US Politics/Biden Presidency (Trump-free zone)

[Cornish Steve]

 

wrong again, the republicans refused to work with obama from day 1. they're the only ones who refuse to compromise.

 

You're rewriting history there, Mark. The ACA was conceived in secret. Remember the famous remark that "we must vote for the bill in order to learn what it says"? Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the replacement bill was conceived in secret, and the Republicans voted for it even though they didn't want it to pass and hence had no idea what they were voting for. Unfortunately, each party is as bad as the other. The public deserves better. (Unfortunately, this refrain is heard the world over.)

[markjazzbassist]

 

You're rewriting history there, Mark. The ACA was conceived in secret. Remember the famous remark that "we must vote for the bill in order to learn what it says"? Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the replacement bill was conceived in secret, and the Republicans voted for it even though they didn't want it to pass and hence had no idea what they were voting for. Unfortunately, each party is as bad as the other. The public deserves better. (Unfortunately, this refrain is heard the world over.)

 

nope, they had bipartisan comittee's in the house working on it together steve, once the insurance mandate came in mcconnell got the repubs together to 'hold firm" and say no (even though many had supported that measure before in the past). read the legislative section here and you'll see if was wholly bi partisan until the votes came.

 

After his inauguration, Obama announced to a joint session of Congress in February 2009 his intent to work with Congress to construct a plan for healthcare reform.^[152][153] By July, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives.^[154] On the Senate side, from June to September, the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop a healthcare reform bill. This group — in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad, along with Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe — met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate healthcare reform bill.^{[155][156][157]}

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

 

there was nothing of the sort this time, it was repubs way or the highway.

[nyblue23]

has anyone watched series 19 of South Park? It's utter genius

I watched season 20... didn't see season 19. Season 20 was about the election though.

 

Either way, it'd be hard to parody shit like this (too unreal already):

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon/amp

[Matt]

I watched season 20... didn't see season 19. Season 20 was about the election though.

 

Either way, it'd be hard to parody shit like this (too unreal already):

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/anthony-scaramucci-called-me-to-unload-about-white-house-leakers-reince-priebus-and-steve-bannon/amp

just going into s20. Genius.

[Elston Gunnn]

We're missing something completely here. Donald Trump won the presidency because many millions voted for him. They are not all dumb-asses, not at all. They are frustrated by arrogance in government, the idea that "nanny knows best." Plus they look back, with rose-colored specs, to a time when minorities were fewer in number and less demanding of their rights. Nothing that's happened in the last chaotic and laughable six months has changed their view. If the election were held again today, the outcome is likely to be very similar. Let's not underestimate the power of right-wing ideology, of ever more aggressive right-wing chat shows, and the bias of Fox News. It's too easy simply to say that everyone who voted for Trump is either ignorant or stupid: They are not.

 

You raise some important points here. I agree with part of what you say, but I draw a different conclusion.

 

The word "dumbass" is, yes, an oversimplification. But behind that insulting label is a big issue. How can we accurately describe Trump voters?

 

I tend to split Trump's voters into 3 main categories: (1) Right-wing Christian fundamentalists, (2) white working class, and (3) "come home to Trump" traditional Republicans. Certainly there is some overlap among these groups. And Trump also drew votes from minisucle, if menacing, "alt-right white nationalist" movement.

 

As I've posted a couple of times in this thread, yes, as you say, they - especially groups (1) and (2) - do look back with rose-colored specs. Thus they are generally mis-labeled "conservative," when in fact they are "reactionary," a political term that denotes those who yearn to go back in time to a supposed better age. For the most part they do not merely want to "conserve" things as they are; rather, they are offended by much of "things as they are," and so hope to recreate a lost past. In doing so, however, they apply irrational, unscientific, "alternative" facts to describe current conditions. They invent a comforting, intuitive counter-reality. Christian fundamentalists, for example, are largely motivated by their opposition to abortion and gay people, both of which they see as abominations unto the Lord.

 

In this they are encouraged - as you note - by a powerful right-wing, racist ideology, promulgated especially by aggressive talk radio and Fox News. I guess we're faced with something of a chicken/egg question: Do ignorant (of science, politics, economics, world issues, common sense established facts) people choose to listen to and believe right-wing radio ranters and Fox's Sean Hannity? Or does listening to right-wing fantasists render one ignorant? I'm inclined to say these are mutually reinforcing. Apologies for repeating, but: willful ignorance is dangerously stupid.

 

So I absolutely agree with you that we must not underestimate the influence of agressive right-wing forces. But I think I disagree with you in that I don't see how we can separate such forces from their impact in producing much more ignorance and stupidity among the millions of consumers of such right-wing tripe.

 

As for the 3d group I listed above - the "come home to Trump" traditional Republicans - I'm inclined to emphasize not their ignorance so much as their cynicism. For millions of traditional Republicans began the last Presidential primary season laughing at Clown Trump. Gradually they became embarrassed by his shockingly successful primary campaign, Bully Trump, in which he insulted and belittled American war heroes and judges, before honing his insult/belittling skills on his Republican primary opponents: making fun of a female candidate's looks, calling one "little," another "crazy," still another "low-energy." By then traditional Republicans ceased laughing, and began desperately hoping one of Trump's final primary opponents could catch fire and save the Party from his sure-to-lose candidacy.

 

But it was too late. Trump's super-angry base kept growing, so the traditional Republican mainstream, actually conservative-as-opposed-to-reactionary, faced a terrible choice: either sit out the election, maybe even vote for Horrible Hillary, or put 3 clothespins on their noses and vote for Candidate Chaos. The vast majority of mainstream Republicans made their bargain with the devil and "came home to Trump," hoping the Presidency would "tame" him.

 

Gradually more and more Republican "leaders" find themselves forced to respond to the latest Trump outrage. But having abetted the birth of President Chaos, and having enabled him during the first few months of the growth of Trumpestilence, they must walk a thin line between continuing to hope against hope that Trump will come to his senses, and recognizing that they must stop the maddest of his voluminous madnesses.

 

As best we can tell from ongoing polling, Trump has lost some, a little, support among traditional Republicans - real conservatives, as opposed to cynics and reactionaries. And heaven knows at least some of his working class and poor white supporters are just beginning to be confused by Trump "policies" that are sure to harm them. But mostly they stick with him, still proudly wear their Make America Great hats at his rallies. And he seems not at all to have lost the steadfast support of his Christian fundamentalist enthusiasts (those who believe in Genesis and Revelations, but not evolution).

 

So, I don't think it's so easy, at all, to conclude that a significant proportion of Trump voters are ignorant folks intent on making themselves stupid. And maybe it's an open question whether willfully choosing to think of talk radio as fact-based is sensible or stupid. Maybe, but I'd have to bend over backwards to actually think that's an open question. As of right now tens of millions of Trump supporters look at dozens of crystal-clear, unique-in-American-Presidential-history examples of Trump's lying, cheating, cowardice, bullying, perfidy, and sheer incompetence, and ....... continue to support him and hope he makes America great again. Trump has in a mere six months become an embarrassment unique in American Presidential history. And the vast majority of his supporters are not embarrassed.

 

In my opinion, and granting the fear and desperation afoot in the US, it is not easy to label Trump supporters ignorant and stupid. But neither is it wise to ignore the strength of and reasons for the symbiosis between Trump and his passionate base. Trump's loyal base, so far, is too ignorant, stupid, misguided, ill-informed - something - to see that this symbiotic relationship is a one-way street.

[rubecula]

Trump having a sly trump

 

[Cornish Steve]

 

You raise some important points here. I agree with part of what you say, but I draw a different conclusion.

 

The word "dumbass" is, yes, an oversimplification. But behind that insulting label is a big issue. How can we accurately describe Trump voters?

 

I tend to split Trump's voters into 3 main categories: (1) Right-wing Christian fundamentalists, (2) white working class, and (3) "come home to Trump" traditional Republicans. Certainly there is some overlap among these groups. And Trump also drew votes from minisucle, if menacing, "alt-right white nationalist" movement.

 

As I've posted a couple of times in this thread, yes, as you say, they - especially groups (1) and (2) - do look back with rose-colored specs. Thus they are generally mis-labeled "conservative," when in fact they are "reactionary," a political term that denotes those who yearn to go back in time to a supposed better age. For the most part they do not merely want to "conserve" things as they are; rather, they are offended by much of "things as they are," and so hope to recreate a lost past. In doing so, however, they apply irrational, unscientific, "alternative" facts to describe current conditions. They invent a comforting, intuitive counter-reality. Christian fundamentalists, for example, are largely motivated by their opposition to abortion and gay people, both of which they see as abominations unto the Lord.

 

In this they are encouraged - as you note - by a powerful right-wing, racist ideology, promulgated especially by aggressive talk radio and Fox News. I guess we're faced with something of a chicken/egg question: Do ignorant (of science, politics, economics, world issues, common sense established facts) people choose to listen to and believe right-wing radio ranters and Fox's Sean Hannity? Or does listening to right-wing fantasists render one ignorant? I'm inclined to say these are mutually reinforcing. Apologies for repeating, but: willful ignorance is dangerously stupid.

 

So I absolutely agree with you that we must not underestimate the influence of agressive right-wing forces. But I think I disagree with you in that I don't see how we can separate such forces from their impact in producing much more ignorance and stupidity among the millions of consumers of such right-wing tripe.

 

As for the 3d group I listed above - the "come home to Trump" traditional Republicans - I'm inclined to emphasize not their ignorance so much as their cynicism. For millions of traditional Republicans began the last Presidential primary season laughing at Clown Trump. Gradually they became embarrassed by his shockingly successful primary campaign, Bully Trump, in which he insulted and belittled American war heroes and judges, before honing his insult/belittling skills on his Republican primary opponents: making fun of a female candidate's looks, calling one "little," another "crazy," still another "low-energy." By then traditional Republicans ceased laughing, and began desperately hoping one of Trump's final primary opponents could catch fire and save the Party from his sure-to-lose candidacy.

 

But it was too late. Trump's super-angry base kept growing, so the traditional Republican mainstream, actually conservative-as-opposed-to-reactionary, faced a terrible choice: either sit out the election, maybe even vote for Horrible Hillary, or put 3 clothespins on their noses and vote for Candidate Chaos. The vast majority of mainstream Republicans made their bargain with the devil and "came home to Trump," hoping the Presidency would "tame" him.

 

Gradually more and more Republican "leaders" find themselves forced to respond to the latest Trump outrage. But having abetted the birth of President Chaos, and having enabled him during the first few months of the growth of Trumpestilence, they must walk a thin line between continuing to hope against hope that Trump will come to his senses, and recognizing that they must stop the maddest of his voluminous madnesses.

 

As best we can tell from ongoing polling, Trump has lost some, a little, support among traditional Republicans - real conservatives, as opposed to cynics and reactionaries. And heaven knows at least some of his working class and poor white supporters are just beginning to be confused by Trump "policies" that are sure to harm them. But mostly they stick with him, still proudly wear their Make America Great hats at his rallies. And he seems not at all to have lost the steadfast support of his Christian fundamentalist enthusiasts (those who believe in Genesis and Revelations, but not evolution).

 

So, I don't think it's so easy, at all, to conclude that a significant proportion of Trump voters are ignorant folks intent on making themselves stupid. And maybe it's an open question whether willfully choosing to think of talk radio as fact-based is sensible or stupid. Maybe, but I'd have to bend over backwards to actually think that's an open question. As of right now tens of millions of Trump supporters look at dozens of crystal-clear, unique-in-American-Presidential-history examples of Trump's lying, cheating, cowardice, bullying, perfidy, and sheer incompetence, and ....... continue to support him and hope he makes America great again. Trump has in a mere six months become an embarrassment unique in American Presidential history. And the vast majority of his supporters are not embarrassed.

 

In my opinion, and granting the fear and desperation afoot in the US, it is not easy to label Trump supporters ignorant and stupid. But neither is it wise to ignore the strength of and reasons for the symbiosis between Trump and his passionate base. Trump's loyal base, so far, is too ignorant, stupid, misguided, ill-informed - something - to see that this symbiotic relationship is a one-way street.

 

The danger here is to generalize. I confess to being an evangelical Christian, but I believe in evolution, believe in gay rights and gay marriage, believe that abortion should be available (albeit not "recreational"), and so on. After a major disagreement, I chose to leave my church of 23 years because it, like most others sadly, began to demand conformance to the social stances you mention. Indeed, it was rapidly becoming a Trump campaign headquarters. But that does not affect my faith, and I know many others in the same boat. It's easy to group all evangelicals as crazies, but it's not the case. Indeed, it baffles me, totally baffles me, how fellow Christians in America can support an immoral, rude, dishonest, and arrogant president whose policies are anathema in almost every respect with the teachings of Christ. But that's another matter.

 

The point I'm making is that we can't write off entire populations in an attempt to explain the current mess. It's more complex than that. Can we call the many millions who brought Hitler to power as deranged or crazy or dumb-asses? No! The Germans were smart people, but evil leaders played to their biases and fears and that always dangerous sense of patriotism to take them down a very slippery slope. Propaganda amplified the effects, and a common enemy brought the population in line. There are definite parallels to what's happening in today's America, and IMO things are going to get worse - only Trump will retain, and even grow, his support rather than lose it. Look for an attack on North Korea (which will pull the country together), for example. Look for more demonizing of Muslims after the next attack on US soil. Look for more and more surveillance of private individuals justified by a clampdown on gangs and other urban crime, which will garner support. Look for ever more vehement patriotism and flag-waving, which seems to have no counter-balancing force. Look for the constant undermining of a free press, not only branded as fake news but maybe facing a ban on using unnamed sources. At some point, look even for an equivalent to martial law in an attempt to get around a totally dysfunctional Congress. It's no accident there are so many former generals in Trump's administration.

 

I really fear for the US right now. Millions of good people are IMO turning a blind eye to obvious warning signs and are riding the bandwagon against the establishment and useless politicians. The problem is that the bandwagon is being driven by a madman, increasingly surrounded by sycophants. The biggest and most shameful irony is that this era has been ushered in by millions of evangelical Christians who really should know better. In the history books yet to be written, their self-appointed leaders will not be judged kindly and have a lot to answer for. I'm hopeful, though, that this particular tide will turn and evangelicals will realize just who and what they've been supporting. I only hope that moment doesn't come too late.

[Elston Gunnn]

Really interesting post, Cornish Steve. The issue about which we have disagreed - whether millions of Trump voters may be accurately characterized as either ignorant or stupid - is actually less interesting to me than your heartfelt comments about your fellow evangelicals. As you say, that's another matter, but it does interest me.

 

Whatever the sources of Trump's support, the stark predictions you offer certainly fit my view that Trump presents a looming existential crisis. As frightened as I am, and as appalled as I have become at the Republican Party's fool's bargain with Trumpism, I wouldn't predict the course of events that you outline in your second paragraph. I do, in fact, expect the fierce set of progressive and moderate counter-forces already appearing to grow. I don't expect Trump to retain all of his support, much less increase it.

 

Yet I admit that your truly grim scenario is conceivable, especially if external or unpredictable events throw American society, politics, or economics into disarray. That it is even conceivable that the US might experience a national crisis that would dwarf a "mere" constitutional crisis is unnerving.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Elston Gunnn

[markjazzbassist]

I keep saying and will continue, the silver lining is he and his staff don't know politics and have done nothing in 6 months. I'd rather stagnation than pence and Ryan running the show.

 

When the Russians tried to collide with kushner he didn't know the proper channels and asked to use theirs. Political analysts said this shows just how green they are, no seasoned vet would ask a foreign government to use their equipment, rookie move. This is one example of many.

Edited July 29, 2017 by markjazzbassist

[johnh]

As I have very little understanding of American politics, I read all the above posts with interest. Particularly, the various views as to why people would vote for Trump. Not once, however, does anyone mention what the option was at the time of the election. Talk about a 'rock and a hard place'. If the Democrats had fielded a half-decent candidate, Trump would never have won.

[Matt]

As I have very little understanding of American politics, I read all the above posts with interest. Particularly, the various views as to why people would vote for Trump. Not once, however, does anyone mention what the option was at the time of the election. Talk about a 'rock and a hard place'. If the Democrats had fielded a half-decent candidate, Trump would never have won.

Spot on. The moment Sanders was cast aside, they put the vote in the balance.

[Cornish Steve]

Re my point about demonizing Muslims, there are headlines all over the Internet today stating that yesterday's attacker in Hamburg, during which a person was tragically killed, was a "known Islamist." It's terrible that someone would lose their life in this way and that others would be injured. How many headlines are there, though, about the 300+ people killed so far this year in Chicago? What about the tens of thousands who will shot to death in America this year? The moment we create a narrative in the mind of the public ("Muslims are evil"), then it acts as a powerful filter when determining news headlines. It's not fake news, but it is a form of propaganda. Every one of the US news channels applies a biased filter right now. There are very few objective news sources.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Cornish Steve

[Matt]

Re my point about demonizing Muslims, there are headlines all over the Internet today stating that yesterday's attacker in Hamburg, during which a person was tragically killed, was a "known Islamist." It's terrible that someone would lose their life in this way and that others would be injured. How many headlines are there, though, about the 300+ people killed so far this year in Chicago? What about the tens of thousands who will shot to death in America this year? The moment we create a narrative in the mind of the public ("Muslims are evil"), then it acts as a powerful filter when determining news headlines. It's not fake news, but it is a form of propaganda. Every one of the US news channels applies a biased filter right now. There are very few objective news sources.

bingo

[Elston Gunnn]

What about the tens of thousands who will shot to death in America this year? The moment we create a narrative in the mind of the public ("Muslims are evil"), then it acts as a powerful filter when determining news headlines. It's not fake news, but it is a form of propaganda. Every one of the US news channels applies a biased filter right now. There are very few objective news sources.

I agree with the importance of the example you cite, but not with the conclusion you draw.

 

Yes, it's appalling that we are panic-stricken about "evil Muslims," but not about regular, "American as apple pie" violence. And the "evil Muslims" theme does act as a powerful filter, a form of propaganda.

 

But to move from that excellent example to suggest that all news outlets are equally guilty of applying biased filters does not at all persuade me. I concede that there are few completely objective news sources, but I do not concede that, for example, the PBS News Hour's filter is anywhere near as biased as Fox News's. There are, moreover, multiple roughly-objective print news sources.

 

Another TV example: I watch a lot of MSNBC, which some might think as biased on the liberal side as is Fox News on the conservative side. Nonsense. MSNBC has gone out of its way to hire and to feature actual conservative (as opposed to reactionary-fake-conservative) commentators for its many panels. To be fair, Fox has done a little of this, too, in reverse. But overall, if one were to watch Fox News from early morn to midnight M-F, and do the same the next day for MSNBC, one would get piles of shallow "analysis" from Fox, as opposed to solid politicsl reporting and analysis from dozens of qualified reporters and field-expert analysts on MSNBC. The major problem on MSNBC is that almost all their "hosts" cannot shut up. Rather than asking sensible questions of their expert reporters and guests, they interrupt over and over.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Elston Gunnn

[Cornish Steve]

I agree with the importance of the example you cite, but not with the conclusion you draw.

 

Yes, it's appalling that we are panic-stricken about "evil Muslims," but not about regular, "American as apple pie" violence. And the "evil Muslims" theme does act as a powerful filter, a form of propaganda.

 

But to move from that excellent example to suggest that all news outlets are equally guilty of applying biased filters does not at all persuade me. I concede that there are few completely objective news sources, but I do not concede that, for example, the PBS News Hour's filter is anywhere near as biased as Fox News's. There are, moreover, multiple roughly-objective print news sources.

 

Another TV example: I watch a lot of MSNBC, which some might think as biased on the liberal side as is Fox News on the conservative side. Nonsense. MSNBC has gone out of its way to hire and to feature actual conservative (as opposed to reactionary-fake-conservative) commentators for its many panels. To be fair, Fox has done a little of this, too, in reverse. But overall, if one were to watch Fox News from early morn to midnight M-F, and do the same the next day for MSNBC, one would get piles of shallow "analysis" from Fox, as opposed to solid politicsl reporting and analysis from dozens of qualified reporters and field-expert analysts on MSNBC. The major problem on MSNBC is that almost all their "hosts" cannot shut up. Rather than asking sensible questions of their expert reporters and guests, they interrupt over and over.

 

But my contention is that what's shown these days is not news. CNN = Commentary Not News. How many articles begin with "so-and-so will say later today that..."? That's not news. A lazy journalist received a note from a politician's aide and broadcasts it. How can it be news until it actually happens?

 

What percentage of time on any channel is spent on real news items that affect real people? I'll give you that PBS is one of the best, and the BBC is another, although PBS has been caught out a few times for very obvious bias. The others seem obsessed with politics and their particular spin on it. Yes, some invite commentators with opposing viewpoints, but that often seems a token gesture - bringing someone on as bait for the regulars to attack.

 

All of this would be irrelevant if the general public weren't influenced by this, but news reports are as powerful as marketing. Indeed, in many cases, they are marketing. There's a choice of news outlets out there, and the public choose to listen to the one that matches their politics. Simple. If you don't like what you hear, find a news channel that says what you want to hear. Over the last few years, the choices have become more and more extreme, with viewer and broadcaster feeding each other's frenzy, financed by advertisers to the channel.

 

I really don't know what is the answer to this conundrum. We claim we want real news, but no-one really does. Instead, we prefer an echo chamber so we can go back to our insulated groups where everyone thinks, believes, looks, and votes alike.

[Ghoat]

As I have very little understanding of American politics, I read all the above posts with interest. Particularly, the various views as to why people would vote for Trump. Not once, however, does anyone mention what the option was at the time of the election. Talk about a 'rock and a hard place'. If the Democrats had fielded a half-decent candidate, Trump would never have won.

This is correct, and is somewhat of a 4th category of Trump voters. Those that feel HRC/Obama did a horrible job with foreign policy, and cringed at the course she would take. I didn't even vote in the GOP primary, because I was underwhelmed at the candidates. Jeb Bush might have been the best, but frankly, I think America had just had enough of the Bush family - and think many thought we had enough of the Clinton's as well. Out of 300 million people, we would up choosing between those 2. I disliked Trump less than I disliked Hilary.

 

The media and the far left have not done themselves any favors in the wake of the election behaving like spoiled brats who didn't get their way. Basically saying they lost because 62 million Americans are stupid because we don't agree with them. Instead of really looking at "why" people voted for Trump, or just as important, why people DIDN'T vote for HRC, there was this national eye-roll, and the OMG, look what the unwashed ignorant masses did! Honestly, it's insulting as hell, and surly has has alienated a lot of folks from Democrats.

 

At the end of the day, rational discourse is dying if not dead. And social media is certainly a huge influence. But damn being moderate, on either side of the isle, is being demonized by both sides, because we are becoming so polarized.

[Ghoat]

 

I really don't know what is the answer to this conundrum. We claim we want real news, but no-one really does. Instead, we prefer an echo chamber so we can go back to our insulated groups where everyone thinks, believes, looks, and votes alike.

This.

[rubecula]

BBC News just now has been saying impeachment is a distinct possibility.

[Chach]

Spot on. The moment Sanders was cast aside, they put the vote in the balance.

 

Not spot on at all.

Bernie hadn't been subjected to years and years of opposition research and political attacks primarily because he's a political no one, everybody knew what they would throw at Hillary because the GOP had been doing it for years.

Bernie is a rampant socialist who dragged the Democrat conversation to the left which was his intention, had he become the presidential nominee its very likely the GOP would have done a bigger job on him than they did on Hillary.

[Matt]

 

Not spot on at all.

Bernie hadn't been subjected to years and years of opposition research and political attacks primarily because he's a political no one, everybody knew what they would throw at Hillary because the GOP had been doing it for years.

Bernie is a rampant socialist who dragged the Democrat conversation to the left which was his intention, had he become the presidential nominee its very likely the GOP would have done a bigger job on him than they did on Hillary.

i disagree, and so do the republicans I know.

 

Edit: some of them at least

Edited July 30, 2017 by Matt

[Chach]

i disagree, and so do the republicans I know.

 

Edit: some of them at least

 

I made multiple points, your proclivity to disagree with them all as a singularity doesn't do much to convince me Bernie would be president if the DNC didn't favour Hillary. Your Republican friends are likely still trying to cope with the cognisant dissonance they are feeling from being conservative and voting for a populist like the Donald

[Chach]

[Matt]

I made multiple points, your proclivity to disagree with them all as a singularity doesn't do much to convince me Bernie would be president if the DNC didn't favour Hillary. Your Republican friends are likely still trying to cope with the cognisant dissonance they are feeling from being conservative and voting for a populist like the Donald

you did, and fair play. I spoke to people and they answered. Plus I'm on my phone on a small vacation and talking about US politics is honestly the last thing on my mind.

[Elston Gunnn]

Here's an interesting summary of a new book examining the American meltdown. Worth a few minutes of your time.

 

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/america-the-divided-why-the-great-melting-pot-is-having-a-meltdown/?utm_source=kw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2017-07-27

 

It goes beyond Trump, though both directly and indirectly it does have a lot to say about Trump's base. As I contend that today's Republican Party is "reactionary" rather than conservative, I appreciate Jouet's observation that Republicans "have moved toward a peculiar conception of conservatism by both U.S. historical standards and international standards."

[MikeO]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40782299

[markjazzbassist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40782299

 

it's become a comedians gold mine. 10 days on the job.

[Palfy]

it's become a comedians gold mine. 10 days on the job.

 

Do you and any Americans on this forum expect Trump to see out his term as president, and if not why.

[markjazzbassist]

Do you and any Americans on this forum expect Trump to see out his term as president, and if not why.

 

depends on the russia findings really at this point I don't have any idea. It seems like more and more stuff is being uncovered that is somewhat serious (son willing to collude with russian, but denied they had info) but the investigation is ongoing and honestly until that breaks he's staying. but that investigation could be the end of him. he's alienating "establishment" republicans which are the majority of repubs. the blue collar former democrats who voted for him haven't seen any new factories being built or the steel mills turn back on, so i don't know how patient they will be with him at the next election.

 

hard to say, if i go with my gut i say they find some russia stuff and he's impeached and out before the full term. that's my thought.

[Palfy]

In the USA would it be fair to say then that the Russians are still viewed as the enemy by most people.

So if it was proven that he did collude with the Russians to win the vote for president, would he be seen as traitor to most Americans.

[nyblue23]

Do you and any Americans on this forum expect Trump to see out his term as president, and if not why.

I believe he'll see the term out. Despite his complete and utter idiocy, he's avoided any real legal trouble despite seriously shady business dealings for decades. I don't think anything particularly damaging will be uncovered with the Russia investigation that hasn't already been uncovered; collusion is not a crime, anyway, and with his willingness to go as far as pardoning himself, I think his legal advisors will do everything in their power to keep him president.

 

If he's elected again, I'm getting the hell out of this country.