Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Dytalus

MrFresh wrote: »

There's something seriously wrong with the political system over there. It's not really a functioning democracy. Gerrymandering permitted. Voter disenfranchising a valid tactic. Politicians being bought and paid for. It really is insane.

EDIT: Leaving the below for posterity, but I found some additional information on the case given I can't read the NYT article. This is an appalling ruling and even given my below "giving the benefit of the doubt" can justify it. It's basically mandated now that if you live in a currently gerrymandered state and have no way to vote those who made it that way out then...well too bad. No fix for you.

Shocking decision.

---

To play a tough game of devil's advocate for a moment (and noting that I cannot read the full article as it is behind a paywall), this might be a justified ruling.

I'm going to have to give some extreme benefit of the doubt to SCOTUS here, but their remit is to rule whether something is, or is not, unconstitutional or in breach of federal law. Not whether it's legal or not at a states level. If there is no provision in the constitution that actually prevents gerrymandering, then they've made the right call (based on the headline, that was the case brought forward - not a case involving federal law).

Of course then that brings in the problem of: If it's not unconstitutional to gerrymander, and it's not against any federal law, then states can go ahead and do it whenever they like unless a local state law says otherwise. But that's not strictly speaking a problem for SCOTUS to address.

It's still, imo, a bull* situation. Gerrymandering kills democracy, and it really should be illegal. But alas, one of many issues with American democracy which is unlikely to be fixed any time soon.

AbusesToilets

pixelburp wrote: »

This is worth bumping by dint of it being a potentially huge decision and doesn't deserve getting lost in the blather; it could have major ramifications for many District elections to come (and presumably those districts already being contested for a redraw).

It could open the door to even more flagrant abuses of constituency drawing, and on the face of it reads like a further erosion of baseline democracy in the country. It certainly throws up potentially 'interesting' ramifications for post 2020 elections...

Presumably this is one result where those who clamour most about "States Rights!!" will say silent..

Truly a shocking decision, or it would be in a functional democracy. So much of what the Republicans have done legislatively over the last decade has been to game the system to protect themselves from loss of voters nationally. More and more, they can operate free from censure by the electorate, given so many districts are now a fait accompli. Not that the Democrats wouldn't love to act in a similar fashion, they're just more incompetent.

If the Democrats regain the Senate, their first legislative priority should be restoring the basic principles of representative democracy. Both for the sake of the Republic, and for whatever future aspirations they have as a party.

AbusesToilets

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not semantics. Words are important and it's important not to be simplistic. He cannot unilaterally launch a nuclear attack.

This BBC article, having examined the realities and discussed the matter with a variety of relevant experts, concludes that:
Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order, in practice, generals would expect a good explanation for the strike - and would be obliged to say "no" to an illegal order.


Similarly, the general in charge of nuclear warfare, stated categorically that if the order was illegal, it would be ignored. A quote:
“And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

That article doesn't refute a President's ability to initiate a nuclear strike on his own.

In reality, it places a General in an extremely difficult position, trying to weigh whether he can refuse an order. The President could simply dismiss them and find a replacement.

Dog Man Star

Trump's abhorrent comment on John McCain didn't go down very well at his bizarre appearance yesterday at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference. Since he has removed the 'adults in the room', those who were censoring the worst of his actions, I feel he has polarised himself further.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1143925197562683392

I genuinely think he hasn't a hope in hell of winning the 2020 election. I believe it will be a Warren/Castro ticket for the Democrats and there is just far too much obvious benefits in that for ordinary Americans to turn it down.

Trump will get his fanatics' vote, but it will fall far short. Over the next 16 months his behaviour will deteriorate at a rapid rate and he will lose more and more votes.

Professor Moriarty

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That article doesn't refute a President's ability to initiate a nuclear strike on his own.

In reality, it places a General in an extremely difficult position, trying to weigh whether he can refuse an order. The President could simply dismiss them and find a replacement.

Really? Here is its conclusion in full having consulted with various experts:
The claim: US military personnel could resist President Trump if he ordered an illegal nuclear strike.

Reality Check verdict: Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order, in practice, generals would expect a good explanation for the strike - and would be obliged to say "no" to an illegal order.

That says to me that the generals would require an explanation before initiating a launch.


In my other link, the general in charge of the 'button' very clearly said that the order would have to be legal. No ifs or buts.


In addition, a professor of political science at Duke said the following:
"...if the president went to the military to order a strike, this would trigger a "consultation process" - generals wanting to know what the president was trying to achieve, why the president wanted to use nuclear weapons and so on.
President Trump would have the legal authority to order the strike all the same, against any advice he receives. But he'd still need to persuade the military to carry that order out.


The word 'unilateral' means "performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a situation, without the agreement of another or the others." By definition, Trump cannot unilaterally launch a nuclear strike.


But all of this aside, I'm sure we can agree that Trump can't stub his toe tomorrow morning and Beijing is nuked 10 seconds later.

uptherebels

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Trump's abhorrent comment on John McCain didn't go down very well at his bizarre appearance yesterday at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference. Since he has removed the 'adults in the room', those who were censoring the worst of his actions, I feel he has polarised himself further.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1143925197562683392

I genuinely think he hasn't a hope in hell of winning the 2020 election. I believe it will be a Warren/Castro ticket for the Democrats and there is just far too much obvious benefits in that for ordinary Americans to turn it down.

Trump will get his fanatics' vote, but it will fall far short. Over the next 16 months his behaviour will deteriorate at a rapid rate and he will lose more and more votes.

But will he do enough to not be voted in again by the electoral college?

AbusesToilets

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Really? Here is its conclusion in full having consulted with various experts:
The claim: US military personnel could resist President Trump if he ordered an illegal nuclear strike.

Reality Check verdict: Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order, in practice, generals would expect a good explanation for the strike - and would be obliged to say "no" to an illegal order.

That says to me that the generals would require an explanation before initiating a launch.


In my other link, the general in charge of the 'button' very clearly said that the order would have to be legal. No ifs or buts.


In addition, a professor of political science at Duke said the following:
"...if the president went to the military to order a strike, this would trigger a "consultation process" - generals wanting to know what the president was trying to achieve, why the president wanted to use nuclear weapons and so on.
President Trump would have the legal authority to order the strike all the same, against any advice he receives. But he'd still need to persuade the military to carry that order out.


The word 'unilateral' means "performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a situation, without the agreement of another or the others." By definition, Trump cannot unilaterally launch a nuclear strike.


But all of this aside, I'm sure we can agree that Trump can't stub his toe tomorrow morning and Beijing is nuked 10 seconds later.

The point I'm making is that ultimately, the government has vested the decision to employ nuclear weapons in the President, as a singular person. Saying that someone in the chain of command could resist an order, doesn't change that fact. It's not defined anywhere what would constitute an illegal order with reference to nuclear weapons. The US nominally has a 2nd Strike policy, which states they wouldn't be the first to employ nuclear weapons. However, during the Cold War, the strategy to defeat a Soviet invasion of Western Europe included widespread use of "tactical" nukes to disrupt Soviet advances. Policy, iirc, also states that the US holds a Chem/ Bio attack is equal to a nuclear one, and that they could respond with nuclear weapons.

I should hope that the military and his political advisors could deter him from a snap decision to use nukes, but the fact remains, he can do so, if it came to it.

TheDiceMan2020

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Trump's abhorrent comment on John McCain didn't go down very well at his bizarre appearance yesterday at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference. Since he has removed the 'adults in the room', those who were censoring the worst of his actions, I feel he has polarised himself further.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1143925197562683392

I genuinely think he hasn't a hope in hell of winning the 2020 election. I believe it will be a Warren/Castro ticket for the Democrats and there is just far too much obvious benefits in that for ordinary Americans to turn it down.

Trump will get his fanatics' vote, but it will fall far short. Over the next 16 months his behaviour will deteriorate at a rapid rate and he will lose more and more votes.

Precisely the kind of "thinking" that lead to such disbelief when Clinton lost

MrFresh

The reasoning for the gerrymander decision is just mental. Apparently if the framers of the constitution had meant for voting areas not to be partisan they wouldn't have put it in the hands of legislators. That is just the craziest logic I've heard. Basically saying if the framers had meant for it to be fair they wouldn't have left it to politicians.

AbusesToilets

MrFresh wrote: »

The reasoning for the gerrymander decision is just mental. Apparently if the framers of the constitution had meant for voting areas not to be partisan they wouldn't have put it in the hands of legislators. That is just the craziest logic I've heard. Basically saying if the framers had meant for it to be fair they wouldn't have left it to politicians.

You have to remember that they were living in a time where putting the interests of the nation before party or oneself wasn't a laughable concept.

Professor Moriarty

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The point I'm making is that ultimately, the government has vested the decision to employ nuclear weapons in the President, as a singular person. Saying that someone in the chain of command could resist an order, doesn't change that fact. It's not defined anywhere what would constitute an illegal order with reference to nuclear weapons. The US nominally has a 2nd Strike policy, which states they wouldn't be the first to employ nuclear weapons. However, during the Cold War, the strategy to defeat a Soviet invasion of Western Europe included widespread use of "tactical" nukes to disrupt Soviet advances. Policy, iirc, also states that the US holds a Chem/ Bio attack is equal to a nuclear one, and that they could respond with nuclear weapons.

I should hope that the military and his political advisors could deter him from a snap decision to use nukes, but the fact remains, he can do so, if it came to it.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Gbear

uptherebels wrote: »

But will he do enough to not be voted in again by the electoral college?

He absolutely scraped in last time.

There's no reason to think he has improved his vote share. Even with a relatively steady economy (for the moment) he's never gone above about 42%.

Even with gerrymandering and the electoral college, high turnout means the Dems will probably win nearly any election (which is why the Republicans are so hell bent on reducing turnout). If the Dems get some bum nobody cares about then it might be difficult. If there's much of any buzz about the candidate, then the only thing that ought to be able to stop them is that the Trump administration and the Republican Senate majority have given a green light to the Russians to compromise the elections by failing to do anything about it, or even recognise that it's a threat, despite being told so by the entirity of the US intelligence apparatus.

TomOnBoard

Gbear wrote: »

uptherebels wrote: »

But will he do enough to not be voted in again by the electoral college?

He absolutely scraped in last time.

I wouldnt call 304 Electoral College votes vs 227 'scraping in'.

marno21

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I wouldnt call 304 Electoral College votes vs 227 'scraping in'.

He won the 46 electoral votes of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 80,000 votes. That’s a scrape in alright

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

Game theory would suggest otherwise. Its an outstanding tool at realizing what you or your enemy will do, and in turn what you should do, given a lot of unknowns.

For example, applying game theory to nuclear scenarios, one realizes that the threat of mutual destruction is enough for your enemy not to strike first.

A rudimentary understanding of strategy would easily reveal this.

(I would recommend a documentary called "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom"- By Adam Curtis. This is detailed quite well

Geopolitics isn’t a game. End.

TomOnBoard

marno21 wrote: »

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I wouldnt call 304 Electoral College votes vs 227 'scraping in'.

He won the 46 electoral votes of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by 80,000 votes. That’s a scrape in alright

Which says something about the electoral system- the actual popular vote is irrelevant if it's in the wrong states. By securing even miniscule popular vote majorities in the small states it had a disproportionate effect on the EC votes. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Any Dem effort to increase their vote by say 200,000 in a state like California will be irrelevant if they don't gain a similar number of votes across the three states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

everlast75

Or if the electorate had of heard of his affair with Clifford instead of Trump carrying out a campaign finance felony.

And if you think I'm overestimating the importance of that affair, see Giuliani admitting on Fox how important it was that information wasn't released just before the election when he was defending Cohen.

mcmoustache

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Which says something about the electoral system- the actual popular vote is irrelevant if it's in the wrong states. By securing even miniscule popular vote majorities in the small states it had a disproportionate effect on the EC votes. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

Any Dem effort to increase their vote by say 200,000 in a state like California will be irrelevant if they don't gain a similar number of votes across the three states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

It's a stupid system but that's the game that needs to be won. Only the swing states matter.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

I would actually have had some respect for Trump if he hadn’t brought Bolton in in the first place.

I start to prove how bringing in Bolton was a good idea, much like that of a nuclear deterrent. You then flip the argument to a rhetorical quip.

Brian? wrote: »

Geopolitics isn’t a game. End.

When in fact, nothing better describes geopolitics than a game.

Nash's formulation of the equilibrium directly shaped the U.S. and Soviet Cold War strategies

Nash's line of thought appears rather simple. When applied to most real-world situations, however, game theory as well as its optimal strategies and payoffs depend on how an analyst translates the complexity of reality into the strict rules and confines of a "game."

John Nash was best known for being publicized in 'A Beautiful Mind'
Citation worldview.stratfor, described by mediabiascheck as "These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources."


I would expect better argumentation

Maybe it is exactly this reductionist, taking things at face value thinking, that led you to err so greatly earlier in this thread.

Brian? wrote: »

That’s not dog whistling. That’s an openly racist thing to say.

"The conservative philosopher has a point about his quotes being taken out of context....shows Scruton making a point about the conformity demanded by the authoritarian Chinese government, rather than denigrating Chinese people. This should have been made clearer"- The guardian

Brian? wrote: »

Spare me the victory lap.

Maybe now I deserve that victory lap?

rossie1977

TheDiceMan2020 wrote: »

Let's also make another thing clear while we are at it though. The left openly celebrated draft dodging during Vietnam and lionised many musicians and public figures for doing so. But Trump gets bashed for it. More idiocy. The man's an ass but Democrats have to still even lower in their pathetic attacks on him. If their criticism was even remotely sane they'd crush him in 2020 but instead they've gone batshyt crazy since he took office. They are their own worst enemy.

That's not an important issue but on flipside those that dodged draft were viewed as anti-american by conservatives.

I mean if you are bringing up hypocrisy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUymzX9ImU

duploelabs

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's a stupid system but that's the game that needs to be won. Only the swing states matter.

In those swing states, like Ohio, Trump is polling really badly too

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Ohio.html

pixelburp

duploelabs wrote: »

In those swing states, like Ohio, Trump is polling really badly too

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Ohio.html

Maybe I'm being really dim, but who is "Brown" that he's +6 in those polls? I can't think of ant candidate in the primaries by that name ...

TomOnBoard

pixelburp wrote: »

duploelabs wrote: »

In those swing states, like Ohio, Trump is polling really badly too

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/Ohio.html

Maybe I'm being really dim, but who is "Brown" that he's +6 in those polls? I can't think of ant candidate in the primaries by that name ...

Sherrod Brown, a Dem Senator. He was being considered in ohio last year.

I think those polls are from November 2018

marno21

pixelburp wrote: »

Maybe I'm being really dim, but who is "Brown" that he's +6 in those polls? I can't think of ant candidate in the primaries by that name ...

Presumably Sherrod Brown, Democratic Senator from Ohio.

Brian?

Kimsang wrote: »

I start to prove how bringing in Bolton was a good idea, much like that of a nuclear deterrent. You then flip the argument to a rhetorical quip.


When in fact, nothing better describes geopolitics than a game.

I’m going to stay blunt. That’s a stupid notion. If you attempt to play a game with something this serious you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. Not you personally, someone who views something as serious as war as a game.

It wasn’t a quip. It was the truth. I haven’t the energy to indulge in a drawn out argument about why something that’s clearly wrong is wrong. Explaining something when it’s stating the obvious is a waste of time

John Nash was best known for being publicized in 'A Beautiful Mind'
Citation worldview.stratfor, described by mediabiascheck as "These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources."


I would expect better argumentation

So would I, but you left me extremely disappointed.

Maybe it is exactly this reductionist, taking things at face value thinking, that led you to err so greatly earlier in this thread.

Maybe now I deserve that victory lap?

No. You don’t. Let’s review this shall we.

You praises Trump for not allowing his advisors to Start a war with Iran. Advisors he hired, knowing they wanted war with Iran.

You want a victory lap because you posted a racist comment?

FrostyJack

Kimsang wrote:

Maybe now I deserve that victory lap?

How can someone who says they watch Sam Harris, who for over a year, broadcasted point by point how awful Trump was and is, even before the Mueller report and the mountains over other evidence uncovered since then like his 400 million starter pack from his father, insurance and tax fraud etc and then recommend an Adam Curtis documentary after he made one showing the absolute corruption and lunacy that led to Trump getting elected and also the power of nightmares, showing the same tactics he he used to come to power, can come on here and defend him? How does one square that circle?

From what I read, will hopefully see debate later, my pick Warren came out looking good. Hope it isn't a flash in the pan.

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

I’m going to stay blunt. That’s a stupid notion. If you attempt to play a game with something this serious you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. Not you personally, someone who views something as serious as war as a game.

Your careless straw-manning of my argument is starting to get tedious.

No one is attempting to play a game with something this serious. Someone who views something as serious as war as a game</strawman>

Why not instead, attempt to steel-man my argument? This is how you would truly disprove me.

Nations apply game theory, a mathematical equilibrium, to geopolitics. This exact mathematical equilibrium is also applied to games of unknown information such as poker. </steelman> Do you disagree, and can you disprove this?
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/john-nashs-legacy-mathematic-theory-strategic-implications

I really can't believe that you guys consider yourselves political commentators, and in the same breath, dismiss the electoral college.

Argue the percentages? Sure.
Argue that states shouldn't have levels of representation bigger than their population? Naive.

The US is a federation of states. This notion that that doesn't work anymore because Trump got elected is so short-sighted. The country is the width of Western Europe, and because of one election, people are calling for a "most popular wins" system. What happened to all your support for EU negligibles like what Walloons did in Belgium? Smaller pieces in the big picture having a say.. Ireland having the support of the EU in Brexit negotiations because our comparatively small population is negated by our membership?

How would that play out in the coming decades? Where the majority live on the coastlines.. Would that be fair to the people in the middle.. Of course it wouldn't. Ye know that.

There are people willing to strip away centuries of governmental systems because "one got through the net". Trump won't even be talked about in a decade or two but angry people would choose to change everything now, and for what, a ridiculous system where politics would be centered on a few coastal states. Removing a system where central states can vote and be counted would be worse than anything Trump has done so far.

In Europe, we see carnage down the road because of Brexit, but we're not arguing for monumental change. Somehow, Europeans addicted to US politics, are arguing for more change there than here.

Kimsang

FrostyJack wrote: »

How can someone who says they watch Sam Harris, who for over a year, broadcasted point by point how awful Trump was and is, even before the Mueller report and the mountains over other evidence uncovered since then like his 400 million starter pack from his father, insurance and tax fraud etc and then recommend an Adam Curtis documentary after he made one showing the absolute corruption and lunacy that led to Trump getting elected and also the power of nightmares, showing the same tactics he he used to come to power, can come on here and defend him? How does one square that circle?

I have been trying to offer fair analysis since I came to this thread(obviously we all have our biases). There seems to be a majority view that it is all the 'deplorables' fault because they have become so racist/sexist/misogynist/etc...

When in fact as Curtis points out, its a reaction to what came before it.

Find me where I 'defend' trump. My only point was that those who oppose Trump consider everything he does bad. I'm trying to find the few good things I agree Trump has done well to highlight this point.

vetinari

It's clearly not going to change anytime soon as constitutional amendments are no longer done in the US.
The support required for one doesn't make it a feasible option.

Not sure why you're worried about the people in the middle. They're currently making out like bandits in the current model.
A lot of the those states are essentially leeches at this point. They take far more federal money than they contribute.
That's only going to become more pronounced over the years.

If current trends continue, the middle of the country is going to have ridiculous out sized power.
The Dakotas will have 4 senate seats with 2 million total population between them! That's insane compared to California with nearly 40 million population and 2 senate seats. Honestly why should so much of the country be beholden to what the Dakotas' think? Same for Delaware and Rhode Island. Protecting the minority has it's limits.

Should Ireland be held hostage by what Louth thinks?