2) administrative incoherence or division. The best example of the former is probably Fred Greenstein’s reinterpretation of Eisehower, entitled The Hidden-Hand Presidency. Bush at War gives a moderate view of the latter.

Let me explain how observational equivalence works with an example. President Trump may have brought Steve Bannon into the NSC because he is consolidating power and intends to sideline all regular establishment players in the formulation of American foreign policy. Or he might have brought Bannon into the NSC because he is so isolated that he needs someone who he believes he can trust, and everyone in the foreign policy establishment is dragging feet and dissembling. The former is a sign of strength. The latter is a sign of weakness. Both have the same observable implication.

Another example: the swift release of President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration without much advice or feedback from the affected bureaucracies may be evidence that the administration is completely centralizing control within the office of the president. Or it might be because the administration does not understand standard operating procedures in a presidential administration. Or it might be because they worry that they have lost the narrative, need to do something, and a gross Nazi is calling the shots. Again, only the first is a sign of strength. The latter two are signs of weakness. All three of the same observable implications, but have radically different interpretations.

...

      
m