Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Options
1…235236238240241…326

Comments

  • Options
    #7112
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,327 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Question for the U.S residents [one I don't trust to google-answers]: why are the GOP indicated as Red and the Dems as Blue on the state electoral counts maps while in print the Dems are leftie-liberal and the GOP conservatives? Usually [in words] the reverse would apply as designations.

    No idea, but I'd guess that the left/communists as 'reds' is something that logically can only have started post the Bolshevik Revolution, and probably only became a negative stereotype around the late 1940s.
    And that the GOP colour must pre-date this.


  • Options
    #7113
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    No idea, but I'd guess that the left/communists as 'reds' is something that logically can only have started post the Bolshevik Revolution, and probably only became a negative stereotype around the late 1940s.
    And that the GOP colour must pre-date this.

    You had the whole McCarthy era "Reds under the beds" etc.

    So "Red" was definitely seen as a bad thing certainly in the 50's and 60's.

    I'm guessing that it became a thing when Colour TV became pervasive (at the earliest) as talking about Red States vs. Blue states before that would have been kinda pointless.


  • Options
    #7114
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,559 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    looksee wrote: »
    Do you mean that because some/many/not all other countries tend to use red to indicate 'Labour' and blue for 'Conservative' the US should do so also? Like a kind of international law?

    Just, out of interest, did a quick google and it seems that its a fairly recent definition and somewhat arbitrary.

    Yes, that was what I had in mind, synonymous with Red equating Commie. CNN's use of Red & Blue on it's electoral vote forecast "map" for the parties sprang to mind, along with some Trump fans T-shirts preference for "I'd rather be Russian than Democrat" T-shirts as an indicator of how far image-use had rotated.


  • Options
    #7115
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,077 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Yes, that was what I had in mind, synonymous with Red equating Commie. CNN's use of Red & Blue on it's electoral vote forecast "map" for the parties sprang to mind, along with some Trump fans T-shirts preference for "I'd rather be Russian than Democrat" T-shirts as an indicator of how far image-use had rotated.

    It goes back a long way. I'm old enough to remember when it alternated (LBJ was Blue I think). The color scheme started to matter more, when people had color televisions.

    Apparently the origins are in the 19th century. Nothing to do with Communism then :P

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states#Origins_of_the_color_scheme


  • Options
    #7116
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    84 election Republicans were blue, Dems red

    Senate and governor elections pretty interesting that night...



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7117
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,559 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Emily Murphy, the head of the GSA, has said it will begin the presidential transition work with the Biden team following on from the certification of the vote results AND the failure of court cases brought by the Trump campaign. Emily Murphy issued a written statement to the effect that she had not been instructed by either the White House or anyone in the GSA not to work with the Biden team but did get forceful messages [my description] from the public against providing the Biden team with transition facilities.

    https://www.newsweek.com/read-gsa-administrator-emily-murphys-full-letter-telling-biden-formal-transition-can-begin-1549687


  • Options
    #7118
    abff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭abff


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Emily Murphy, the head of the GSA, has said it will begin the presidential transition work with the Biden team following on from the certification of the vote results AND the failure of court cases brought by the Trump campaign. Emily Murphy issued a written statement to the effect that she had not been instructed by either the White House or anyone in the GSA not to work with the Biden team but did get forceful messages [my description] from the public against providing the Biden team with transition facilities.

    https://www.newsweek.com/read-gsa-administrator-emily-murphys-full-letter-telling-biden-formal-transition-can-begin-1549687

    I read the mealy mouthed letter she sent to Biden. Does she have any evidence of these threats that she claims she received for delaying the release of funds? And, if so, why is this the first we’re hearing of it?

    As to her assertion that no pressure was brought to bear on her to delay the release of the transition funds, this would be a lot more credible if she was not a Trump appointee who spent the first several years of her career working for the RNC and for a Republican Senator. Although I guess you could argue that no pressure needed to be put on her - she knew what was expected of her without anything overt having to be said.


  • Options
    #7119
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,559 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    abff wrote: »
    I read the mealy mouthed letter she sent to Biden. Does she have any evidence of these threats that she claims she received for delaying the release of funds? And, if so, why is this the first we’re hearing of it?

    As to her assertion that no pressure was brought to bear on her to delay the release of the transition funds, this would be a lot more credible if she was not a Trump appointee who spent the first several years of her career working for the RNC and for a Republican Senator. Although I guess you could argue that no pressure needed to be put on her - she knew what was expected of her without anything overt having to be said.

    Trump may have put his foot in his mouth again with his statement that he instructed the GSA to provide assistance to the Biden transition team & damaged the GSA administrator's statement when it comes to providing federal funding etc when the vote result is certified. I don't think it's constitutionally up to him to tell the GSA what to do when it's laid out for it in the statute mentioned below. Paragraph 4 in the link I've posted below...

    “In accordance with the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, as amended, the GSA administrator ascertains the apparent successful candidate once a winner is clear based on the process laid out in the Constitution,” a GSA spokesperson told Government Executive on Friday. “The administrator’s ascertainment is done for the purposes of making services provided by the [transition act] available. Until an ascertainment is made, the statute allows for the Biden transition team to continue to receive the pre-elect services from the government (e.g., limited office space, computers, background investigations for security clearances). GSA has met all statutory requirements under the [transition act] for this election cycle and will continue to do so.”

    https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/11/gsa-faces-tricky-decision-ascertaining-election-winner-formally-kicking-transition/169854/

    As for the reported threats, there seem to be a lot of them issued against people who have indicated agreement with a transition of power as voted for by the majority of U.S citizens so those reportedly aimed at Murphy may well be genuine.


  • Options
    #7120
    abff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,730 ✭✭✭abff


    aloyisious wrote: »
    As for the reported threats, there seem to be a lot of them issued against people who have indicated agreement with a transition of power as voted for by the majority of U.S citizens so those reportedly aimed at Murphy may well be genuine.

    Unless I’m misreading the letter to Biden, she appears to be claiming that the threats were issued by supporters of Biden who were annoyed with her for withholding the funds.


  • Options
    #7121
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,184 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    No modern President has refused to concede before, and while concession is not a requirement for things to move on, it does provide a line to indicate what the outcome of the election - which has of course still to be determined - will be.

    Otherwise there is only a general thrust of opinion based on media outlets 'calling' the election, which to a legal mind would be a less than appropriate way of deciding what to do. Politicians get to shout and bluff and see things the way they want them, legal minds do not.

    She said herself that the guidelines need more clarity and precision as to when or whether the GSA gets to 'call' the election prior to the official result in January.

    I think it is more than likely that she was truthful about the threats she has received, and that vicious and sour atmosphere is entirely down to the malignant influence of Trump.

    All the above does not make it less likely that she had some underlying bias for the Republicans and Trump, she was a Trump appointee after all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7122
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    looksee wrote: »
    No modern President has refused to concede before, and while concession is not a requirement for things to move on, it does provide a line to indicate what the outcome of the election - which has of course still to be determined - will be.

    Otherwise there is only a general thrust of opinion based on media outlets 'calling' the election, which to a legal mind would be a less than appropriate way of deciding what to do. Politicians get to shout and bluff and see things the way they want them, legal minds do not.

    She said herself that the guidelines need more clarity and precision as to when or whether the GSA gets to 'call' the election prior to the official result in January.

    I think it is more than likely that she was truthful about the threats she has received, and that vicious and sour atmosphere is entirely down to the malignant influence of Trump.

    All the above does not make it less likely that she had some underlying bias for the Republicans and Trump, she was a Trump appointee after all.

    its safe to say there was a direct line of contact to the white house at all times.


  • Options
    #7123
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,184 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    listermint wrote: »
    its safe to say there was a direct line of contact to the white house at all times.

    I would think that is very likely. The WH and Trump seem to have had and used direct links to a lot of people that, in the election situation, were inappropriate.


  • Options
    #7124
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    looksee wrote: »
    Otherwise there is only a general thrust of opinion based on media outlets 'calling' the election, which to a legal mind would be a less than appropriate way of deciding what to do. Politicians get to shout and bluff and see things the way they want them, legal minds do not.

    What isn't legitimate about a media organisation adding up a set of numbers and then stating what the answer is? Doesn't need some government appointed body to do that, well it does but they take their sweet time about it and still are not done.

    Other than in 2000 when the courts got involved to figure out if chads counted or not, has there ever been an instance where the media calculations of how to count up to 270 on the night of the election ended up being different to how the electoral college counted up to 270? If there are X votes left to count in a state and person B is ahead by X+ already why do you need to wait a month for the EC to meet before you can say that person B won? If state Y and state Z added together takes person B over 270 EC votes why do you need to wait a month for that simple calculation to be done.

    There is nothing wrong with media organisations saying that someone has won if the official body just can't be bother to break out their abacus until December 14th. They should just accept that it's some pretty basic maths and get on with the transition rather than worry about who did the adding up for them.


  • Options
    #7125
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,327 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    robinph wrote: »

    Other than in 2000 when the courts got involved to figure out if chads counted or not, has there ever been an instance where the media calculations of how to count up to 270 on the night of the election ended up being different to how the electoral college counted up to 270? If there are X votes left to count in a state and person B is ahead by X+ already why do you need to wait a month for the EC to meet before you can say that person B won? If state Y and state Z added together takes person B over 270 EC votes why do you need to wait a month for that simple calculation to be done.

    That seems sound and logical at first, but we are looking at it from the pov of UK/Irl elections where the number of votes is known.
    Your figure X (the number of votes left to count) doesn't actually seem to be a known factor in American elections in the early stages of the count. So Dave may be 20,000 votes ahead of John on the count on the first day, but we don't how many votes will arrive in two days later. It may be a meaningless 2000 or a game-changing 40,000.


  • Options
    #7126
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,644 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    robinph wrote: »
    What isn't legitimate about a media organisation adding up a set of numbers and then stating what the answer is? Doesn't need some government appointed body to do that, well it does but they take their sweet time about it and still are not done.

    Other than in 2000 when the courts got involved to figure out if chads counted or not, has there ever been an instance where the media calculations of how to count up to 270 on the night of the election ended up being different to how the electoral college counted up to 270? If there are X votes left to count in a state and person B is ahead by X+ already why do you need to wait a month for the EC to meet before you can say that person B won? If state Y and state Z added together takes person B over 270 EC votes why do you need to wait a month for that simple calculation to be done.

    There is nothing wrong with media organisations saying that someone has won if the official body just can't be bother to break out their abacus until December 14th. They should just accept that it's some pretty basic maths and get on with the transition rather than worry about who did the adding up for them.

    Well at least one newspaper(hence the famous photo of Truman) called the race for Dewey over president Truman but that was in 1948 but I don’t know if that was across the board.


  • Options
    #7127
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Well at least one newspaper(hence the famous photo of Truman) called the race for Dewey over president Truman but that was in 1948 but I don’t know if that was across the board.

    I guess they went to print on the east coast before the polls had even closed on the west?


  • Options
    #7128
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,559 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    abff wrote: »
    Unless I’m misreading the letter to Biden, she appears to be claiming that the threats were issued by supporters of Biden who were annoyed with her for withholding the funds.

    That's a possibility I hadn't considered. I'll have to look at the GSA guidelines on certification to see if there's a mention of which state's results or a specific level of votes tallied for the GSA to be legally able make a determination on the provision of funds and services. I had a look for info on state certification dates and found Ballotpedia listed Delaware's [amongst the others] date for certification was 05th Nov. The link requires one to allow ballotpedia use your personal data in exchange for entering the site fully and get a full scroll-down look at the states certification-dates list.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results_certification_dates,_2020


  • Options
    #7129
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,426 ✭✭✭amandstu


    What are the lessons to be drawn from this period of America bathing in its own vomit?

    How to ensure there is an upward trend in civic behaviours there (and so protect ourselves from the contagion)?

    Biden seems like an excellent choice for the job of Presidency but there has to be more than papering over the cracks and crossing the fingers.

    America First would be good slogan if it means first in decency and intelligence but is that a long term goal ?

    Is it important for Biden to highlight those areas where it can be agreed that Trump and his enablers got it right?


  • Options
    #7130
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    But Trump completely undermined her letter. He says he instructed her to go ahead, with the implication that he had previously not given such instructions. She claims she was acting totally independently, yet Trump is saying he had the final say!!

    Not for the 1st time, Trump has provided the reality when everyone else is trying desperately to cover it up. He really cannot help himself.


  • Options
    #7131
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,184 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Of course Trump said he gave the go-ahead, and maybe he did, but he is going to say that anyway to maintain the fiction that he is in charge. Is there no evidence that Trump is a liar in all circumstances? That whatever he says almost guarantees that the opposite is true?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7132
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,184 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Meanwhile Rachel Maddow on CNBC is reporting that Trump has yesterday trashed the Open Skies policy by not only pulling out of it but instructing that the planes used (very specialised planes) be destroyed/withdrawn/disposed of, so Biden cannot just reinstate it. The funding for new replacement planes that was planned was withdrawn earlier in the year by one of his specially installed quislings.

    (Edit: she points out that he has no legal right to do this, but by the time anyone gets around to doing anything about it it will be too late. Hopefully the planes will be carefully stashed away 'pending demolition'.)

    He has also installed entirely unsuitable, inexperienced people in the NSA and Pentagon. He really does seem to be setting up the country for a terrorist attack just as Biden takes office.


  • Options
    #7133
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    aloyisious wrote: »
    That's a possibility I hadn't considered. I'll have to look at the GSA guidelines on certification to see if there's a mention of which state's results or a specific level of votes tallied for the GSA to be legally able make a determination on the provision of funds and services. I had a look for info on state certification dates and found Ballotpedia listed Delaware's [amongst the others] date for certification was 05th Nov. The link requires one to allow ballotpedia use your personal data in exchange for entering the site fully and get a full scroll-down look at the states certification-dates list.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results_certification_dates,_2020

    Her argument had been that she was following the precedents set during the Bush/Gore Election insofar as there was no "President Elect" until Florida had been called.

    Tenuous at best , but that was what she was using. Once Michigan certified that meant that Biden had 270+ EC votes locked and there weren't enough contested "uncertified" States left for Trump to close the gap , so she no longer had that defence.


  • Options
    #7134
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    looksee wrote: »
    Of course Trump said he gave the go-ahead, and maybe he did, but he is going to say that anyway to maintain the fiction that he is in charge. Is there no evidence that Trump is a liar in all circumstances? That whatever he says almost guarantees that the opposite is true?

    I thought it was previously assumed that once it looks likely someone has won, the secret service up their cover of the winner (done), the networks then a bit later actually make the call (done), the loser concedes (not done), the outgoing president out of politeness tells the GSA to divert funds as necessary (now done). The GSA can start the process whenever they like and it's not needed for the president to authorise it, just previously everyone has been adult about it.

    In 2000 Gore conceded, then he didn't, then they went to court, then he conceded again. But despite that the processes of the transition were still going ahead in the background from Clinton to Bush Jr. They were not necessary for a potential transition from Clinton to Gore as he was already getting all the same information as VP.


  • Options
    #7135
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,184 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    robinph wrote: »
    I thought it was previously assumed that once it looks likely someone has won, the secret service up their cover of the winner (done), the networks then a bit later actually make the call (done), the loser concedes (not done), the outgoing president out of politeness tells the GSA to divert funds as necessary (now done). The GSA can start the process whenever they like and it's not needed for the president to authorise it, just previously everyone has been adult about it.

    In 2000 Gore conceded, then he didn't, then they went to court, then he conceded again. But despite that the processes of the transition were still going ahead in the background from Clinton to Bush Jr. They were not necessary for a potential transition from Clinton to Gore as he was already getting all the same information as VP.

    I am not disputing any of that, I am simply pointing out that anything that Trump has said about anything can be taken with a pinch of salt.


  • Options
    #7136
    serfboard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭serfboard


    amandstu wrote: »
    What are the lessons to be drawn from this period of America bathing in its own vomit?
    How did a person like Trump come about in the first place? What does it say about the policies and personnel of political parties in the US that someone like Trump can come along and win? Whatever about the first time, what does it say about the US, that, after everything they know about Trump, 74 million people, 48%, or almost half, of the electorate voted for him?

    To paraphrase Tony Blair: "Tough on Trump - tough on the causes of Trump".

    Republicanism, Religion and Racism certainly play a part. Republicans are, IMO, more commited than Democrats - they will vote for whoever is a Republican, no matter who that person is. Having Pence as VP, and having stuffed the Supreme Court with anti-abortionists convinced the religious crowd. And Trump was the racists' candidate from day one, when he said that Mexicans were rapists.

    Citizens United plays a huge part too, when the Supreme Court perversely declared that corporations were people who can donate as much as they like to candidates. Since then, studies have shown that the the ruling gave Republicans an advantage in subsequent elections.

    Education levels also play a part. Trump cleans up with the poorly educated:
    Donald Trump wrote:
    I love the poorly educated
    For me, though, it's the failure of politicians, and the Democrats in particular, to advance the cause of working-and-middle-class people. For instance, it's interesting to note that in Florida, a clear majority of voters voted to increase the minimum wage:
    CNBC wrote:
    One winner emerged in Florida's election that wasn't President Donald Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden.

    It was the $15 an hour state minimum wage.

    The initiative passed on Tuesday with 60.8% of the vote, just over the 60% minimum required for approval.

    The approval rate surpassed both Trump's and Biden's support in many parts of the state. Florida's popular vote went to Trump, who received 51.2% of the votes, versus Biden, with 47.8%.

    The result "says a lot about how much voters in both parties are looking for government and policy makers to do something about the state of wages in America right now," said David Cooper, senior economic analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, an independent, non-profit think tank.
    If the political class breathes a sigh of relief with the removal of Trump, and goes back to ignoring these bread and butter issues, then you can only expect that the voters will lash out again in desperation.


  • Options
    #7137
    BluePlanet
    Registered Users Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    serfboard wrote: »
    How did a person like Trump come about in the first place? What does it say about the policies and personnel of political parties in the US that someone like Trump can come along and win? Whatever about the first time, what does it say about the US, that, after everything they know about Trump, 74 million people, 48%, or almost half, of the electorate voted for him?

    To paraphrase Tony Blair: "Tough on Trump - tough on the causes of Trump".

    Republicanism, Religion and Racism certainly play a part. Republicans are, IMO, more commited than Democrats - they will vote for whoever is a Republican, no matter who that person is. Having Pence as VP, and having stuffed the Supreme Court with anti-abortionists convinced the religious crowd. And Trump was the racists' candidate from day one, when he said that Mexicans were rapists.

    Citizens United plays a huge part too, when the Supreme Court perversely declared that corporations were people who can donate as much as they like to candidates. Since then, studies have shown that the the ruling gave Republicans an advantage in subsequent elections.

    Education levels also play a part. Trump cleans up with the poorly educated:

    For me, though, it's the failure of politicians, and the Democrats in particular, to advance the cause of working-and-middle-class people. For instance, it's interesting to note that in Florida, a clear majority of voters voted to increase the minimum wage:

    If the political class breathes a sigh of relief with the removal of Trump, and goes back to ignoring these bread and butter issues, then you can only expect that the voters will lash out again in desperation.

    Certainly people are being economically left behind for the past 40 years or so as evidenced by the ever growing income disparity.
    Trump was able to capture enough of them with his dog whistling etc.

    The Dems used to be the party of working people but (today) they are really just another flavour of the corporate/oligarchy party of the well connected and well financed.
    The Dems are only going to engage the usual gas lighting and vote shaming of the left, just enough to keep most of their votes.
    America really doesn't have a party that represents the ordinary worker.


  • Options
    #7138
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,087 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    looksee wrote: »
    I am not disputing any of that, I am simply pointing out that anything that Trump has said about anything can be taken with a pinch of salt.

    I know, probably could have worded things better as an extension of the train of thought rather than a response to.


  • Options
    #7139
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Certainly people are being economically left behind for the past 40 years or so as evidenced by the ever growing income disparity.
    Trump was able to capture enough of them with his dog whistling etc.

    The Dems used to be the party of working people but (today) they are really just another flavour of the corporate/oligarchy party of the well connected and well financed.
    The Dems are only going to engage the usual gas lighting and vote shaming of the left, just enough to keep most of their votes.
    America really doesn't have a party that represents the ordinary worker.

    Unusual how giving corporations massive tax breaks and pouring money into share buy backs doesn't resonant as a problem with those on the breadline.

    It's almost...


    Almost they are being lied to.


  • Options
    #7140
    retalivity
    Registered Users Posts: 14,084 ✭✭✭✭retalivity


    Not so much 'There's always a tweet', but this video from the traditional Turkey pardoning from 2018 seems extra ironic with what is currently going on

    https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1330906046223757312


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7141
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,184 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    He is quite capable of asking the turkeys for a pardon this year. I really don't see him engaging in the circumstances.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement