2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[Matnum PI]

It indeed seems quite screwy, but I suspect it has something to do with once having bought into Trump, folks who otherwise would want to see themselves as not bigoted, have trouble with the discontinuity of supporting a racist.

Denial is easier.

Quite possibly true. And I think there's an aspect of relativity. For most people, whether Person A is racist is based on whether he's more racist than I am. i.e. For sure, I'm not racist. That's for sure! And Person A is less racist than I am so... obviously Person A is not racist. i once spoke to a guy who was horribly racist. I could give examples but... Trust me. Fine, one example. He'd never hire a black, no matter how competent he was because it'd just be a matter of time before his inner n'er would come out. A truly disgusting person. So I said to him, Dude, you're a racist. His response was, No, I'm not! It's not like I want to lynch blacks! This blatant racist thinks he's not a racist. But people who lynch black, now that's a racist. I think a lot of people define whether a person is a racist in a very similar way. (Same for whether a person is too religious or not religious enough.) So when Trump speaks about his perspectives on genes determining a person's success and a large swath of people's racist antennas go up, the people who subscribe to this deterministic theory say, What?! That's not racist!

[runrussellrun]

The early Russian Troll vote is in.

Nice link

Make a statement, mention a "new analysis" report....but never provide a direct link to said report.

Obama called Ken Deneir (author on DNC's payroll ) and told him the 80's called and wants it Russian fear mongering, foreign policy back.....something like that.

Guess this article was "peer reviewed" and deemed credible. wafj

[HooDat]

https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/pu ... 4-0034.pdf

uh, that was his father.

...But I have seen absolutely no evidence that Trump is racist...

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyre ... trump.html

so, is it because he was wrong or because they were minorities that you think this means he is a racist. There were a lot of people who thought those kids were guilty. The fact that Trump thought he could generate goodwill in the era of "tough on crime" and taking "super predators" off the streets is indicative of racism a stretch, or a case of seeing what you want to see.

The GOP was already growing older, whiter, less educated, and more male than in prior generations of the party

very true, and a problem obviously strategically in the long run, but more importantly because our country needs two functioning parties that don't define themselves along racial lines.

But the GOP is doomed as a long term competitive alternative if the fever doesn't break soon, at a minimum in November 2020.

agreed, but not sure the day of reckoning comes in 2020, I think it is further out, if the party doesn't find a way to appeal to a more diverse base

the country has grown more diverse, more progressive socially, and that's going to continue.

yep, see my prior point

Instead, the only thing that is important in this new Trump era of the GOP is loyalty to Trump.

this is where I think things get complicated. (1) There are plenty of folks who are buying Trump's shtick hook line and sinker, but (2) there are, I think, even more people who see him as the lesser of two evils, and would make a bargain with Satan himself in order to get conservative judges in the courts (because they have rightly recognized that the balance of power has been shifted (dangerously) to the judiciary), and (3) Trump in his ego addled brain thinks that this support is because of who he is rather than in spite of it, and (4) the left is perfectly happy to agree with him as a way of energizing their own base to fight against him, and try to demoralize those who support him in spite of who he is.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/pu ... 4-0034.pdf

uh, that was his father.

...But I have seen absolutely no evidence that Trump is racist...

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyre ... trump.html

so, is it because he was wrong or because they were minorities that you think this means he is a racist. There were a lot of people who thought those kids were guilty. The fact that Trump thought he could generate goodwill in the era of "tough on crime" and taking "super predators" off the streets is a stretch.

The GOP was already growing older, whiter, less educated, and more male than in prior generations of the party

very true, and a problem obviously strategically in the long run, but more importantly because our country needs two functioning parties that don't define themselves along racial lines.

But the GOP is doomed as a long term competitive alternative if the fever doesn't break soon, at a minimum in November 2020.

agreed, but not sure the day of reckoning comes in 2020, I think it is further out, if the party doesn't find a way to appeal to a more diverse base

the country has grown more diverse, more progressive socially, and that's going to continue.

yep, see my prior point

Instead, the only thing that is important in this new Trump era of the GOP is loyalty to Trump.

this is where I think things get complicated. (1) There are plenty of folks who are buying Trump's shtick hook line and sinker, but (2) there are, I think, even more people who see him as the lesser of two evils, and would make a bargain with Satan himself in order to get conservative judges in the courts (because they have rightly recognized that the balance of power has been shifted (dangerously) to the judiciary), and (3) Trump in his ego addled brain thinks that this support of because of who he is rather than in spite of it, and (4) the left is perfectly happy to agree with him as a way of energizing their own base to fight against him, and try to demoralize those who support him in spite of who he is.

Donald Trump was an alias? That apple didn’t fall far from the tree!

[HooDat]

But my hunch is that we agree on far more than we disagree. Especially on values of living.

by the way, I agree completely.

[seacoaster]

Donald Trump is a party defendant in the discrimination litigation. He implemented the practices and policies of the Trump organization and his dad.

Trump's persistence in the face of mounting and, in the end, not refutable, evidence that the five were not guilty of the crime, is what separates the issue for me from, as you say, an effort to look tough on crime to something different.

I really don't think it is an issue of perspective and political bias: Trump's willingness to tolerate and, at least for electoral purposes, curate racist forces in our society is not really up for credible debate. "Please hold for Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor to the President...."

[jhu72]

The early Russian Troll vote is in.

Nice link

Make a statement, mention a "new analysis" report....but never provide a direct link to said report.

Obama called Ken Deneir (author on DNC's payroll ) and told him the 80's called and wants it Russian fear mongering, foreign policy back.....something like that.

Guess this article was "peer reviewed" and deemed credible. wafj

The source was clearly called out in the article. Easy to find the research.

[MDlaxfan76]

But my hunch is that we agree on far more than we disagree. Especially on values of living.

by the way, I agree completely.

Me too

[MDlaxfan76]

Donald Trump is a party defendant in the discrimination litigation. He implemented the practices and policies of the Trump organization and his dad.

Trump's persistence in the face of mounting and, in the end, not refutable, evidence that the five were not guilty of the crime, is what separates the issue for me from, as you say, an effort to look tough on crime to something different.

I really don't think it is an issue of perspective and political bias: Trump's willingness to tolerate and, at least for electoral purposes, curate racist forces in our society is not really up for credible debate. "Please hold for Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor to the President...."

+1

This is where I think you are somewhat in a denial fog, HooDat. DJT has a long history.
Is he 'racist' to his core, or is he simply so 'transactionally'?

That's at least open to question, as he's also been buddy buddy with some African American celebrities when useful to him personally.

My view is that one simply cannot, time and again, tolerate overt, hateful racism and other forms of gross bigotry in one's relationships, 'transactionally' without a degree of racism and bigotry in oneself.

Our society, of course, has evolved greatly in my lifetime (62 years tomorrow) and continues to evolve on these issues. That's very much a good thing.

I don't believe we should condemn folks for views they held earlier in their lives and careers, on which they have demonstrated evolution of perspective. However, if their 'evolution' has become more aggressively bigoted, and their tolerance for bigotry is more overt, their lifetime pattern becomes all the more relevant.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Donald Trump is a party defendant in the discrimination litigation. He implemented the practices and policies of the Trump organization and his dad.

Trump's persistence in the face of mounting and, in the end, not refutable, evidence that the five were not guilty of the crime, is what separates the issue for me from, as you say, an effort to look tough on crime to something different.

I really don't think it is an issue of perspective and political bias: Trump's willingness to tolerate and, at least for electoral purposes, curate racist forces in our society is not really up for credible debate. "Please hold for Stephen Miller, Senior Advisor to the President...."

+1

This is where I think you are somewhat in a denial fog, HooDat. DJT has a long history.
Is he 'racist' to his core, or is he simply so 'transactionally'?

That's at least open to question, as he's also been buddy buddy with some African American celebrities when useful to him personally.

My view is that one simply cannot, time and again, tolerate overt, hateful racism and other forms of gross bigotry in one's relationships, 'transactionally' without a degree of racism and bigotry in oneself.

Our society, of course, has evolved greatly in my lifetime (62 years tomorrow) and continues to evolve on these issues. That's very much a good thing.

I don't believe we should condemn folks for views they held earlier in their lives and careers, on which they have demonstrated evolution of perspective. However, if their 'evolution' has become more aggressively bigoted, and their tolerance for bigotry is more overt, their lifetime pattern becomes all the more relevant.

This is the nature of Trump's relationship. Sometimes he is the parasite and at other times he is the host for those that generally seek some sort of fame, fortune or position for prominence. Those are things that motivates him and he exploits it from others seeking the same thing. He draws a certain personality type. It is pretty evident.

Parasitism:
Parasitic relationships are those which involve one organism living off of another organism, to the detriment of the other organism, possibly including the death of the other organism. Frequently the parasite actively lives on the body of the host, consuming nutrients from its blood or other parts of its body.

Common examples of parasites include fleas, ticks, tapeworms and DONALD TRUMP. Ticks and fleas live on the body of their hosts for a while, sucking their blood for nutrients. Tapeworms burrow into the intestines of animals like cows and pigs and eat the partially digested food of the host. This ends up depriving the host of vital nutrients. Some parasites live off of plants instead of animals. For example, Aphids cling to plants and eat the sap of the plant. Some plants and fungi can even turn the tables on animals or insects and parasitize them.

Parasites don’t usually aim to kill their host, as this simply deprives them of a source of nutrients. Killing their host means they will have to search for a new host, potentially dying while they search for one. Frequently hosts are killed unintentionally. While this is true, some parasites do end up killing their host intentionally. If a parasite kills its host intentionally, it is a necrotrophic parasite. Parasites which thrive off a living host are called biotrophic parasites. Parasites and hosts usually evolve alongside one another. Parasites try to evolve better ways of finding hosts and getting past their defenses while hosts evolve better ways of defending themselves against parasites. Many incidences of mutualism arise from the interaction of two organisms, one of which removes parasites from their host and get nutrients by doing so.

[MDlaxfan76]

The GOP was already growing older, whiter, less educated, and more male than in prior generations of the party

very true, and a problem obviously strategically in the long run, but more importantly because our country needs two functioning parties that don't define themselves along racial lines.

But the GOP is doomed as a long term competitive alternative if the fever doesn't break soon, at a minimum in November 2020.

agreed, but not sure the day of reckoning comes in 2020, I think it is further out, if the party doesn't find a way to appeal to a more diverse base

the country has grown more diverse, more progressive socially, and that's going to continue.

yep, see my prior point

Instead, the only thing that is important in this new Trump era of the GOP is loyalty to Trump.

this is where I think things get complicated. (1) There are plenty of folks who are buying Trump's shtick hook line and sinker, but (2) there are, I think, even more people who see him as the lesser of two evils, and would make a bargain with Satan himself in order to get conservative judges in the courts (because they have rightly recognized that the balance of power has been shifted (dangerously) to the judiciary), and (3) Trump in his ego addled brain thinks that this support is because of who he is rather than in spite of it, and (4) the left is perfectly happy to agree with him as a way of energizing their own base to fight against him, and try to demoralize those who support him in spite of who he is.

On 2020, I see it as a pivot point for the GOP.
If Trump wins, the party further hardens and narrows, though continues to hold power a little longer.

If Trump loses, particularly if ignominiously (as I hope), the GOP enters into a reassessment period, badly tarnished but with a potential path forward.
If Trump or his companies are successfully prosecuted for various crimes, the Trumpist hard right media machine will be marginalized as well.

However, if Trump loses closely, I think we're going to see all sorts of fury and claims from his hard right supporters, fueled by Trump. I think we see the emergence of a very hard right media Trump media machine claiming to speak for the GOP and to influence the ongoing direction of the GOP.

On the judiciary, I don't agree that the judiciary has taken an unreasonable role, however I do agree that such notion is very much the belief of some and they indeed would deal with Satan in order to get anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc judges appointed; especially young such judges, regardless of any semblance of judicial temperament or even litigation experience. Some may be more interested in anti-regulatory, pro-corporate judges.

[HooDat]

The ideal outcome for the GOP will be hard to execute, but it will amount to the party coordinating the ouster of Trump. If the GOP leadership can chart a path to impeach and remove Trump before the election and then place a candidate that can run on a more moderate message while not overly alienating the Trump wing of the party they come through this era in as good a shape as they could possibly hope.

I think Nikki Haley sees that window and is positioning herself to be the candidate the party runs if they can figure out a way to kill the parasite without killing the host (acknowledgements to TLD)......

[ggait]

Quite possibly true. And I think there's an aspect of relativity. For most people, whether Person A is racist is based on whether he's more racist than I am. i.e. For sure, I'm not racist. That's for sure! And Person A is less racist than I am so... obviously Person A is not racist.

96% of people on the road think they are excellent drivers! Similarly, 0% of people see themselves as racist.

What is completely clear, however, is that (i) race has become tightly bundled into partisanship and (ii) when it comes to race, Dems are from Venus and Reps are from Mars. For example:

69% of Reps believe that “discrimination against whites is as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities,” and 63% believe that “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background.” For Reps that get their news primarily from FNC, 77% and 78%. For Dems, those numbers are 21% and 20%.

So while no one is "racist", the attitudes and voting patterns look darned close to what you'd see in a totally racist system/culture.

[a fan]

this is where I think things get complicated. (1) There are plenty of folks who are buying Trump's shtick hook line and sinker, but (2) there are, I think, even more people who see him as the lesser of two evils, and would make a bargain with Satan himself in order to get conservative judges in the courts (because they have rightly recognized that the balance of power has been shifted (dangerously) to the judiciary)

This is going to be my favorite part of the next decade----laughing at the rulings that come from some of the nutjob and unqualified judges that have been appointed to the bench.

TrumpFans think that these judges are going to rule in their favor. Ah, the irony that's been put on the train tracks, heading straight for TrumpLand.

[cradleandshoot]

this is where I think things get complicated. (1) There are plenty of folks who are buying Trump's shtick hook line and sinker, but (2) there are, I think, even more people who see him as the lesser of two evils, and would make a bargain with Satan himself in order to get conservative judges in the courts (because they have rightly recognized that the balance of power has been shifted (dangerously) to the judiciary)

This is going to be my favorite part of the next decade----laughing at the rulings that come from some of the nutjob and unqualified judges that have been appointed to the bench.

TrumpFans think that these judges are going to rule in their favor. Ah, the irony that's been put on the train tracks, heading straight for TrumpLand.

Just out of curiosity a Fan, which judges are nutjobs and which ones are unqualified ? Your painting with a pretty broad brush are you not? The irony is your argument is the exact thing hard line Rs have been saying about all the liberal judges. I would like to believe that all judges are doing their best to judge each case by what they believe the law is. Their is one thing for certain. No matter how you determine a case one side or the other will not be happy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

this is where I think things get complicated. (1) There are plenty of folks who are buying Trump's shtick hook line and sinker, but (2) there are, I think, even more people who see him as the lesser of two evils, and would make a bargain with Satan himself in order to get conservative judges in the courts (because they have rightly recognized that the balance of power has been shifted (dangerously) to the judiciary)

This is going to be my favorite part of the next decade----laughing at the rulings that come from some of the nutjob and unqualified judges that have been appointed to the bench.

TrumpFans think that these judges are going to rule in their favor. Ah, the irony that's been put on the train tracks, heading straight for TrumpLand.

Just out of curiosity a Fan, which judges are nutjobs and which ones are unqualified ? Your painting with a pretty broad brush are you not? The irony is your argument is the exact thing hard line Rs have been saying about all the liberal judges. I would like to believe that all judges are doing their best to judge each case by what they believe the law is. Their is one thing for certain. No matter how you determine a case one side or the other will not be happy.

https://ballotpedia.org/ABA_ratings_dur ... nistration

[a fan]

Just out of curiosity a Fan, which judges are nutjobs and which ones are unqualified ?

They're one and the same. I go by the American Bar Association recommendation, as most policy wonks do.

WaPo: At issue are three candidates for federal district judgeships in Oklahoma, Kansas and Alabama, along with Leonard Steven Grasz, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The ABA found all four unqualified, unanimously in the cases of Mr. Grasz and Brett Talley, the Alabama nominee. In Mr. Talley's case and that of Holly Lou Teeter, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings before the ABA had announced its ratings. Now, only days after receiving the ABA's vote of no confidence in Mr. Talley and Ms. Teeter, the committee is still planning to move forward briskly with their nominations.

Some of these judges don't have the CV. Trump doesn't care. His fans are fools for thinking these judges will rule "in their favor".

Time and again, "conservative" judges rule in favor of big guy over little. Corporations over citizens. Think: Citizens United.

But at least previous judges have the CV and reasonable qualifications and experience for the job. That's all I ask for.....it's been years, but recall I was entirely behind Roberts. Stellar qualifications, and that's all that matters to me. I don't care about left/right when it comes to judges. Let the chips fall where they may.

[cradleandshoot]

Just out of curiosity a Fan, which judges are nutjobs and which ones are unqualified ?

They're one and the same. I go by the American Bar Association recommendation, as most policy wonks do.

WaPo: At issue are three candidates for federal district judgeships in Oklahoma, Kansas and Alabama, along with Leonard Steven Grasz, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The ABA found all four unqualified, unanimously in the cases of Mr. Grasz and Brett Talley, the Alabama nominee. In Mr. Talley's case and that of Holly Lou Teeter, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings before the ABA had announced its ratings. Now, only days after receiving the ABA's vote of no confidence in Mr. Talley and Ms. Teeter, the committee is still planning to move forward briskly with their nominations.

Some of these judges don't have the CV. Trump doesn't care. His fans are fools for thinking these judges will rule "in their favor".

Time and again, "conservative" judges rule in favor of big guy over little. Corporations over citizens. Think: Citizens United.

But at least previous judges have the CV and reasonable qualifications and experience for the job. That's all I ask for.....it's been years, but recall I was entirely behind Roberts. Stellar qualifications, and that's all that matters to me. I don't care about left/right when it comes to judges. Let the chips fall where they may.

Thank you for the info. I agree 100% that if the ABA gives you thumbs down then you do not belong on the bench. I thought you were referring to all of the r nominated judges in general.
.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Just out of curiosity a Fan, which judges are nutjobs and which ones are unqualified ?

They're one and the same. I go by the American Bar Association recommendation, as most policy wonks do.

WaPo: At issue are three candidates for federal district judgeships in Oklahoma, Kansas and Alabama, along with Leonard Steven Grasz, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The ABA found all four unqualified, unanimously in the cases of Mr. Grasz and Brett Talley, the Alabama nominee. In Mr. Talley's case and that of Holly Lou Teeter, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings before the ABA had announced its ratings. Now, only days after receiving the ABA's vote of no confidence in Mr. Talley and Ms. Teeter, the committee is still planning to move forward briskly with their nominations.

Some of these judges don't have the CV. Trump doesn't care. His fans are fools for thinking these judges will rule "in their favor".

Time and again, "conservative" judges rule in favor of big guy over little. Corporations over citizens. Think: Citizens United.

But at least previous judges have the CV and reasonable qualifications and experience for the job. That's all I ask for.....it's been years, but recall I was entirely behind Roberts. Stellar qualifications, and that's all that matters to me. I don't care about left/right when it comes to judges. Let the chips fall where they may.

Thank you for the info. I agree 100% that if the ABA gives you thumbs down then you do not belong on the bench. I thought you were referring to all of the r nominated judges in general.
.

See the link above with details on past and present nominees by President.

[cradleandshoot]

Just out of curiosity a Fan, which judges are nutjobs and which ones are unqualified ?

They're one and the same. I go by the American Bar Association recommendation, as most policy wonks do.

WaPo: At issue are three candidates for federal district judgeships in Oklahoma, Kansas and Alabama, along with Leonard Steven Grasz, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The ABA found all four unqualified, unanimously in the cases of Mr. Grasz and Brett Talley, the Alabama nominee. In Mr. Talley's case and that of Holly Lou Teeter, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings before the ABA had announced its ratings. Now, only days after receiving the ABA's vote of no confidence in Mr. Talley and Ms. Teeter, the committee is still planning to move forward briskly with their nominations.

Some of these judges don't have the CV. Trump doesn't care. His fans are fools for thinking these judges will rule "in their favor".

Time and again, "conservative" judges rule in favor of big guy over little. Corporations over citizens. Think: Citizens United.

But at least previous judges have the CV and reasonable qualifications and experience for the job. That's all I ask for.....it's been years, but recall I was entirely behind Roberts. Stellar qualifications, and that's all that matters to me. I don't care about left/right when it comes to judges. Let the chips fall where they may.

Thank you for the info. I agree 100% that if the ABA gives you thumbs down then you do not belong on the bench. I thought you were referring to all of the r nominated judges in general.
.

See the link above with details on past and present nominees by President.

Thanks TLD. I did see it. I will read it when I get home and have more time to take it in.