The Trump Presidency

[JayUtah]

I don't think the fight against a Supreme Court Justice is against its reputation.

Nor an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the President or the Republican party.  They seem to understand how quickly voters forget, and don't care about ideals.  The Democrats are still playing the game with the expectation that they can shame the GOP back into good behavior.  They can't.  And no matter how many principled stands the Democrats take, it cannot substitute for effective action.

I think it is literally attempting to block an appointment.  ...  And Trump has explicitly said this is to ensure that he will be able to challenge the election and win.  Preventing that is really, really important.  This isn't about persuading voters; this is about the act of governing the country.

Not only would the President be able to challenge the election, but possibly also would candidates for Congress.  Assuming the basis for such a cause of action would be voter fraud, other candidates could argue that any results rejected by the Court as tainted by fraud would also apply to their elections.  Except I think those challenges have to be made in state courts for Senate elections.  And because this is the worst of all worlds, I have to remind us that the Federal Election Commission is presently without a quorum.  This group normally oversees elections to federal office and insures election integrity.  Now little prevents the GOP from doing exactly what it's almost assuredly going to accuse the Democrats of doing.

With the voter suppression permitted by the Supreme Court already, allowing this woman on the Supreme Court is just allowing it to be impossible to start from the bottom.

Voter suppression and gerrymandering have been essentially given the green light.  These happen at the local level too.  My state is gerrymandered to split up the liberal north-central valley, where a large part of the population is concentrated, into pie slices so that it can be diluted by rural conservative votes.  That's for the House.  It's further gerrymandered within the counties to divide up the local legislature in similar fashion.  By strict population, the Utah legislature should skew just slightly to the right.  But it's overwhelmingly Republican -- a supermajority every session, allowing them to downvote even the most drastic parliamentary maneuvers.

These actions are possible precisely because the U.S. Supreme Court has decided them, in practical terms, for all the states.  No state can pass a law forbidding partisan gerrymandering.

[JayUtah]

And another scary thing to keep you up at night is that the national security risk Trump posed won't go away when he is out of office. He knows secrets, and he will sell them in a flat second if someone offers him money.

Yeah.  It's scary even without the looming debt.  Narcissists are experts at keeping their own secrets, and have no interest in keeping yours.

[LunarOrbit]

Well, to quote Dana Bash on CNN... that debate was a shit show.

When asked to condemn white supremacist groups, Trump tells them to "stand back and stand by". WTF!

[Jeff Raven]

Well, to quote Dana Bash on CNN... that debate was a shit show.

When asked to condemn white supremacist groups, Trump tells them to "stand back and stand by". WTF!

That was definitely a Charlie Foxtrot. Although Chris Wallace tried to maintain some level of decorum, it just wasn't happening. About a third of the way through, I was thinking that he needed to have a mute button for the microphones and/or a gavel.

Disappointing (and embarrassing) in many ways, but not entirely unexpected, especially in terms of President Trump's behavior.

[JayUtah]

"We've placed each contestant in his own soundproof booth..."

[LunarOrbit]

"We've placed each contestant in his own soundproof booth..."

  I was thinking that would be the only solution going forward. Either that or make Trump wear one of those dog collars that produce a shock when they bark.

[JayUtah]

I'm hoping the Vice Presidential debate exhibits a little more decorum and substance.  And I'm stoked it's going to take place a little over 1,000 meters from my house, in a hall I've performed in many times.

[LunarOrbit]

Yeah, I expect the Vice Presidential debate to be more civilized. Kamala is going to wipe the floor with Mike Pence though.

Is that something you would have attended if not for the whole COVID-19 social distancing thing?

[jfb]

I'm hoping the Vice Presidential debate exhibits a little more decorum and substance.  And I'm stoked it's going to take place a little over 1,000 meters from my house, in a hall I've performed in many times.

My favorite VP debate was between Lieberman and Cheney (men I normally loathe), because there were no podiums, no audience to perform to, no artificial debate format, just the candidates and the moderator all sitting at the same table.  It was less formal, less stiff, and far more interesting.  It helped that the candidates and moderator were intelligent and, you know, sane. 

I really wish we'd use that format for all "debates".  Eliminate the performance aspect, make candidates actually answer questions instead of giving a stump speech. 

[JayUtah]

Yeah, I expect the Vice Presidential debate to be more civilized. Kamala is going to wipe the floor with Mike Pence though.

That's the outcome I anticipate.  I just mean here that both participants in this case will be seasoned politicians used to this sort of event.  It should be a vigorous debate, but it won't have the chaos that Pres. Trump injects into the process to disrupt it.  You know, if you can't play chess then kick all the pieces off the board and crap on the table.

Is that something you would have attended if not for the whole COVID-19 social distancing thing?

Physical attendance at debates at this level is a carefully controlled process.  It's likely I would not have been eligible to attend in person, but if I had really wanted to attend I could probably have pulled some strings.  As it stands, if there is going to be a physical audience, then I'm sure it will be seated and managed according to social-distancing rules.  As a gathering at a state-operated facility (my alma mater), it falls under state emergency guidelines for distancing, mask-wearing, and gathering size.

That said, I may attend after a fashion.  There are likely to be protesters at the event, and therefore a police presence.  My spouse and others are part of the National Lawyers Guild's Legal Observer program, which acts as neutral, non-participant observers of police interaction with protests and demonstrations.  Sometimes I tag along.  This one might not be one to miss.

[JayUtah]

It helped that the candidates and moderator were intelligent and, you know, sane.

It has been reported that the President spent very little time preparing for the debate.  I gather his plan all along was to drag Biden down to his level and then flog him with experience.  I don't think Pres. Trump had the slightest delusion that he would win the debate according to the ground rules.  He claimed earlier that Chris Wallace would go easy on Biden and tough on him.  You know -- Chris Wallace, the Fox News anchor.  If he's already making excuses for losing, then he probably had no interest in preparing to win.  His plan seems to have been to stump for ninety minutes in his solitary idiom, the rules and format be damned.

Wallace did in fact softball him the question about white supremacist groups.  A skilled politician (or even someone whose brain remotely works) could easily have spun that into the right position.  Some answer such as, "I denounce racial supremacists, and violent agitators on any side of an issue, but it's clear there are great divisions in our country right now that need our attention, and people are frustrated at the inaction."  Sure, it's mealy-mouthed.  But it serves to sever the perceived connection to the lunatic fringe, which otherwise will alienate centrist voters.  At the same time it acknowledges a serious problem in a way that doesn't take sides.  But no, our President gave one of those veiled answers that was clearly interpreted by white supremacists as support for their position and activities, but which is just ambiguous enough that he can flog liberals with it for "misinterpreting as usual" what he meant vaguely by his remarks.

Our President egging on fringe radicals is not someplace I thought we'd be.  Maybe he really is trying to start another civil war.

[gillianren]

I've already seen someone say that they're sure Nancy Pelosi's taxes would prove she's just as bad.

[Obviousman]

Maybe he really is trying to start another civil war.

I'm a little undecided. I'm sticking with my prediction with a US civil war after the elections but I am unsure if Trump is trying to start a civil war, or he just doesn't care if he causes one getting what he wants. Or rather, doesn't care what he destroys if he doesn't get what he wants.

I tend to think the latter but....

[Obviousman]

I've already seen someone say that they're sure Nancy Pelosi's taxes would prove she's just as bad.

To be honest, it doesn't matter because very few actually inspire me. I think Biden is a terrible choice but at least he is not Trump. I seem to differ from a lot of people with my opinion that the DNC is falling into the same old trap: they are trying to fight asymmetric warfare with the last war's tactics. It didn't work with Hillary Clinton, and it won't work with Joe Biden.

I would have loved to see someone like Pete Buttigieg go against him. When he would go against Trump, he wouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight.

No, despite being under-informed on all the significant US politicians, my opinion is they are all just politicians like all politicians around the world: in it for themselves, and corrupt as all hell.

[Zakalwe]

I've already seen someone say that they're sure Nancy Pelosi's taxes would prove she's just as bad.

To be honest, it doesn't matter because very few actually inspire me. I think Biden is a terrible choice but at least he is not Trump. I seem to differ from a lot of people with my opinion that the DNC is falling into the same old trap: they are trying to fight asymmetric warfare with the last war's tactics. It didn't work with Hillary Clinton, and it won't work with Joe Biden.

The exact same thing happened in the UK. Theresa May was the worst PM in generations UNTIL Boris Johnson shuffled onto the scene. Unfortunately Labour chose to put an unelectable idiot in charge (I use the term "in charge" lightly) which meant that the Tory party was virtually unopposed in dragging the country to it's knees and then to inflict the absolute chaos that is Brexit on us.

I am convinced that Putin via people like Steve Bannon had a heavy hand in all of this. If so, the man is a genius....he's destabilised Western Europe, brought America to the brink of civil war and he can act with impunity to destroy any internal opposition.