[Because My Tears Are Delicious to You] High Justice by Jerry Pournelle

[James Nicoll]

High Justice by Jerry Pournelle

https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

[Carl Fink]

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

I read this back in the 70s, and I remember thinking something like, "Lots
of people like these stories. What am I missing? It's just the author making
people who agree with him into heroes and then manipulating events so they
win."

[m***@sky.com]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

I read this back in the 70s, and I remember thinking something like, "Lots
of people like these stories. What am I missing? It's just the author making
people who agree with him into heroes and then manipulating events so they
win."
--
Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!

I think I still have this book. I think I bought it because I'd enjoyed the Janissaries and some of to CoDominium series, but wasn't enormously impressed. You have inspired me to start rereading the Janissaries series (assuming I can find the later books) which I am finding reasonably enjoyable.

Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they should change their views.

[Carl Fink]

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."

[Johnny1A]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."

That's true of _any_ fictional character, though, with regard to the author.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Carl Fink

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."

That's true of _any_ fictional character, though, with regard to the author.

Yes, that's an inherent limitation of the art form.

But I don't think that negates the complaint. The complaint, as I see it, is
that Jerry Pournelle isn't playing fair with the reader; he is creating a
reality in his works that isn't like the one we live in, and so he is being
dishonest about the merits of the views he is promoting.

I'm not sure I agree with this criticism in the specific case of Pournelle, but
I have seen this sort of thing being done by other authors.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Carl Fink

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."

That's true of _any_ fictional character, though, with regard to the author.

Yes, that's an inherent limitation of the art form.
But I don't think that negates the complaint. The complaint, as I see it, is
that Jerry Pournelle isn't playing fair with the reader; he is creating a
reality in his works that isn't like the one we live in, and so he is being
dishonest about the merits of the views he is promoting.

An alternate reality. Sounds like a description of "science fiction"
to me.

This is looking a lot like the attacks in /Skeptical Inquirer/ on
Robert J Sawyer for /daring/ to write a science fiction novel
(/Calculating God/) in which a scientist is forced, by the evidence,
to conclude that something that might reasonably be called "God"
actually exists.

I must say, though, that (so far) the discussion here is a lot more
civil.

Unless you are saying that he is treating that reality as real and
promoting these views /outside/ of his stories/novels, of course.

Post by Quadibloc
I'm not sure I agree with this criticism in the specific case of Pournelle, but
I have seen this sort of thing being done by other authors.
John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
Unless you are saying that he is treating that reality as real and
promoting these views /outside/ of his stories/novels, of course.

Science fiction certainly is about alternate realities.

Some of the political views Jerry Pournelle has promoted outside of stories and
novels are even congenial to me, such as his advocacy of the Strategic Defense
Initiative in the book Mutual Assured Survival.

The criticism levelled at him, which I think has some validity, though, is that
it isn't just that his stories are about a reality with technological elements
differing from the one we live in, but he is actually playing false to human
nature. That qualifies as bad writing in any genre.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Unless you are saying that he is treating that reality as real and
promoting these views /outside/ of his stories/novels, of course.

Science fiction certainly is about alternate realities.
Some of the political views Jerry Pournelle has promoted outside of stories and
novels are even congenial to me, such as his advocacy of the Strategic Defense
Initiative in the book Mutual Assured Survival.
The criticism levelled at him, which I think has some validity, though, is that
it isn't just that his stories are about a reality with technological elements
differing from the one we live in, but he is actually playing false to human
nature. That qualifies as bad writing in any genre.

So ... you believe human nature is the same even in alternate
realities?

Alternately, your contention is that an alternate reality /cannot/ be
based on a difference in human nature?

But perhaps he is /claiming/ that his characters have no differences
in human nature, when in fact they clearly do.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Unless you are saying that he is treating that reality as real and
promoting these views /outside/ of his stories/novels, of course.

Science fiction certainly is about alternate realities.
Some of the political views Jerry Pournelle has promoted outside of stories and
novels are even congenial to me, such as his advocacy of the Strategic Defense
Initiative in the book Mutual Assured Survival.
The criticism levelled at him, which I think has some validity, though, is that
it isn't just that his stories are about a reality with technological elements
differing from the one we live in, but he is actually playing false to human
nature. That qualifies as bad writing in any genre.

So ... you believe human nature is the same even in alternate
realities?
Alternately, your contention is that an alternate reality /cannot/ be
based on a difference in human nature?
But perhaps he is /claiming/ that his characters have no differences
in human nature, when in fact they clearly do.

I don't know about ever making an _explicit_ claim, but in general, a science-
fiction story about the future is expected to be a story about a possible
future; it isn't a prophecy of the future, but it's still set in something the
past of which is assumed to be almost identical to the present when it was
written.

And a story like, say, "Oath of Fealty" presents a community that has solved
some of the problems our societies have. The intention is not just to entertain,
but to provoke people to thinking about how we might do likewise. If the author
has fudged things to make his vision look more workable than it really would be,
that's not playing fair, and can rightly be criticized as dishonest.

Jerry Pournelle isn't necessarily a major offender in this regard, but there are
other authors who have done this sort of thing quite blatantly. So, yes, it's a
thing that is possible to do.

John Savard

[Carl Fink]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Carl Fink

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."

That's true of _any_ fictional character, though, with regard to the author.

It doesn't have to feel manipulative by utterly misrepresenting how real
people act, though.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Carl Fink

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."

That's true of _any_ fictional character, though, with regard to the author.

It doesn't have to feel manipulative by utterly misrepresenting how real
people act, though.
--

Generally, that reaction appears whenever a reader reads a story based on political assumptions very different than his or her own. Liberals get that reaction reading right-wing leaning stuff, conservatives get it reading liberal-based (or liberal assumption based would be a better way to say it) stories, libertarians get it when reading either, liberals and conservatives both tend to get it from libertarian-based writings, etc.

"But that's not what would happen!" or "That's not how it works!" is more or less the common reaction. It can come from reading Ayn Rand or China Mieville, from reading Robert Sawyer or Robert Heinlein.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Carl Fink

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."

That's true of _any_ fictional character, though, with regard to the author.

It doesn't have to feel manipulative by utterly misrepresenting how real
people act, though.

Many science fiction writers are very well read in history and anthropology.
One technique such people sometimes use in their writing is to describe a
future, or alternate history, or other milieu (perhaps long ago, in a galaxy
far, far away), and place in that setting a culture that has characteristics
of a culture that has really existed in human history. Jack Vance found
the Samurai of pre-Meiji restoration Japan to be very interesting in their
psychology, and used them as a model for the nobility in his 1966 novella
_The Last Castle_, particularly in the way they value the image they present
to others more highly than their own survival. I believe authors do this because
they find the cultures and people they learn of to be interesting, and
not to play "gotcha" with readers who claim that real people couldn't possibly
act like the people in the story.

Something like this can also work in reverse. Gordon Dickson wrote several
stories about Dilbians, iron-age humanoids resembling Kodiak bears in size
and physical features. The author created an interesting culture and
psychology for the Dilbians not patterned on any particular human society.
However, Mr. Dickson said that a Greek reader who enjoyed the stories would
tell him that the Dilbians were just like Greeks, or an Italian would say
that Dilbians were just like Italians.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[m***@sky.com]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by m***@sky.com
Pournelle does have a political line, but he does give his characters an
attitude that I think people can relate to quite broadly. They're not
right of centre because they're nasty: they would claim to be facing up to
the facts as they are. If you can present them with better evidence, they
should change their views.

The trouble is, the evidence these fictional people are using is "The
contents of Jerry's head."
--
Read John Grant's book, Corrupted Science: http://a.co/9UsUoGu
Dedicated to ... Carl Fink!

One of Pournelle's themes was the creation of a large urban underclass dependent on well-intentioned welfare. If this came out of his head, it has spread to a remarkable degree. Walter Jon Williams has a criminal underclass (albeit with no very clear link to welfare) in the Praxis series. Babylon 5 somehow managed to have a semi-criminal underclass in a space station. No doubt this is convenient for writers - even utopian Star Trek has equivalents, albeit not in the Federation but in its neighbours. If anything, Pournelle is optimistic in having some of his characters somehow claw their way up from the underclass.

Real life politicians in the US have introduced welfare reforms that look quite harsh from Europe. Here the Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair introduced something of a crackdown on so-called anti-social behaviour. The current Conservative government is (very slowly due to poor project management) rolling out changes in our welfare system aimed mostly at removing so-called poverty traps where removal of welfare as people earn more produces the equivalent of very high tax rates.

[Steve Coltrin]

begin fnord

Post by Carl Fink

Post by James Nicoll
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

I read this back in the 70s, and I remember thinking something like, "Lots
of people like these stories. What am I missing? It's just the author making
people who agree with him into heroes and then manipulating events so they
win."

Pournelle didn't invent the subgenre of "Hard Men Making Hard
Decisions (While Hard)", but he bears a lot of blame for its spread.

[Carl Fink]

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by Carl Fink

Post by James Nicoll
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

I read this back in the 70s, and I remember thinking something like, "Lots
of people like these stories. What am I missing? It's just the author making
people who agree with him into heroes and then manipulating events so they
win."

Pournelle didn't invent the subgenre of "Hard Men Making Hard
Decisions (While Hard)", but he bears a lot of blame for its spread.

You didn't like his "the hero massacres the entire underclass" story, maybe?

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by Carl Fink

Post by James Nicoll
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

I read this back in the 70s, and I remember thinking something like, "Lots
of people like these stories. What am I missing? It's just the author making
people who agree with him into heroes and then manipulating events so they
win."

Pournelle didn't invent the subgenre of "Hard Men Making Hard
Decisions (While Hard)", but he bears a lot of blame for its spread.

Please, _please,_ tell me that the last part of that description doesn't
refer to the men in question being perpetually aroused.

And if you /can't/ tell me that, then tell me why he thought anyone
would want to read about it?

[Quadibloc]

Post by Chrysi Cat
Please, _please,_ tell me that the last part of that description doesn't
refer to the men in question being perpetually aroused.

From context, it seems to refer to the men being tough, ruthless, and stuff like
that, with sexual arousal nowhere to be found.

John Savard

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Chrysi Cat
Please, _please,_ tell me that the last part of that description doesn't
refer to the men in question being perpetually aroused.

From context, it seems to refer to the men being tough, ruthless, and stuff like
that, with sexual arousal nowhere to be found.

It is hardly impossible that the author was hard while writing hard
about hard men making hard decision.

[m***@sky.com]

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by Carl Fink

Post by James Nicoll
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

I read this back in the 70s, and I remember thinking something like, "Lots
of people like these stories. What am I missing? It's just the author making
people who agree with him into heroes and then manipulating events so they
win."

Pournelle didn't invent the subgenre of "Hard Men Making Hard
Decisions (While Hard)", but he bears a lot of blame for its spread.

Please, _please,_ tell me that the last part of that description doesn't
refer to the men in question being perpetually aroused.
And if you /can't/ tell me that, then tell me why he thought anyone
would want to read about it?
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

Ignoring any double entendre from James, the phrase "hard man" was common currency at school in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. A web search picked up an episode of Taggart (detective series set in and around Glasgow) and I wouldn't be surprised to find it was Scots and was also common in Canada. As I heard it used, a hard man was somebody with a reputation for (at the very least) not shrinking from violence, and being very competent at dealing it out when necessary. I think Pournelle's characters are described as tough-minded, although it is just possible I am remembering this from Drake's Hammer's Slammers. The attitude I would actually applaud is perhaps slightly weaker, and is described in "Sour Note on Palayata" by James H. Schmitz, which I have as part of the book "Trigger & Friends" (Edited by Eric Flint, by the way!)

the Service People showed an unqualified willingness to see any situation exactly as it was and began dealing with it immediately in the best possible manner, to the limits of human ability. It was an attitude that guaranteed in effect that any problem which was humanly resolvable was going to get resolved.
(End quote)

As regards double entendres, I note that (as almost said in an episode of The West Wing) we have quite enough single entendres to cope with these days that there is no need to start on the double entendres.

FWIW in a school which these days would probably be seen as atypically well-behaved, a few people in the class stood out as the hard men (surprisingly enough, one of them was actually quite bright). School sports isn't as big as it is in the states so there was no real group of "Jocks" apart from this.

[Kevrob]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Chrysi Cat

Post by Steve Coltrin
begin fnord

Post by Carl Fink

Post by James Nicoll
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

I read this back in the 70s, and I remember thinking something like, "Lots
of people like these stories. What am I missing? It's just the author making
people who agree with him into heroes and then manipulating events so they
win."

Pournelle didn't invent the subgenre of "Hard Men Making Hard
Decisions (While Hard)", but he bears a lot of blame for its spread.

Please, _please,_ tell me that the last part of that description doesn't
refer to the men in question being perpetually aroused.
And if you /can't/ tell me that, then tell me why he thought anyone
would want to read about it?
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

Ignoring any double entendre from James, the phrase "hard man" was common currency at school in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. A web search picked up an episode of Taggart (detective series set in and around Glasgow) and I wouldn't be surprised to find it was Scots and was also common in Canada. As I heard it used, a hard man was somebody with a reputation for (at the very least) not shrinking from violence, and being very competent at dealing it out when necessary. I think Pournelle's characters are described as tough-minded, although it is just possible I am remembering this from Drake's Hammer's Slammers. The attitude I would actually applaud is perhaps slightly weaker, and is described in "Sour Note on Palayata" by James H. Schmitz, which I have as part of the book "Trigger & Friends" (Edited by Eric Flint, by the way!)
the Service People showed an unqualified willingness to see any situation exactly as it was and began dealing with it immediately in the best possible manner, to the limits of human ability. It was an attitude that guaranteed in effect that any problem which was humanly resolvable was going to get resolved.
(End quote)
As regards double entendres, I note that (as almost said in an episode of The West Wing) we have quite enough single entendres to cope with these days that there is no need to start on the double entendres.
FWIW in a school which these days would probably be seen as atypically well-behaved, a few people in the class stood out as the hard men (surprisingly enough, one of them was actually quite bright). School sports isn't as big as it is in the states so there was no real group of "Jocks" apart from this.

I recognize "hard man" as an Irishism that goes way back, used to describe
criminals, or rebels such as IRA men. Roughly equivalent to "tough guy" in
the US, either accurately describing a fellow who can give it out and take it,
or, ironically, one who can't take it, and may be bluffing. "So, ya think
you're a tough guy, do ya?" from every 1930s black and white Warner's film,
ever, right?

[quote]

We are the dreamers and believers
The singers and the sinners and the breakers of the mould
We're the lovers and the leavers the lonely self deceivers
We are the music makers and the hard men for the road

[/quote] - https://petestjohn.com/works/dreamers-and-believers/

{With a tip of the cloth cap to Arthur O'Shaughnessy

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/54933/ode- }

From the 1970s, but I can't

See also:

https://notoneoffbritishisms.com/2013/05/07/hard-man/

Kevin R

(a "soft man" if ever there was one!}

[Johnny1A]

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs
The second is that the blurb on this cover baffles me. ​“The Book That Started It All!”? What did it start? An abortive future history with a single collection and one novel in it? Not a wave of near-future space colonization stories; I sought those out with the fervour of a pack of starved dogs swarming a homeless person and I can tell you they remained scarce until the ​‘00s.

I think the issue is that some confusion exists about whether _High Justice_ is part of Pournelle's CoDominium/'Mote in God's Eye' time-line/universe. It's often listed as part of it by various people, and sometimes by the publisher.

Was it? I'm not sure. I kind of suspect that Pournelle originally had it in mind that way, but later stories in the CD/MIGE universe kind of pushed the HJ stuff out of continuity.

If JEP did originally intend that, it would explain a few things about the HJ background.

Post by James Nicoll
Given Pournelle’s political affiliations, my guess is that Fiji’s patrons are the Red Chinese
As to the first, it’s probably Pournelle’s modernization of the Back to Africa movement. As to the second, that anyone takes the US up on such a cheap-ass offer implies that the US in this continuity is kind of a ​“shit-hole”

In both the original and the misguidedly 'updated' versions of the CD/MIGE universe, the USA does indeed head in that direction rapidly, starting in the late 20C, CoDominium membership proves both corrupting and inervating. Individual freedom declines steadily, and America becomes ever more class-dominated (albeit unofficially). I could imagine that version of the USA wanting to deport anybody too troublesome, and at that stage deporting them off-world would have been impossible.

Still, there are obvious issues with the idea that HJ and EtG are part of the CD universe, but I suspect they might just have _started out_ that way, before the CD universe changed too much to incorporate them.

[Quadibloc]

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

His view on the space economy isn't much different from the Earth economy during
events like the gold rush.

John Savard

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

"The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of politician he
replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been burned once,
the voters would exercise due diligence? "

We can only hope.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

"The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of politician he
replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been burned once,
the voters would exercise due diligence? "
We can only hope.

I think the hope that voters will _try_ to exercise due diligence is likely to
be granted.

Unfortunately, voters often have a limited choice of politicians during
elections, and there is also the problem that they can't read minds.

So, while I would take issue with the "far-fetched" claim, I would not blame the
voters.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

"The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of politician he
replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been burned once,
the voters would exercise due diligence? "
We can only hope.

Even if politicians don't start dirty, they're liable
to get dirty.

Remember that President Trump campaigned on cleaning up
Washington. I half believe that: I think he's cleaning up.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

"The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of politician he
replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been burned once,
the voters would exercise due diligence? "
We can only hope.

Even if politicians don't start dirty, they're liable
to get dirty.
Remember that President Trump campaigned on cleaning up
Washington. I half believe that: I think he's cleaning up.

One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high. Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Lynn

[Quadibloc]

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high. Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

I thought he was moving out because more generally local politicians didn't like
him...

John Savard

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

     "The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
      only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of
politician he
      replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been
burned once,
      the voters would exercise due diligence? "
We can only hope.

Even if politicians don't start dirty, they're liable
to get dirty.
Remember that President Trump campaigned on cleaning up
Washington.  I half believe that: I think he's cleaning up.

One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

[Kevrob]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.

Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.

Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act

NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Kevin R

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was. Second, he _is_ the
incumbent now.

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

[Kevrob]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.

https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html

Kevin R

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ? and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

Lynn

[Johnny1A]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ? and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.
Lynn

Usually, but not always and not always big ones.

The GOP is suffering from a structural disadvantage: a lot of their elected officials and their voters aren't just on different pages, they're reading from different books. At street level, the GOP is social conservative and fiscally moderate, very nationalist, want sharply reduced legal immigration and want illegal immigration stomped on hard, somewhat friendly to government interference in the economy, friendly to Social Security and Medicare, etc. In fact, they tend _en masse_ to look a lot like moderate New Dealers.

At the top, the GOP is pro-business (meaning corporate interests, though they talk a good game of free markets), secular and socially liberal (privately), and internationalist. The few that aren't corporatist tend to lean libertarian, and that, too, is an unpopular stance with the GOP voting base.

This split has been building up for years, Trump isn't a cause of it, he's an effect.

It wasn't Trump who cost the GOP control of the House in 2018, it was more Paul Ryan and his fellow travelers. It's hard to get the GOP voters to the polls with calls for privatization of SoSec or more free trade, and the corporate interests that are the big GOP donors want _more_ immigration, while GOP voters intensely want _less_. You can't compromise opposite goals.

So yeah, it's entirely possible that GOP voters might turn out in sufficient numbers to send Trump back to the WH and still not be motivated to vote GOP down ticket. Maybe Trump can make up for that, maybe he can't.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 07:40:55 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

Actually, since at least Reagan, it's been the /Republican's/ to win
or lose. The Dems win when the Republican's lose.

They lose by messing up. They lost in 1992 by ignoring the economy
while boasting about liberating Kuwait while leaving Saddam in place.

They lost in 1994 by shutting down the government for the first time
(if not ever, then certainly for a long long time). It turned out that
the American people /like/ their government and expect it to stay in
operation, contrary to what the Republicans were asserting at the
time.

Obama may have been an exception: a Democrat who actually tried to
win. Unlike, say, Hillary, who mostly tried to raise money on the
coasts.

So 2020 will, I suspect, mostly depend on how badly Trump messes up
between now and then. How bad the Trump Trade War gets. How many drug
smuggles cut holes in his Wall. Whether he manages to produce the
Trump Depression, or lose a city to a nuke from his good friend in N
Korea (two /very/ unlikely but nonetheless possible events).

But, yes, it /would/ help if the Democratic Party candidate actually
/tried/ to win this time. It shouldn't be that hard to find one that
will; most of their local candidates do it every election. It's only
the Baby Boomers at the top that seem to have lost the knack. Well,
that and becoming addicted to insane health care proposals.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
Obama may have been an exception: a Democrat who actually tried to
win.

In 2008, I don't think that Obama "won" the election more than McCain lost it.

The election had been close - and maybe that was because of Obama working hard
to win. But McCain had an edge; Americans were generally still very concerned
about the War on Terror, so soon after 9/11, and McCain pledged to stay the
course, while Obama wanted to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq as quickly as
possible.

And then McCain made one fatal mistake.

Some commentators, earlier in the race, speculated about the unthinkable: if the
terrorists attacked again, would that lead to a McCain landslide?

Instead, something else happened. The stock market crashed.

What did McCain do? He made public comments on the matter that basically
amounted to *channeling Herbert Hoover*, for Pete's sake! And then when
President G. W. Bush quickly moved to enact emergency measures to limit the
damage to the economy from the stock market crash... McCain obstructed them
until his state got a bigger share of gravy.

Ordinary working-class people know what a stock market crash can mean. It risks
turning into a cataclysm like the Great Depression. It is, therefore, a very
serious matter, a crisis of the first rank, requiring immediate and intense
attention.

If it hadn't been for this, there is no reason to expect that McCain could have
lost the election.

John Savard

[Johnny1A]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 07:40:55 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

Actually, since at least Reagan, it's been the /Republican's/ to win
or lose. The Dems win when the Republican's lose.
They lose by messing up. They lost in 1992 by ignoring the economy
while boasting about liberating Kuwait while leaving Saddam in place.
They lost in 1994 by shutting down the government for the first time
(if not ever, then certainly for a long long time). It turned out that
the American people /like/ their government and expect it to stay in
operation, contrary to what the Republicans were asserting at the
time.

It wasn't so much the shutdown, as that they shut it down for the _wrong reason_. The GOPhas had a structural problem for decades because, as Andrew Codevilla pointed out years ago, at street level the GOP looks like Reagan and Buchanan and (still somewhat) Eisenhower, at the top it looks like Nelson Rockefeller.

The cycle has been the same ever since 1988. The Dems overreach on cultural or nationalist issues, the GOP wins an election on that basis (1994, 2002, 2004, 2010, 2014, etc.), but then tries to _govern_ as if they had won on pseudo-libertarianish/corporatist economic agenda, 'fiscal conservative/social liberal'. This isn't what their voters were voting for, and they proceed to lose the following cycle.

George H.W. Bush _campaigned_ as Ronald Reagan's third term, but governed as a northeastern Rockefeller-style patrician Republican. This resulted in an embarrassing primary challenge from Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot getting 19% of the popular vote in the fall of 1992. (Perot's vote was in some was the proto-Trump moment.)

Bill Clinton is remembered (falsely) as a 'moderate Dem' these days, but it's often forgotten that in 1993-94 the Clinton Administration was dominated more by Hillary's faction, and was much more liberal. The GOP captured both houses of Congress over it, recapturing the House for the first time in four decades.

Newt Gingrich and the new group immediately proceeded to govern on...entitlement reform. Which was suicidal and a gift to the Democrats, it played directly into the hands of the Dems and the media, and straight into every negative stereotype the public held about Republicans. They hadn't been elected to do that, and they ignored the issues they had won on...and lost to Clinton in 1996 because of it.

In 2004, Bush the Younger won something of an upset victory over Kerry over foreign policy and national security issues. He then proceeded to channel his father, trying to enact various unpopular bits of the business agenda, culminating in an attempt at immigration amnesty that cost the GOP both houses of Congress in 2006. Again, they weren't elected to make immigration easier and safer, but that's what big business wanted, try tried to do it, boom.

In 2010, through the TEA party movement and Obama's overreach, the GOP captured the House again and would have captured the Senate if they'd done a slightly better job of choosing candidates. In 2014 they did recapture the Senate. They then proceeded to fund every single Obama priority and pretend to resist his agenda. Their trouble was that their voters were on to them, they could _see_ that the Congressional GOP had no interest in opposing the Dems on anything that their base voters care about.

2016 and the GOP tried to offer their voters...another Bush. In fact, both major parties tried to lock in the status quo by giving the electorate a choice of a Bush or a Clinton..._again_. "Do you want an open-borders, corporatist, social liberal, globalist free trading Republican or an open borders, corporatist social liberal, globalist free trading Democrat?"

The Dems succeeded in forcing Hillary onto the fall ticket, the GOP failed spectacularly in their effort to ram Jeb Bush down their own voters' throats. Jeb spent a gazillion dollars to win 3 delegates.

But the dominant business wing appears to have learned _nothing_. They've spent the last 3 years trying to get back to 'normalcy', a normalcy their own voters hate almost as much as the Dems do.

Post by Paul S Person
Obama may have been an exception: a Democrat who actually tried to
win. Unlike, say, Hillary, who mostly tried to raise money on the
coasts.

Hillary, IMHO, _hates_ politics. That is, she hates the 'retail politics' of actually campaigning, asking for votes, talking to people. I think the same of Al Gore. Obama might not love campaigning, but I don't think he hates it. Bill Clinton _loves_ it. So, apparently, does Trump.

The whole point of 2016 was to set it up so Hillary inherits the White House without having to actually go out and campaign for it. Against Jeb Bush, who also seemed to hate the whole affair, she'd almost surely have won. Against Trump, the pre-planned playbook was irrelevant.

Post by Paul S Person
But, yes, it /would/ help if the Democratic Party candidate actually
/tried/ to win this time. It shouldn't be that hard to find one that
will; most of their local candidates do it every election. It's only
the Baby Boomers at the top that seem to have lost the knack. Well,
that and becoming addicted to insane health care proposals.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

The health care proposals are the _less insane_ part of the agenda of their limousine liberal faction. They focus their because it's the least bad option.

What the business wing is to the GOP, the white liberal upper class faction is to the Dems. They dominate the party, but their agenda is unpopular even with a lot of their own side.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:43:24 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.

But none of the choices is appealing.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.
Lynn

I don't know if Hillary's health will permit her to do it, and it would be interesting to see if the Clintons still have the hold over the party machinery to force the issue...and it would be interesting to see if the Dem base would tolerate Clintons Round 39530.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.
Lynn

I don't know if Hillary's health will permit her to do it, and it would be interesting to see if the Clintons still have the hold over the party machinery to force the issue...and it would be interesting to see if the Dem base would tolerate Clintons Round 39530.

It ain't Hillary.

Lynn

[Johnny1A]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.
Lynn

I don't know if Hillary's health will permit her to do it, and it would be interesting to see if the Clintons still have the hold over the party machinery to force the issue...and it would be interesting to see if the Dem base would tolerate Clintons Round 39530.

It ain't Hillary.
Lynn

Who did you have in mind?

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:22:56 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.
Lynn

I don't know if Hillary's health will permit her to do it, and it would be interesting to see if the Clintons still have the hold over the party machinery to force the issue...and it would be interesting to see if the Dem base would tolerate Clintons Round 39530.

It ain't Hillary.
Lynn

Who did you have in mind?

There are 17 declared candidates and Hillary is not one of them.

"The party machinery" can't nominate a candidate who hasn't
participated in the primaries and caucuses.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.
Lynn

I don't know if Hillary's health will permit her to do it, and it would be interesting to see if the Clintons still have the hold over the party machinery to force the issue...and it would be interesting to see if the Dem base would tolerate Clintons Round 39530.

It ain't Hillary.
Lynn

Who did you have in mind?

I was thinking Michelle Obama. But apparently Bloomberg is jumping into
the fray today. I did not see that one coming.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/bloomberg-preparing-to-file-for-alabama-presidential-primary-000322

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 18:43:35 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.
Lynn

I don't know if Hillary's health will permit her to do it, and it would be interesting to see if the Clintons still have the hold over the party machinery to force the issue...and it would be interesting to see if the Dem base would tolerate Clintons Round 39530.

It ain't Hillary.
Lynn

Who did you have in mind?

I was thinking Michelle Obama. But apparently Bloomberg is jumping into
the fray today. I did not see that one coming.

I have often wondered whether Michelle Obama had any political
ambitions.

Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/bloomberg-preparing-to-file-for-alabama-presidential-primary-000322
Lynn

[David Johnston]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 00:47:41 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

If Trump is re-elected, why would the House not flip to R ?

For the same reason that the Republicans lost seats at the mid-term.

Post by Lynn McGuire
and the
same with the Senate. I foresee Trump carrying 40+ states.
Presidential elections have coattails.

The current election is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't win
there is something wrong with them. However there is increasing
evidence that there is, in fact, something wrong with them.

The actual Democrat candidate has not declared yet. They are still
"thinking" about it.
Lynn

I don't know if Hillary's health will permit her to do it, and it would be interesting to see if the Clintons still have the hold over the party machinery to force the issue...and it would be interesting to see if the Dem base would tolerate Clintons Round 39530.

Don't be silly. The time for anyone else to enter the race has come and
gone.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

The House could very easily flip and about equally easily stay Dem. A Dem Senate takeover is possible, but right now it's still a long shot. Trump, currently, is well-positioned for re-election. He'll have to work at it, but his position is better than GWB's was at this point in 2003, or GWHB at this point in 1991, because he's got a solider hold on his core voters.

Axios is a heavily pro-Dem source, and so they spin the polls as hard as they can to encourage liberals/Democrats and discourage conservatives/Republicans. In actual fact, it's way too soon for polling to count for much yet, the general election is still a year away and things can change radically in that time, and that assumes that the polling data itself is trustworthy, which we can't assume.

The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will not be removed from office. It would be sheer political suicide on the part of the GOP to join with the Dems in such an effort, unless Trump's base _first_ abandoned him in significant numbers.

All they have to do is look to Jeff Flake to find out what a miscalculation on that issue can mean. Flake thought he was making himself the leader of the anti-Trump faction of the GOP when he made his 'proud globalist' comments. Instead he erased his own political career in one stroke.

The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

The problem is that the Dems just don't have anything they can point to that Trump's base considers any worse than what the Dems do routinely as a matter of policy. The Mueller report was a fizzle, Schiff has nothing (if he had the goods, we'd know it, the Dems would already have proceeded to the next phase). Trump infuriates liberals, annoys right-leaning Dems and Rockefeller Republicans, and delights huge swaths of the rest of the GOP voters. That pattern has held steady for 3+ years now.

The Dems, for their part, have probably committed themselves now. If they push forward they energize Trump's base in what is probably a futile effort, but if they abandon it now, having started down that road, they could alienate their own base.

That's what happened to the GOP in 1998. The Hyde Committee dropped hints that they were going to drop the impeachment shortly before the election. All this did was infuriate their own side, who proceeded to stay home (why turn out if your party isn't going to act?), while leaving the Dems motivated and furious that the effort had ever begun. Now the Dems face that same prospect if they back down or hint that they will.

So what's Pelosi's next move? I haven't the foggiest, but right now it's a good bet that she would rather not go to a Senate trial. Probably, the Dem leadership is hoping they can break Trump's base away from him with the constant drizzle of leaks and claims from Schiff, but that looks like a long shot unless somebody comes up with something big and solid.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will
not be removed from office.

Oh, you mean impeached.

I had thought that Trump's base wasn't big enough to re-elect him in 2020, and
so if the people who voted for him in 2016 who weren't part of his base vote
Democratic this time, he won't be re-elected.

Given the prevalence of gerrymandering - in Maryland, even the Demcrats do it -
while it would be at least politically unacceptable, what if some states started
having the state legislature appoint electors once again? Then, the United
States could become a Republican one-party state as far as the Presidency is
concerned.

Add to that a sufficiently cozy relationship between Trump's successors and
Russia, and one is looking at a dystopian future.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will
not be removed from office.

Oh, you mean impeached.
I had thought that Trump's base wasn't big enough to re-elect him in 2020, and
so if the people who voted for him in 2016 who weren't part of his base vote
Democratic this time, he won't be re-elected.
Given the prevalence of gerrymandering - in Maryland, even the Demcrats do it -
while it would be at least politically unacceptable, what if some states started
having the state legislature appoint electors once again? Then, the United
States could become a Republican one-party state as far as the Presidency is
concerned.

The solution is simple enough, although a constitutional amendment may
be required:

1. Congressional Districts are returned to the people and are
allocated by a career civil service body (ie, no political members) as
evenly as possible. No gerrymanders; each district must be as
rectangular as possible and can vary from the desired number of
inhabitans by no more than, say, 5%. States are /not/ guaranteed a
District of their own; it is the /Senate/ that the States are
represented in, the House is for the People.

2. The Presidential candidate who wins the plurality in each District
gets its electoral vote. No more "winner take all" nonsense.

3. Each State has two electoral votes. These votes are split between
the two candidates that get the most votes, unless the candidate that
gets the most votes gets at least 60%, in which case that candidate
also gets both electoral votes. Thus, landslides can still happen.

4. Since the Courts are declaring that actual Electors can vote any
which way they want, electors as such will not exist; instead, an
electoral commission will determine the results from each State and
each District, add up the resulting electoral votes, and declare the
winner.

Post by Quadibloc
Add to that a sufficiently cozy relationship between Trump's successors and
Russia, and one is looking at a dystopian future.

Not from Putin's POV.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
2. The Presidential candidate who wins the plurality in each District
gets its electoral vote. No more "winner take all" nonsense.
3. Each State has two electoral votes. These votes are split between
the two candidates that get the most votes, unless the candidate that
gets the most votes gets at least 60%, in which case that candidate
also gets both electoral votes. Thus, landslides can still happen.

Oh, you're not proposing that the number of Electoral College votes allocated to
each state be changed, you're just associating those allocated in proportion to
the House members to districts. Yes, that avoids giving an excess of Banzhaf
power to the larger states.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will
not be removed from office.

Oh, you mean impeached.
I had thought that Trump's base wasn't big enough to re-elect him in 2020, and
so if the people who voted for him in 2016 who weren't part of his base vote
Democratic this time, he won't be re-elected.
Given the prevalence of gerrymandering - in Maryland, even the Demcrats do it -
while it would be at least politically unacceptable, what if some states started
having the state legislature appoint electors once again? Then, the United
States could become a Republican one-party state as far as the Presidency is
concerned.

The solution is simple enough, although a constitutional amendment may
1. Congressional Districts are returned to the people and are
allocated by a career civil service body (ie, no political members) as
evenly as possible. No gerrymanders; each district must be as
rectangular as possible and can vary from the desired number of
inhabitans by no more than, say, 5%. States are /not/ guaranteed a
District of their own; it is the /Senate/ that the States are
represented in, the House is for the People.
2. The Presidential candidate who wins the plurality in each District
gets its electoral vote. No more "winner take all" nonsense.
3. Each State has two electoral votes. These votes are split between
the two candidates that get the most votes, unless the candidate that
gets the most votes gets at least 60%, in which case that candidate
also gets both electoral votes. Thus, landslides can still happen.
4. Since the Courts are declaring that actual Electors can vote any
which way they want, electors as such will not exist; instead, an
electoral commission will determine the results from each State and
each District, add up the resulting electoral votes, and declare the
winner.

...

Not gonna happen. Constitutional amendments require a super super
majority of the states to agree. Why would a smaller state agree ?

Lynn

[Quadibloc]

Post by Lynn McGuire
Not gonna happen. Constitutional amendments require a super super
majority of the states to agree. Why would a smaller state agree ?

Just read this column:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/sep/22/donald-trump-popular-vote-electoral-college-2020

So perhaps more's the pity.

On the other hand, Donald Trump just tweeted something I could get behind:

"This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on
the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth. We merely await a call
from your great new president!"

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:25:05 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will
not be removed from office.

Oh, you mean impeached.
I had thought that Trump's base wasn't big enough to re-elect him in 2020, and
so if the people who voted for him in 2016 who weren't part of his base vote
Democratic this time, he won't be re-elected.
Given the prevalence of gerrymandering - in Maryland, even the Demcrats do it -
while it would be at least politically unacceptable, what if some states started
having the state legislature appoint electors once again? Then, the United
States could become a Republican one-party state as far as the Presidency is
concerned.

The solution is simple enough, although a constitutional amendment may
1. Congressional Districts are returned to the people and are
allocated by a career civil service body (ie, no political members) as
evenly as possible. No gerrymanders; each district must be as
rectangular as possible and can vary from the desired number of
inhabitans by no more than, say, 5%. States are /not/ guaranteed a
District of their own; it is the /Senate/ that the States are
represented in, the House is for the People.
2. The Presidential candidate who wins the plurality in each District
gets its electoral vote. No more "winner take all" nonsense.
3. Each State has two electoral votes. These votes are split between
the two candidates that get the most votes, unless the candidate that
gets the most votes gets at least 60%, in which case that candidate
also gets both electoral votes. Thus, landslides can still happen.
4. Since the Courts are declaring that actual Electors can vote any
which way they want, electors as such will not exist; instead, an
electoral commission will determine the results from each State and
each District, add up the resulting electoral votes, and declare the
winner.

...
Not gonna happen. Constitutional amendments require a super super
majority of the states to agree. Why would a smaller state agree ?

Oh, I agree, it's not likely at all. But we /could/ modify the
proposal to distribute the districts as they are now, /have the Feds
determine their boundaries/ in states with more than one (no
gerrymandering, if done apolitically), and apply the votes as
indicated. Even the smaller states would end up splitting their three
votes if neither candidate gets 60% of the vote.

OTOH, if the court ruling in (IRRC) Colorado that Electors can vote
for whoever they d*mn well please, and cannot be penalized for
breaking their promise to vote for a particular candidate, then you
might get enough support for a different system:

1. In August, a National Primary is held to select the top two
candidates for President.
2. In November, the candidate that gets the majority of the votes
wins. Note that, since there will be only two, if there is no tie, one
/will/ have a majority.

Ties can be broken as originally provided (Congress, IIRC).

The Party Nominating Conventions will, of course, have to be moved
back to, say, May or June. This will push back all the pre-convention
action as well.

This is because it is one thing to "vote for President" when you are
/really/ voting for a bunch of anonymous (but sworn to vote for your
choice) of Electors, and something quite different to vote for a bunch
of anonymous Electors who can then vote any which way they choose
without even being fined for betraying their trust.

Also note that Amendments do not actually need to be approved by state
legislatures; specially-elected conventions can be used instead. If
most people want this system, most of those conventions will be
stuffed with people who want them.

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:06:34 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:25:05 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will
not be removed from office.

Oh, you mean impeached.
I had thought that Trump's base wasn't big enough to re-elect him in 2020, and
so if the people who voted for him in 2016 who weren't part of his base vote
Democratic this time, he won't be re-elected.
Given the prevalence of gerrymandering - in Maryland, even the Demcrats do it -
while it would be at least politically unacceptable, what if some states started
having the state legislature appoint electors once again? Then, the United
States could become a Republican one-party state as far as the Presidency is
concerned.

The solution is simple enough, although a constitutional amendment may
1. Congressional Districts are returned to the people and are
allocated by a career civil service body (ie, no political members) as
evenly as possible. No gerrymanders; each district must be as
rectangular as possible and can vary from the desired number of
inhabitans by no more than, say, 5%. States are /not/ guaranteed a
District of their own; it is the /Senate/ that the States are
represented in, the House is for the People.
2. The Presidential candidate who wins the plurality in each District
gets its electoral vote. No more "winner take all" nonsense.
3. Each State has two electoral votes. These votes are split between
the two candidates that get the most votes, unless the candidate that
gets the most votes gets at least 60%, in which case that candidate
also gets both electoral votes. Thus, landslides can still happen.
4. Since the Courts are declaring that actual Electors can vote any
which way they want, electors as such will not exist; instead, an
electoral commission will determine the results from each State and
each District, add up the resulting electoral votes, and declare the
winner.

...
Not gonna happen. Constitutional amendments require a super super
majority of the states to agree. Why would a smaller state agree ?

Oh, I agree, it's not likely at all. But we /could/ modify the
proposal to distribute the districts as they are now, /have the Feds
determine their boundaries/ in states with more than one (no
gerrymandering, if done apolitically), and apply the votes as
indicated. Even the smaller states would end up splitting their three
votes if neither candidate gets 60% of the vote.
OTOH, if the court ruling in (IRRC) Colorado that Electors can vote
for whoever they d*mn well please, and cannot be penalized for
breaking their promise to vote for a particular candidate, then you
1. In August, a National Primary is held to select the top two
candidates for President.
2. In November, the candidate that gets the majority of the votes
wins. Note that, since there will be only two, if there is no tie, one
/will/ have a majority.
Ties can be broken as originally provided (Congress, IIRC).
The Party Nominating Conventions will, of course, have to be moved
back to, say, May or June. This will push back all the pre-convention
action as well.
This is because it is one thing to "vote for President" when you are
/really/ voting for a bunch of anonymous (but sworn to vote for your
choice) of Electors, and something quite different to vote for a bunch
of anonymous Electors who can then vote any which way they choose
without even being fined for betraying their trust.
Also note that Amendments do not actually need to be approved by state
legislatures; specially-elected conventions can be used instead. If
most people want this system, most of those conventions will be
stuffed with people who want them.

However the convention method has never been used in practice.

Personally I would prefer a system in which someone other than the two
major party candidates had a real chance. Ideally the same system
would have a means of banning particular candidates from future
political efforts.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:05:40 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:06:34 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:25:05 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will
not be removed from office.

Oh, you mean impeached.
I had thought that Trump's base wasn't big enough to re-elect him in 2020, and
so if the people who voted for him in 2016 who weren't part of his base vote
Democratic this time, he won't be re-elected.
Given the prevalence of gerrymandering - in Maryland, even the Demcrats do it -
while it would be at least politically unacceptable, what if some states started
having the state legislature appoint electors once again? Then, the United
States could become a Republican one-party state as far as the Presidency is
concerned.

The solution is simple enough, although a constitutional amendment may
1. Congressional Districts are returned to the people and are
allocated by a career civil service body (ie, no political members) as
evenly as possible. No gerrymanders; each district must be as
rectangular as possible and can vary from the desired number of
inhabitans by no more than, say, 5%. States are /not/ guaranteed a
District of their own; it is the /Senate/ that the States are
represented in, the House is for the People.
2. The Presidential candidate who wins the plurality in each District
gets its electoral vote. No more "winner take all" nonsense.
3. Each State has two electoral votes. These votes are split between
the two candidates that get the most votes, unless the candidate that
gets the most votes gets at least 60%, in which case that candidate
also gets both electoral votes. Thus, landslides can still happen.
4. Since the Courts are declaring that actual Electors can vote any
which way they want, electors as such will not exist; instead, an
electoral commission will determine the results from each State and
each District, add up the resulting electoral votes, and declare the
winner.

...
Not gonna happen. Constitutional amendments require a super super
majority of the states to agree. Why would a smaller state agree ?

Oh, I agree, it's not likely at all. But we /could/ modify the
proposal to distribute the districts as they are now, /have the Feds
determine their boundaries/ in states with more than one (no
gerrymandering, if done apolitically), and apply the votes as
indicated. Even the smaller states would end up splitting their three
votes if neither candidate gets 60% of the vote.
OTOH, if the court ruling in (IRRC) Colorado that Electors can vote
for whoever they d*mn well please, and cannot be penalized for
breaking their promise to vote for a particular candidate, then you
1. In August, a National Primary is held to select the top two
candidates for President.
2. In November, the candidate that gets the majority of the votes
wins. Note that, since there will be only two, if there is no tie, one
/will/ have a majority.
Ties can be broken as originally provided (Congress, IIRC).
The Party Nominating Conventions will, of course, have to be moved
back to, say, May or June. This will push back all the pre-convention
action as well.
This is because it is one thing to "vote for President" when you are
/really/ voting for a bunch of anonymous (but sworn to vote for your
choice) of Electors, and something quite different to vote for a bunch
of anonymous Electors who can then vote any which way they choose
without even being fined for betraying their trust.
Also note that Amendments do not actually need to be approved by state
legislatures; specially-elected conventions can be used instead. If
most people want this system, most of those conventions will be
stuffed with people who want them.

However the convention method has never been used in practice.
Personally I would prefer a system in which someone other than the two
major party candidates had a real chance. Ideally the same system
would have a means of banning particular candidates from future
political efforts.

The 21st Amendment begs to differ:

Amendment XXI

Section 1

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is hereby repealed.

Section 2

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or
possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
prohibited.

Section 3

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several
States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the
date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

but whether it was actually /done/ that way I have no idea.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 10:09:03 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:05:40 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 10:06:34 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:25:05 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will
not be removed from office.

Oh, you mean impeached.
I had thought that Trump's base wasn't big enough to re-elect him in 2020, and
so if the people who voted for him in 2016 who weren't part of his base vote
Democratic this time, he won't be re-elected.
Given the prevalence of gerrymandering - in Maryland, even the Demcrats do it -
while it would be at least politically unacceptable, what if some states started
having the state legislature appoint electors once again? Then, the United
States could become a Republican one-party state as far as the Presidency is
concerned.

The solution is simple enough, although a constitutional amendment may
1. Congressional Districts are returned to the people and are
allocated by a career civil service body (ie, no political members) as
evenly as possible. No gerrymanders; each district must be as
rectangular as possible and can vary from the desired number of
inhabitans by no more than, say, 5%. States are /not/ guaranteed a
District of their own; it is the /Senate/ that the States are
represented in, the House is for the People.
2. The Presidential candidate who wins the plurality in each District
gets its electoral vote. No more "winner take all" nonsense.
3. Each State has two electoral votes. These votes are split between
the two candidates that get the most votes, unless the candidate that
gets the most votes gets at least 60%, in which case that candidate
also gets both electoral votes. Thus, landslides can still happen.
4. Since the Courts are declaring that actual Electors can vote any
which way they want, electors as such will not exist; instead, an
electoral commission will determine the results from each State and
each District, add up the resulting electoral votes, and declare the
winner.

...
Not gonna happen. Constitutional amendments require a super super
majority of the states to agree. Why would a smaller state agree ?

Oh, I agree, it's not likely at all. But we /could/ modify the
proposal to distribute the districts as they are now, /have the Feds
determine their boundaries/ in states with more than one (no
gerrymandering, if done apolitically), and apply the votes as
indicated. Even the smaller states would end up splitting their three
votes if neither candidate gets 60% of the vote.
OTOH, if the court ruling in (IRRC) Colorado that Electors can vote
for whoever they d*mn well please, and cannot be penalized for
breaking their promise to vote for a particular candidate, then you
1. In August, a National Primary is held to select the top two
candidates for President.
2. In November, the candidate that gets the majority of the votes
wins. Note that, since there will be only two, if there is no tie, one
/will/ have a majority.
Ties can be broken as originally provided (Congress, IIRC).
The Party Nominating Conventions will, of course, have to be moved
back to, say, May or June. This will push back all the pre-convention
action as well.
This is because it is one thing to "vote for President" when you are
/really/ voting for a bunch of anonymous (but sworn to vote for your
choice) of Electors, and something quite different to vote for a bunch
of anonymous Electors who can then vote any which way they choose
without even being fined for betraying their trust.
Also note that Amendments do not actually need to be approved by state
legislatures; specially-elected conventions can be used instead. If
most people want this system, most of those conventions will be
stuffed with people who want them.

However the convention method has never been used in practice.
Personally I would prefer a system in which someone other than the two
major party candidates had a real chance. Ideally the same system
would have a means of banning particular candidates from future
political efforts.

Amendment XXI
Section 1
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States is hereby repealed.
Section 2
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or
possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
prohibited.
Section 3
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several
States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the
date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
but whether it was actually /done/ that way I have no idea.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I suspect that the high school texbook
from which I read that predated the 21st Amendment. From its
condition, it may have predated civilization.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:05:40 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
However the convention method has never been used in practice.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I suspect that the high school texbook
from which I read that predated the 21st Amendment. From its
condition, it may have predated civilization.

You need not stand corrected. Prohibition was _not_ enacted by a Constitutional
Convention. That would be *one* *national* convention, which would have the
power to rewrite the whole Constitution from start to finish. That _has_ never
happened yet, so you were correct in the first place.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:05:40 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
However the convention method has never been used in practice.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I suspect that the high school texbook
from which I read that predated the 21st Amendment. From its
condition, it may have predated civilization.

You need not stand corrected. Prohibition was _not_ enacted by a Constitutional
Convention. That would be *one* *national* convention, which would have the
power to rewrite the whole Constitution from start to finish. That _has_ never
happened yet, so you were correct in the first place.

What I was thinking of (and felt that you were referring to) was a
Constitutional Convention as described in Article V of the Constitution. It
would have the same power to _propose_ amendments to the Constitution as a
supermajority of both the House and the Senate, but a three-quarters majority of
the several states is still required for ratification.

That has never happened, and thus was not what was used to ratify the 21st
Amendment to the Constitution. (Since it is for proposing amendments, not
ratifying them, that's even obvious.)

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

I'm sure you discount it because the source is too socially-liberal for
you, but JUST ABOUT EVERY SORT OF RIGHT-WINGER ACTUALLY *IS* TRYING TO
PUT TOGETHER AN ARTICLE 5 CONVENTION THESE DAYS. And unfortunately,
there are now commies who are also pulling for one, not realising that
the FURTHEST left the country's majority might qualify as is
"centre-right", so they're going to willingly initiate a process that
likely leads to an official acknowledgement that "Freedom of religion
expressly does not mean freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom to
choose the denomination via which a man worships the one true LORD", and
that might well actually establish an official Peerage of the United
States since obviously their god is choosing who deserves to have power
by setting them in the right womb.
I think last I checked, every state with monolithic Republican control
has officially petitioned for a convention.

I haven't had the opportunity to discount it. Apparently the source of that news
is *so* socially liberal compared to my views that I hadn't perused its
contents, and thus had not heard of it.

That everybody and his dog is calling for an Article V convention these days, of
course, doesn't change the fact that one hasn't happened yet.

In any case, if that _is_ true, it shows the Republicans in the United States
are even loonier than I thought. I mean, I knew about Trump and the governor of
Michigan... as well as the governor of Wisconsin... but *all* of them?

Of course, since apparently a high proportion of Republican state
administrations engage in extreme and flagrant gerrymandering, I suppose I
should not be surprised.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Particularly since Trump, I'm starting to come around.

Reading articles like this

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-neil-macdonald-trump-white-evangelicals-1.5346659

the part of it that shocked me was

'the white U.S. Customs agent who asked me recently if I'm a "fake news"
reporter who hates his president'

well, of course he would be white, that goes without saying, Kanye West
notwithstanding... but this level of unprofessionalism from a civil servant is,
to my mind, reminiscent of Third World countries, not industrialized
democracies.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc
Particularly since Trump, I'm starting to come around.
Reading articles like this
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-neil-macdonald-trump-white-evangelicals-1.5346659
the part of it that shocked me was
'the white U.S. Customs agent who asked me recently if I'm a "fake news"
reporter who hates his president'
well, of course he would be white, that goes without saying, Kanye West
notwithstanding... but this level of unprofessionalism from a civil servant is,
to my mind, reminiscent of Third World countries, not industrialized
democracies.

It's very rare for a conservative viewpoint to appear in the CBC, but I stumbled
across this...

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-sunday-edition-for-may-5-2019-1.5121509/barack-obama-was-a-greater-enemy-of-the-free-press-than-trump-michael-s-essay-1.5121514

Perhaps now is not the time for this article. One wouldn't want to give Trump
any ideas...

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by Quadibloc
Particularly since Trump, I'm starting to come around.
Reading articles like this
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-neil-macdonald-trump-white-evangelicals-1.5346659
the part of it that shocked me was
'the white U.S. Customs agent who asked me recently if I'm a "fake news"
reporter who hates his president'
well, of course he would be white, that goes without saying, Kanye West
notwithstanding... but this level of unprofessionalism from a civil servant is,
to my mind, reminiscent of Third World countries, not industrialized
democracies.

Tempted as I am to follow up on the "banana republic" theme, I will
instead point out that what the US Customs/Border Patrol/ICE /need/ is
a really good wedgie.

To remind them that they are working for the United States of America,
not Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Which /might/ happen, if the Dems take control and don't fritter their
time away chasing pipe dreams.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Quadibloc

I'm sure you discount it because the source is too socially-liberal for
you, but JUST ABOUT EVERY SORT OF RIGHT-WINGER ACTUALLY *IS* TRYING TO
PUT TOGETHER AN ARTICLE 5 CONVENTION THESE DAYS. And unfortunately,
there are now commies who are also pulling for one, not realising that
the FURTHEST left the country's majority might qualify as is
"centre-right", so they're going to willingly initiate a process that
likely leads to an official acknowledgement that "Freedom of religion
expressly does not mean freedom FROM religion, but rather freedom to
choose the denomination via which a man worships the one true LORD", and
that might well actually establish an official Peerage of the United
States since obviously their god is choosing who deserves to have power
by setting them in the right womb.
I think last I checked, every state with monolithic Republican control
has officially petitioned for a convention.

I haven't had the opportunity to discount it. Apparently the source of that news
is *so* socially liberal compared to my views that I hadn't perused its
contents, and thus had not heard of it.
That everybody and his dog is calling for an Article V convention these days, of
course, doesn't change the fact that one hasn't happened yet.
In any case, if that _is_ true, it shows the Republicans in the United States
are even loonier than I thought. I mean, I knew about Trump and the governor of
Michigan... as well as the governor of Wisconsin... but *all* of them?
Of course, since apparently a high proportion of Republican state
administrations engage in extreme and flagrant gerrymandering, I suppose I
should not be surprised.

On a National level, since McCain died, pretty much so, yes.

On a State level, it varies, but there are a /lot/ of whacko
Republicans out there.

Always have been, of course. It's the whacko Democrats that are
actually a novelty.

IMHO, of course, as to who, exactly, is a "whacko".

[Paul S Person]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:05:40 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
However the convention method has never been used in practice.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I suspect that the high school texbook
from which I read that predated the 21st Amendment. From its
condition, it may have predated civilization.

You need not stand corrected. Prohibition was _not_ enacted by a Constitutional
Convention. That would be *one* *national* convention, which would have the
power to rewrite the whole Constitution from start to finish. That _has_ never
happened yet, so you were correct in the first place.

You are correct that the convention method in the constitution has

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
Also note that Amendments do not actually need to be approved by state
legislatures; specially-elected conventions can be used instead. If
most people want this system, most of those conventions will be
stuffed with people who want them.

note the use of the /plural/. Each state elects its own.

And, while the 21st may not actually have been done that way, it's
third article

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several
States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the
date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

clearly required the use of "conventions", which are explicitly stated
to be "in the several states". This is /not/ how a National Convention
would be described.

And that is why he conceded the point.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 23:59:20 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was.

I was positing the behavior of some other, as Nixon would
have said, "cloth-coat" Republican President.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Second, he _is_ the incumbent now.

Right, and even if Trump and his companies didn't owe
a penny, if he wanted to be re-elected, he would be
trying to talk the Fed into restraining rate increases,
and even cutting rates.*

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

If Trump manages to get re-elected, it's unlikely the House
will flip, so the so-called "witch hunt" could continue.
The Dems have a shot at flipping the Senate, too. They
would not come close to 2/3rd of the seats, so GOP votes
would be needed for a conviction in any trial of Trump.
https://www.axios.com/republican-party-2020-election-wipeout-house-senate-trump-3ca4a371-cdfb-4213-9ff0-2cf058aa7537.html
Kevin R

The House could very easily flip and about equally easily stay Dem. A Dem Senate takeover is possible, but right now it's still a long shot. Trump, currently, is well-positioned for re-election. He'll have to work at it, but his position is better than GWB's was at this point in 2003, or GWHB at this point in 1991, because he's got a solider hold on his core voters.
Axios is a heavily pro-Dem source, and so they spin the polls as hard as they can to encourage liberals/Democrats and discourage conservatives/Republicans. In actual fact, it's way too soon for polling to count for much yet, the general election is still a year away and things can change radically in that time, and that assumes that the polling data itself is trustworthy, which we can't assume.

The last few Fox polls appear to pretty much agree with the others:
about 50% of us want Trump impeached. And it's only that low because
Trump's base is, of course, entirely opposed to the idea.

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will not be removed from office. It would be sheer political suicide on the part of the GOP to join with the Dems in such an effort, unless Trump's base _first_ abandoned him in significant numbers.
All they have to do is look to Jeff Flake to find out what a miscalculation on that issue can mean. Flake thought he was making himself the leader of the anti-Trump faction of the GOP when he made his 'proud globalist' comments. Instead he erased his own political career in one stroke.
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.
The problem is that the Dems just don't have anything they can point to that Trump's base considers any worse than what the Dems do routinely as a matter of policy. The Mueller report was a fizzle, Schiff has nothing (if he had the goods, we'd know it, the Dems would already have proceeded to the next phase). Trump infuriates liberals, annoys right-leaning Dems and Rockefeller Republicans, and delights huge swaths of the rest of the GOP voters. That pattern has held steady for 3+ years now.

If Trump's base believes that Democrats regularly attempt to blackmail
foreign governments into investigating Republican politicians, they
have lost all contact with reality.

Anyway, there is a lot of projection going on -- a lot of Republican
behaviors that are being asserted of Democrats with no evidence at
all.

Post by Johnny1A
The Dems, for their part, have probably committed themselves now. If they push forward they energize Trump's base in what is probably a futile effort, but if they abandon it now, having started down that road, they could alienate their own base.
That's what happened to the GOP in 1998. The Hyde Committee dropped hints that they were going to drop the impeachment shortly before the election. All this did was infuriate their own side, who proceeded to stay home (why turn out if your party isn't going to act?), while leaving the Dems motivated and furious that the effort had ever begun. Now the Dems face that same prospect if they back down or hint that they will.

This you got spot-on. They have no choice but to impeach, if they can
make a case. Or just keep on investigating without ever reaching a
conclusion.

Kind of like Benghazi.

Leading to the question:

if the House flips back, will the Republicans investigate Benghazi yet
again?

Post by Johnny1A
So what's Pelosi's next move? I haven't the foggiest, but right now it's a good bet that she would rather not go to a Senate trial. Probably, the Dem leadership is hoping they can break Trump's base away from him with the constant drizzle of leaks and claims from Schiff, but that looks like a long shot unless somebody comes up with something big and solid.

They don't need his base. They just need everybody else.

And, more specifically, they need everybody else to actually /vote/.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 23:59:20 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
The House could very easily flip and about equally easily stay Dem. A Dem Senate takeover is possible, but right now it's still a long shot. Trump, currently, is well-positioned for re-election. He'll have to work at it, but his position is better than GWB's was at this point in 2003, or GWHB at this point in 1991, because he's got a solider hold on his core voters.
Axios is a heavily pro-Dem source, and so they spin the polls as hard as they can to encourage liberals/Democrats and discourage conservatives/Republicans. In actual fact, it's way too soon for polling to count for much yet, the general election is still a year away and things can change radically in that time, and that assumes that the polling data itself is trustworthy, which we can't assume.

about 50% of us want Trump impeached. And it's only that low because
Trump's base is, of course, entirely opposed to the idea.

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will not be removed from office. It would be sheer political suicide on the part of the GOP to join with the Dems in such an effort, unless Trump's base _first_ abandoned him in significant numbers.
All they have to do is look to Jeff Flake to find out what a miscalculation on that issue can mean. Flake thought he was making himself the leader of the anti-Trump faction of the GOP when he made his 'proud globalist' comments. Instead he erased his own political career in one stroke.
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.
The problem is that the Dems just don't have anything they can point to that Trump's base considers any worse than what the Dems do routinely as a matter of policy. The Mueller report was a fizzle, Schiff has nothing (if he had the goods, we'd know it, the Dems would already have proceeded to the next phase). Trump infuriates liberals, annoys right-leaning Dems and Rockefeller Republicans, and delights huge swaths of the rest of the GOP voters. That pattern has held steady for 3+ years now.

If Trump's base believes that Democrats regularly attempt to blackmail
foreign governments into investigating Republican politicians, they
have lost all contact with reality.
Anyway, there is a lot of projection going on -- a lot of Republican
behaviors that are being asserted of Democrats with no evidence at
all.

Uh, yes, much of Trump's base _does_ believe that of the Democrats.
Trump is a strong believer in The Big Lie (tell a big enough lie enough
times and people will believe it) and his base is primed to believe
anything negative about The Establishment and Liberals. His base wants
him to tear everything down so the "proper" people can rise to the top
again.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 23:59:20 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A

Post by Johnny1A
The House could very easily flip and about equally easily stay Dem. A Dem Senate takeover is possible, but right now it's still a long shot. Trump, currently, is well-positioned for re-election. He'll have to work at it, but his position is better than GWB's was at this point in 2003, or GWHB at this point in 1991, because he's got a solider hold on his core voters.
Axios is a heavily pro-Dem source, and so they spin the polls as hard as they can to encourage liberals/Democrats and discourage conservatives/Republicans. In actual fact, it's way too soon for polling to count for much yet, the general election is still a year away and things can change radically in that time, and that assumes that the polling data itself is trustworthy, which we can't assume.

about 50% of us want Trump impeached. And it's only that low because
Trump's base is, of course, entirely opposed to the idea.

Post by Johnny1A
The bottom line is that as long as Trump's base holds, he almost certainly will not be removed from office. It would be sheer political suicide on the part of the GOP to join with the Dems in such an effort, unless Trump's base _first_ abandoned him in significant numbers.
All they have to do is look to Jeff Flake to find out what a miscalculation on that issue can mean. Flake thought he was making himself the leader of the anti-Trump faction of the GOP when he made his 'proud globalist' comments. Instead he erased his own political career in one stroke.
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.
The problem is that the Dems just don't have anything they can point to that Trump's base considers any worse than what the Dems do routinely as a matter of policy. The Mueller report was a fizzle, Schiff has nothing (if he had the goods, we'd know it, the Dems would already have proceeded to the next phase). Trump infuriates liberals, annoys right-leaning Dems and Rockefeller Republicans, and delights huge swaths of the rest of the GOP voters. That pattern has held steady for 3+ years now.

If Trump's base believes that Democrats regularly attempt to blackmail
foreign governments into investigating Republican politicians, they
have lost all contact with reality.

The 'Trump blackmailed Ukraine' story is a lie, though. Once Trump released the transcript, that story was blown. The contest of the call, and the circumstances connected to it make the 'blackmail' theory laughable.

That's why the Dems are going through this whole silly rigmarole of secret sessions, pretend whistleblowers, and selectively leaked testimony. If they actually had something solid, they could proceed to make a case to the public. Instead, they have to spin it to look like they have something when they don't.

Remember the Mueller report? It was the Great Hope of the Dems and the media for nearly 3 years. Of course, it was clear by the summer of 2017 that it was going to be a bust. Comey admitted to his role in arranging the appointment of Mueller, and it came out that Mueller had been angling for a job in the Trump administration just before he was appointed, too. Then it turned out that the dossier that supposedly set the whole thing in motion was bogus, and that the FBI _knew_ it was bogus all along. Back then, Schiff was telling everybody that they had the goods, they really did, they had the evidence. Of course they had nothing.

By the time the report dropped, nobody should have been disappointed. The handwriting on the wall had been there to be seen, if people were willing to see it.

It's the same thing now with Schiff. Same alliance of Dems, media, and executive branch establishment pushing it, same breathless reporting of trivia, Schiff claiming repeatedly that he had all this evidence but never producing it.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Johnny1A
The Dems, for their part, have probably committed themselves now. If they push forward they energize Trump's base in what is probably a futile effort, but if they abandon it now, having started down that road, they could alienate their own base.
That's what happened to the GOP in 1998. The Hyde Committee dropped hints that they were going to drop the impeachment shortly before the election. All this did was infuriate their own side, who proceeded to stay home (why turn out if your party isn't going to act?), while leaving the Dems motivated and furious that the effort had ever begun. Now the Dems face that same prospect if they back down or hint that they will.

This you got spot-on. They have no choice but to impeach, if they can
make a case. Or just keep on investigating without ever reaching a
conclusion.

Post by Johnny1A
So what's Pelosi's next move? I haven't the foggiest, but right now it's a good bet that she would rather not go to a Senate trial. Probably, the Dem leadership is hoping they can break Trump's base away from him with the constant drizzle of leaks and claims from Schiff, but that looks like a long shot unless somebody comes up with something big and solid.

They don't need his base. They just need everybody else.
And, more specifically, they need everybody else to actually /vote/.

But they don't now, and never have had, 'everybody else'. That was the same spin they (Dems and most of the media) kept putting out in 2016, Trump had hhis base but everybody else hated him and would vote for Hillary. They were telling us it was sure to be Hillary, maybe with a landslide Congressional majority too, right up until Election Night.

The problem was that just because someone is dissatisfied with Trump doesn't automatically mean he'll vote for Hillary, or someone else. He might say a pox on both your houses and stay home. He might decide it's a choice of the lesser evil and vote for someone he told the pollster he can't stand. He might be lying to the pollster (Bradley and Reverse Bradley effects, among others). The pollster, for that matter, might well be cooking his numbers or misinterpreting them out of hope.

We saw this, just for one example among many, with the 'access hollywood' tape. Breathless pundits assured us that it was the last straw, 'women' would never vote for Trump after that. But that was partly deliberate spin and partly self-deception. 'Women' are half the electorate, and too big and too varied a group to be a voting bloc as such. Some women thought it was no big deal, some thought it was offensive but that pundit's putting Trump's comments in the same category as rape was even more offensive. The 'women' who the analysis actually applied to were mostly college-educated liberal women in thhe upper social class...who tend to vote Dem _anyway_.

So what was actually a small story was blown up into a tempest in a tea pot.

Likewise, pundits assured us that Latino voters would punish Trump for his immigration positions. He ended up getting about the same chunk of the Latino vote GOP candidates usually get. The pundits were assuming that all, or almost all, Latinos support open borders, and that isn't so.

Between the untrustworthiness of the polls and news coverage, and the distance to E-day, it's hard to do more than guess where the electorate actually is.

[David Johnston]

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 22:21:35 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
<this is getting far to hot, so I will restrain myself and snip-a-lot>

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Paul S Person
If Trump's base believes that Democrats regularly attempt to blackmail
foreign governments into investigating Republican politicians, they
have lost all contact with reality.

The 'Trump blackmailed Ukraine' story is a lie, though. Once Trump released the transcript, that story was blown. The contest of the call, and the circumstances connected to it make the 'blackmail' theory laughable.

Zelensky brought up the subject of the military aid. In response Trump
said "I'd like you to do me a favour, though." I'm not laughing.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Johnny1A
It's the same thing now with Schiff. Same alliance of Dems,
media, and executive branch establishment pushing it, same
breathless reporting of trivia, Schiff claiming repeatedly that
he had all this evidence but never producing it.

"The Trump Administration is infested with Russians. I have here
in my hand a list of 205 - a list of names that were made known
to the Secretary of State as being Russian agents and who
nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Trump
administration." -- Shiff.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
It's the same thing now with Schiff. Same alliance of Dems,
media, and executive branch establishment pushing it, same
breathless reporting of trivia, Schiff claiming repeatedly that
he had all this evidence but never producing it.

"The Trump Administration is infested with Russians. I have here
in my hand a list of 205 - a list of names that were made known
to the Secretary of State as being Russian agents and who
nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Trump
administration." -- Shiff.

Oh, ho ho ho. But it is unclear to me why Trump would need others to help him.

John Savard

[Johnny1A]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
It's the same thing now with Schiff. Same alliance of Dems,
media, and executive branch establishment pushing it, same
breathless reporting of trivia, Schiff claiming repeatedly that
he had all this evidence but never producing it.

"The Trump Administration is infested with Russians. I have here
in my hand a list of 205 - a list of names that were made known
to the Secretary of State as being Russian agents and who
nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the Trump
administration." -- Shiff.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

Exactly. He keeps claiming this stuff, but never backs it up with any evidence.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:23:16 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

The problem with Trump is not that he's "conservative". It's that he's
lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and erratic. Being "conservative"
has nothing to do with it.

Trump best character trait is his incompetence, which is a result of
his being (as you point out) "lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and
erratic".
Who else would take /three tries/ to implement a travel policy because
he couldn't get it through his head that his personal prejudices could
not be used as a justification?
Who else would implement a family separation policy that separated
nursing infants from their mothers with absolutely no plan for
reuniting them?
He really isn't doing anything Pence wouldn't do.

Actually, I seriously doubt Pence would have pulled out of the Paris deal, I doubt he'd have made any of the efforts Trump has made to limit immigration, or changed any foreign policies significantly, other than flipping back to 'Bush mode' from 'Obama mode'.
Pence _talks_ a good game, admittedly. But his actual track record in office is that when the chips are down, he takes his cue from the business wing and the Chamber of Commerce. It's entirely conceivable that a President Pence would have signed the 'comprehensive amnesty' that the leadership of both parties have been desperately and repeatedly trying to pass since 2006.

Post by David Johnston
I seriously doubt Pence would have rolled over and played dead for North
Korea, worked so hard to redefine truth, encouraged people dreaming of a
second American civil war and tried so hard to weaken American ties with
any nation not led by a dictator. Frankly I'd rather have a
conservative leader who isn't stupid than Trump even though I wouldn't
agree with most of such a leader's policy agenda.

Trump hasn't done any of those things, either. Granted, you'd think he had if you trusted the general press coverage. Keep in mind that the news media are overwhelming Democrats, and want Trump out, whatever it takes. If that means lying, they'll lie.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump. They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.


* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party. I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.

Maybe The Stars Are Right...

[J. Clarke]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump. They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.
* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party. I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.

You've just reminded me to order my Cthulhu 2020 Why Vote for the
Lesser Evil mug. I was tempted to get the "No live matter" version
but I don't think I could get away with that one in the very woke
place I work.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump. They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.

What do you think is fake?

[Paul S Person]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump. They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.
* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party. I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.
Maybe The Stars Are Right...

I really /would/ like a centrist party (preferably two, one
centrist-left and one centrist-right) in place of the current whacko
Dems and alt-right Republicans.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not.  It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump.  They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.
* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party.  I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.
Maybe The Stars Are Right...

I really /would/ like a centrist party (preferably two, one
centrist-left and one centrist-right) in place of the current whacko
Dems and alt-right Republicans.

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

His beliefs in the extent of Imperial Presidential powers places him
firmly in the far right of the American political spectrum.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not.  It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump.  They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.
* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party.  I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.
Maybe The Stars Are Right...

I really /would/ like a centrist party (preferably two, one
centrist-left and one centrist-right) in place of the current whacko
Dems and alt-right Republicans.

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

His beliefs in the extent of Imperial Presidential powers places him
firmly in the far right of the American political spectrum.

I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

Lynn

[Kevrob]

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

I'd park him in the "populist" slice of the "authoritarian"
quadrant of the Nolan Chart. I don't think Trump has any
consistent "political philosophy," whether "social conservative,"
"economic conservative" or "national security conservative."
He's just a pot of positions with no theme, except maybe, "I'm
great, you suck!"

His penchant for tariffs is a call-back to early 20th century
GOP pols like Smoot and Hawley, or, more recently, Pat Buchanan.
His immigration restrictionism has the same roots. He's no
Reaganite, and hardly Nixon, Eisenhower or even Carter in
foreign policy. He made non-interventionist noises while
running, but doesn't follow through. I don't think I'd have
liked HR Clinton any better, but she would have been awfulin
different ways.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

I'd park him in the "populist" slice of the "authoritarian"
quadrant of the Nolan Chart. I don't think Trump has any
consistent "political philosophy," whether "social conservative,"
"economic conservative" or "national security conservative."
He's just a pot of positions with no theme, except maybe, "I'm
great, you suck!"
His penchant for tariffs is a call-back to early 20th century
GOP pols like Smoot and Hawley, or, more recently, Pat Buchanan.
His immigration restrictionism has the same roots. He's no
Reaganite, and hardly Nixon, Eisenhower or even Carter in
foreign policy. He made non-interventionist noises while
running, but doesn't follow through. I don't think I'd have
liked HR Clinton any better, but she would have been awfulin
different ways.

Try "Know-nothing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

"The Native American Party, renamed the American Party in 1855 and
commonly known as the Know Nothing movement, was an American nativist
political party that operated nationally in the mid-1850s. It was
primarily anti-Catholic, xenophobic, and hostile to immigration,
starting originally as a secret society."

Of course, the "immigration" they were hostile to was that of
Europeans. "America First" indeed!

[David Johnston]

.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

The problem with Trump is not that he's "conservative". It's that he's
lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and erratic. Being "conservative"
has nothing to do with it.

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:23:16 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

The problem with Trump is not that he's "conservative". It's that he's
lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and erratic. Being "conservative"
has nothing to do with it.

Actually, I'll give you that and go one further:

Trump best character trait is his incompetence, which is a result of
his being (as you point out) "lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and
erratic".

Who else would take /three tries/ to implement a travel policy because
he couldn't get it through his head that his personal prejudices could
not be used as a justification?

Who else would implement a family separation policy that separated
nursing infants from their mothers with absolutely no plan for
reuniting them?

He really isn't doing anything Pence wouldn't do. It's just that Pence
would, I suspect, do it properly and then move on to the next item on
the Republican agenda.

Which is why I never though impeaching Trump was a good idea. Even if
he is convicted, the Dems will lose, because Pence will ascend to the
office and /he/ is competent. And, BTW, will also be entitled to two
terms of his own, if he can win in 2020 and 2024.

Trump is /much/ more valuable, politically, to the Democrats right
where he is.

[David Johnston]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:23:16 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

The problem with Trump is not that he's "conservative". It's that he's
lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and erratic. Being "conservative"
has nothing to do with it.

Trump best character trait is his incompetence, which is a result of
his being (as you point out) "lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and
erratic".
Who else would take /three tries/ to implement a travel policy because
he couldn't get it through his head that his personal prejudices could
not be used as a justification?
Who else would implement a family separation policy that separated
nursing infants from their mothers with absolutely no plan for
reuniting them?
He really isn't doing anything Pence wouldn't do.

I seriously doubt Pence would have rolled over and played dead for North
Korea, worked so hard to redefine truth, encouraged people dreaming of a
second American civil war and tried so hard to weaken American ties with
any nation not led by a dictator. Frankly I'd rather have a
conservative leader who isn't stupid than Trump even though I wouldn't
agree with most of such a leader's policy agenda.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:23:16 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

The problem with Trump is not that he's "conservative". It's that he's
lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and erratic. Being "conservative"
has nothing to do with it.

Trump best character trait is his incompetence, which is a result of
his being (as you point out) "lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and
erratic".
Who else would take /three tries/ to implement a travel policy because
he couldn't get it through his head that his personal prejudices could
not be used as a justification?
Who else would implement a family separation policy that separated
nursing infants from their mothers with absolutely no plan for
reuniting them?
He really isn't doing anything Pence wouldn't do.

I seriously doubt Pence would have rolled over and played dead for North
Korea, worked so hard to redefine truth, encouraged people dreaming of a
second American civil war and tried so hard to weaken American ties with
any nation not led by a dictator. Frankly I'd rather have a
conservative leader who isn't stupid than Trump even though I wouldn't
agree with most of such a leader's policy agenda.

Yeah, but Trump hasn't done _any_ of those things. Not one. Granted, the media (who are overwhelmingly Democrats) have _claimed_ he did, but that's not the same thing.

[Johnny1A]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:23:16 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

The problem with Trump is not that he's "conservative". It's that he's
lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and erratic. Being "conservative"
has nothing to do with it.

Trump best character trait is his incompetence, which is a result of
his being (as you point out) "lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and
erratic".
Who else would take /three tries/ to implement a travel policy because
he couldn't get it through his head that his personal prejudices could
not be used as a justification?
Who else would implement a family separation policy that separated
nursing infants from their mothers with absolutely no plan for
reuniting them?
He really isn't doing anything Pence wouldn't do.

Actually, I seriously doubt Pence would have pulled out of the Paris deal, I doubt he'd have made any of the efforts Trump has made to limit immigration, or changed any foreign policies significantly, other than flipping back to 'Bush mode' from 'Obama mode'.

Pence _talks_ a good game, admittedly. But his actual track record in office is that when the chips are down, he takes his cue from the business wing and the Chamber of Commerce. It's entirely conceivable that a Pre

Post by David Johnston
I seriously doubt Pence would have rolled over and played dead for North
Korea, worked so hard to redefine truth, encouraged people dreaming of a
second American civil war and tried so hard to weaken American ties with
any nation not led by a dictator. Frankly I'd rather have a
conservative leader who isn't stupid than Trump even though I wouldn't
agree with most of such a leader's policy agenda.

Trump hasn't done any of those things, either. Granted, you'd think he had if you trusted the general press coverage. Keep in mind that the news media are overwhelming Democrats, and want Trump out, whatever it takes.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 23:23:16 -0700, David Johnston

Post by David Johnston
.

Post by Lynn McGuire
I would call Trump a center-right. His actions after his second
election to the Presidency will surprise many of us. He is not as
conservative as you think.

The problem with Trump is not that he's "conservative". It's that he's
lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and erratic. Being "conservative"
has nothing to do with it.

Trump best character trait is his incompetence, which is a result of
his being (as you point out) "lazy, spiteful, ignorant, dishonest, and
erratic".
Who else would take /three tries/ to implement a travel policy because
he couldn't get it through his head that his personal prejudices could
not be used as a justification?

Trump was within his rights to do that. The judiciary ignored the law and the Constitution in trying to oppose it. No one is obligated to agree with it, but he was within the letter of the law in the attempt.

Post by Paul S Person
Who else would implement a family separation policy that separated
nursing infants from their mothers with absolutely no plan for
reuniting them?

How else would you proceed. The courts have made up a number of baseless restrictions that make enforcing border control all but impossible because of the deliberate sabotage.

Post by Paul S Person
He really isn't doing anything Pence wouldn't do. It's just that Pence
would, I suspect, do it properly and then move on to the next item on
the Republican agenda.

Actually, I doubt a President Pence would have withdrawn from the Paris accord, tried to limit immigration in any meaningful way, and he might well have signed the comprehensive amnesty that both parties' elite class have been trying to ram through since 2006. His foreign policy would likely have looked much like Bush-Clinton-Obama, esp. with regard to China. I doubt he'd have opposed either the Trans-Pacific trade deal or the European free trade deal. Most likely, a President Pence would have been 'Bush III', more or less.

Pence _talks_ a good game as a social conservative and a nationalist, granted. But when you look at his actual governing track record, he's usually taken his cues from the Chamber of Commerce and the business wing. Maybe Trump has led him to be more resistant, or maybe not, we won't know until we see Pence in a position to act independently of Trump.

Post by Paul S Person
Which is why I never though impeaching Trump was a good idea. Even if
he is convicted, the Dems will lose, because Pence will ascend to the
office and /he/ is competent. And, BTW, will also be entitled to two
terms of his own, if he can win in 2020 and 2024.
Trump is /much/ more valuable, politically, to the Democrats right
where he is.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

The Dems are terrified that he'll win in 2020. That's more or less why Pelosi has been willing to let this proceed.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not.  It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump.  They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.
* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party.  I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.
Maybe The Stars Are Right...

I really /would/ like a centrist party (preferably two, one
centrist-left and one centrist-right) in place of the current whacko
Dems and alt-right Republicans.

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

His beliefs in the extent of Imperial Presidential powers places him
firmly in the far right of the American political spectrum.

Trump hasn't done anything more 'imperial' than Obama, Bush Jr. or Bill Clinton did. He's just used the executive power for different priorities.

[Johnny1A]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump. They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.
* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party. I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.
Maybe The Stars Are Right...

I really /would/ like a centrist party (preferably two, one
centrist-left and one centrist-right) in place of the current whacko
Dems and alt-right Republicans.

Centrist on what axis? There's more than one.

To listen to the media, and a lot of on-line debate, you'd think that it was all 'left vs. right', or 'liberal vs. conservative', or 'libertarian vs. socialist'. But in actual fact there are multiple axes that sort separately.

A pro-life, traditional marriage believing social conservative may, or may not, also believe in free markets and free trade. He might just about as easily be a socialist, or a New Deal economic centrist. A lot of libertarians are social liberals. You can be an environmentalist and a nationalist.

The 'left vs. right' axis is superimposed on all that, and is only marginally meaningful.

This article 'discovered' something that's been obvious for many years, but rarely talked about in the media:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/06/new-study-shows-what-really-happened-in-the-2016-election.html

The four-quadrant graph is specific to 2016, but it's actually been operative for many elections before that. Of course, there are more than just two axes and this is incomplete, but at least it indicates something about why the 'center' is so elusive.

The Dem base is both socially and economically liberal, esp. since they've more or less abandoned trying to appeal to the white working class. The GOP base economically and socially conservative. There are two groups lying between, a very large fiscal liberal or moderate/social conservative cluster, and a very small libertarian cluster that happens to be relatively wealthy and connected. The owners of the big news organizations (including 'conservative' ones like Fox) tend to fall into the lower right quadrant. Rupert Murdoch is economically conservative (or at least corporatist), but in favor of open borders and free trade, which the upper left quadrant increasingly detests.

It's an oversimplification to say that the 'center' is fiscal liberal and social conservative, but it contains considerable truth.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:34:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Johnny1A
The majority of the news media is Dem leaning, and have been
trying to spin a narrative that Trump's base is abandoning him
almost from the moment he was elected, but so far it just simply
is not. It's not clear that most of them are even listening to
the Dems or the media complaints about Trump anymore.

I'm not part of Trump's base (I didn't vote for the SOB, and
don't plan to in 2020*) and I've quit listening to the Dems or
the media complaints about Trump. They're flinging so much fake
crap that it makes me doubt the reality of the real crap.
* Of course, since I live in The Peoples Democratic Socialist
One-Party State of California, where the Democrat is guaranteed
to get at least 60% of the vote even if they're performing human
sacrifices to Molech at every campaign stop, it matters not a
femtogram what I vote for, so the last few elections, I've ended
up indulging my ire by voting third party. I keep threatening
to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil.
Maybe The Stars Are Right...

I really /would/ like a centrist party (preferably two, one
centrist-left and one centrist-right) in place of the current whacko
Dems and alt-right Republicans.

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

More of an "all-wronger".

But an "alt-righter"? Yes, definitely.

"There are good people on both sides"

As if Adolf were merely an aberration of the alt-right, rather than
its heart and soul.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Paul S Person

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

More of an "all-wronger".
But an "alt-righter"? Yes, definitely.
"There are good people on both sides"

There, right there, is some of the "fake crap" I referred to
earlier. Look at the speech that quote came from. THE VERY NEXT
DANGED SENTENCE, he said outright that by "good people on both
sides", he was by no means referring to the Nazis or the
klukkers. The issue he was referring to that had "good people
on both sides" was the current mania for tearing down historical
statuary.

It suits the Wokeiban to pretend that he was claiming there
were "good people" among the Nazis and klukkers, but that is
an outright, absolute lie, that too many people have fallen for,
as is the Wokeiban assertion that only Nazis or klukkers would
object to tearing down historical statuary.

(I still don't like Trump, but lying about him doesn't help.)

[Quadibloc]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Paul S Person

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

More of an "all-wronger".
But an "alt-righter"? Yes, definitely.
"There are good people on both sides"

There, right there, is some of the "fake crap" I referred to
earlier. Look at the speech that quote came from. THE VERY NEXT
DANGED SENTENCE, he said outright that by "good people on both
sides", he was by no means referring to the Nazis or the
klukkers. The issue he was referring to that had "good people
on both sides" was the current mania for tearing down historical
statuary.
It suits the Wokeiban to pretend that he was claiming there
were "good people" among the Nazis and klukkers, but that is
an outright, absolute lie, that too many people have fallen for,
as is the Wokeiban assertion that only Nazis or klukkers would
object to tearing down historical statuary.
(I still don't like Trump, but lying about him doesn't help.)

I had to really hunt to find Trump's actual words, since even sites saying what
you did generally did not deign to quote them:

Excuse me, they didn't put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very
bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on
both sides. You had people in that group -- excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same
pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the
taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a
park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

I think that you do have a valid point, although here I don't think the liberal
media were deliberately lying either. They just found Trump's statement to be
well-nigh incomprehensible, so the fact that despite seeing "the same pictures
as you did" he went and said there were "fine people on both sides".

I don't think there really were, though. Even if people aren't violent neo-Nazis
or skinheads, if someone wanted to protest taking down a statue of Goering in
downtown Munich, I would have little sympathy with him. Why should statues of
people involved in another war against the United States on behalf of fanatical
racism be treated any differently?

Of course, as a Canadian, I'm less sensitive to the American need to get the
country united again, and reconcile its differences with white Southerners,
never mind the cost to black people of allowing them to impose Jim Crow instead
of keeping Reconstruction in place until full equality was brought about.

John Savard

[Kevrob]

Post by Quadibloc
Of course, as a Canadian, I'm less sensitive to the American need to get the
country united again, and reconcile its differences with white Southerners,
never mind the cost to black people of allowing them to impose Jim Crow instead
of keeping Reconstruction in place until full equality was brought about.

Do you mind statues of Louis Riel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel_(sculpture)

http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_history/42/rielstatue.shtml

Kevin R

[David Johnston]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Paul S Person

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

More of an "all-wronger".
But an "alt-righter"? Yes, definitely.
"There are good people on both sides"

There, right there, is some of the "fake crap" I referred to
earlier. Look at the speech that quote came from. THE VERY NEXT
DANGED SENTENCE, he said outright that by "good people on both
sides", he was by no means referring to the Nazis or the
klukkers.

Who were those good people marching with the Nazis to protest the
removal of a statue honoring those those who fought for the cause of
slavery?

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Paul S Person

Are you calling the Trumper an all-righter ?

More of an "all-wronger".
But an "alt-righter"? Yes, definitely.
"There are good people on both sides"

There, right there, is some of the "fake crap" I referred to
earlier. Look at the speech that quote came from. THE VERY NEXT
DANGED SENTENCE, he said outright that by "good people on both
sides", he was by no means referring to the Nazis or the
klukkers.

Who were those good people marching with the Nazis to protest the
removal of a statue honoring those those who fought for the cause of
slavery?

It's not that simple.

The American Civil War is part of the heritage of both sides, or rather, both sides are the ancestors of todays' America. You can't attack one without the other, and it's impossible to divide the heritage apart. It's no great secret that the real hatred isn't aimed at the confederacy, which has been gone for over a century, it's aimed at modern America with the Confederacy as a pretext.

It's _impossible_ for a modern American to take a stand in the Civil War. That's been over for a century. Likewise, screaming about monuments has no effect at all on slavery, it doesn't make you an opponent of slavery carry anyt weight in racial matters. All this pretended outrage over civil war monuments is just that, pretext, for modern-day disputes.

Trump made it very clear in his statements that he was distinguishing between the actual (and very few) serious racists and the like and the majority of people he was speaking about. But the media has deliberately lied about what he said and the context in which he said it, fairly consistently.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:52:51 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was. Second, he _is_ the
incumbent now.

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

Trump is managing, through his insults, to turn pretty much everyone
/except/ his base against him. His base alone is not enough to win. He
needs the independents.

Senate and House depend on local politics. I got a mailing from Dems
in McConnell's state solicitiy funds to get rid of him. They actually
think he is vulnerable. But who can say?

A /lot/ of Republican House members are resigning, which means whoever
runs in their place will /not/ have the advantage of being an
incumbent. The Dems that were elected to flip the House, OTOH, /will/
be running as incumbents.

That said, we are not yet at the point we were in (IIRC) 1992, when
the Dems could have run the mummified corpses of Marx and Lenin and
still won. But who can say what will happen next?

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 04 Nov 2019 09:59:56 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 18:52:51 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Lynn McGuire
One thing for sure, the Trumper is moving to Florida because the New
York City taxes are too high.  Doesn't sound like he is cleaning up at
the moment.

Trump could have, long before he ever ran for high office,
moved his residence to a state without an income tax and saved
whatever he could. NY City and State both have income taxes,
and their enforcement arms keep track of how many days/nights
high profile, high income folks spend in their environs.
Any business traveler who they notice earning income
in the state and city are likely to get a bill. Employers
are supposed to start withholding if a NY assignment lasts
more than 2 weeks.
Bills to harmonize among the states are filed in Congress
each session.
http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/greg-steube-introduces-mobile-workforce-state-income-tax-simplification-act
NY is also a community property state,while Florida is not.
So, if Melania eventually gets fed up....? Though, she stayed
in NY until her son's school termwas done in 2017.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Every time he browbeats the Fed into lowering the prime interest rate
1/4%, his annual income increases by about a million dollars because of
lower debt payments for his companies.

That's so, but I'd expect a "middle-class" pol who wanted
to get reelected would also jawbone for lower rates, because
what gets incumbents thrown out is the perception that the
country is hurting from a recession.

Two problems with that. First, Trump has probably NEVER thought of
himself as "middle class" and almost certainly will *ahem* strenuously
object to anyone seriously suggesting he was. Second, he _is_ the
incumbent now.

Post by Kevrob
I had hoped Trump might have disliked having to be President
enough to "declare victory" and decline to run again. The
impeachment inquiry ensures he'll attempt to be "vindicated by
the voters," Ghu help us.

Not investigating such blatant corruption would set a really bad
precedent. And he's enjoying the perceived power way too much to
voluntarily step away from it.

Trump is managing, through his insults, to turn pretty much everyone
/except/ his base against him. His base alone is not enough to win. He
needs the independents.
Senate and House depend on local politics. I got a mailing from Dems
in McConnell's state solicitiy funds to get rid of him. They actually
think he is vulnerable. But who can say?

I forget this yesterday:

Apparently, they have found the slogan "Moscow Mitch", available on a
bumper sticker and also, no doubt, other places, to be /very/
effective.

Post by Paul S Person
A /lot/ of Republican House members are resigning, which means whoever
runs in their place will /not/ have the advantage of being an
incumbent. The Dems that were elected to flip the House, OTOH, /will/
be running as incumbents.
That said, we are not yet at the point we were in (IIRC) 1992, when
the Dems could have run the mummified corpses of Marx and Lenin and
still won. But who can say what will happen next?

[David Johnston]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by James Nicoll
High Justice by Jerry Pournelle
https://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/to-get-those-souvenirs

"The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of politician he
replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been burned once,
the voters would exercise due diligence? "
We can only hope.

Even if politicians don't start dirty, they're liable
to get dirty.
Remember that President Trump campaigned on cleaning up
Washington.

Well yeah but he was joking.

[Quadibloc]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
"The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of politician he
replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been burned once,
the voters would exercise due diligence? "
We can only hope.

Even if politicians don't start dirty, they're liable
to get dirty.
Remember that President Trump campaigned on cleaning up
Washington.

Well yeah but he was joking.

But with a straight face, so the voters couldn't tell.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by David Johnston

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
"The whole 'politician swans in pretending to be squeaky clean
only to turn out to be the same as the corrupt sort of politician he
replaced' seems a little far fetched. Surely, having been burned once,
the voters would exercise due diligence? "
We can only hope.

Even if politicians don't start dirty, they're liable
to get dirty.
Remember that President Trump campaigned on cleaning up
Washington.

Well yeah but he was joking.

But with a straight face, so the voters couldn't tell.

Then again, the current inquiry might clean Washington up a lot, who
can say?