Trump's Second Term

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Trump's Second Term
NorthReport
NorthReport

That's it then. Case closed!

God put Trump in White House, says US ambassador to Israel

David Friedman says Israeli control over occupied Palestine is an 'opportunity for Biblical tourism that will grow and flourish in profound ways'

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-israel-religion-palestine-white-house-god-us-ambassador-a9310421.html

NorthReport

Trump’s Second Term

It’s more likely than most people think—and compared with his first term, its effects would be far more durable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/trump-2020-second-term/585994/

Sean in Ottawa

I am not sure that many poeple are off on the possibility of a second term. Most people are interested and reading the polls -- and they are aware that the Democrat nominee has to get more votes to win.

At the same time I would not exaggerate this risk either, People that speak in certainties are largely full of hot air. Most would place this somewhere close to a 50-50. Both sides have deep vulnerabilities and major advantages.

bekayne

Can you imagine Trump's mental and physical health at age 77?

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

On what basis did you call this a fantasy? Do you have any proof that they expected any different or that this is not useful?

The Democrats won a massive victory today. Let me explain:

The worst scenario would have been for the Senate to hold a trial that looked fair, that had witnesses and then voted against removal. I believe this is what Republican Senator Murkowsiki was getting at by not voting for witnesses that would not be listened to. Instead, they have been forced to go on record as having had a sham trial without documents and without witnesses. Their vote to exonerate the President has this lack of available witnesses and documents nailed to it. No exoneration possible.

The possible options the Democrats had was to:

1) Not engage in impeachment and thereby themselves endorse the idea that this was not impeachable

2) Lose in the Senate on party lines with the appearance of investigation

3) Lose in the Senate with it being clear that the GOP opposed any investigation at every step of the way.

I stated before on this site that the Democrats ought not to proceed if this was based on a presumption that a win was removal of Trump. I do not believe they did so. They did this to expose the GOP which has finally had to admit that calling a witness and calling for documents would be more damaging than having an obvious coverup strategy outlined in public.

The Democrats have forced the Republicans into a Pyrrhic victory. The Republicans will be forced to answer in a general election to a population that was about 3/4 in favour of witnesses.

The GOP has to accept that either it has been completely taken over by the Tea party such that they cannot get away or that they are so guilty in enabling Trump that an investigation of Trump would only expose them further. (There may not be much daylight between those concepts.) The Democrats in this loss have gained everything they needed and have shown that they did what they were supposed to do. Trump's base will be amped up but Democrats also may have the means to motivate their own side joined with the independents Trump needed. 

It always was going to be a tough election and it could still go either way but this makes it more likely the Democrats will win than if they had not done it.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

A Democrat fantasy. Sure thing Herr North Report.

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

What The Latest Polling On Trump’s Removal Does (And Doesn’t) Mean

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-latest-polling-on-trumps-removal-does-and-doesnt-mean/?cid=taboola_rcc_r

I really do not think that the polls now show how this will effect the election.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Canadians Big on Bernie, but think regardless of who Democrats nominate, Trump is likely to win

http://angusreid.org/democratic-primary-trump/

NorthReport

Ha! Ha!

Russia denies trying to interfere in 2020 U.S. election to benefit Trump

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-denial-us-election-1.5471094

Sean in Ottawa

Why would the Russians do anything at all - other than buy popcorn -  if they want a fucked up US? 

I am not judging the 2016 controversy in this post. But considering the state of the US today, what could the Russians hope to improve from their persepctive? It seems that a great deal of US commentators are focusing on the idea of a foreign threat to avoid dealing with the true state of their domestic situation.

Cody87

bekayne wrote:

Can you imagine Trump's mental and physical health at age 77?

Some context:

-Bernie is the likely Dem nominee, and if it's not Bernie then it's probably Bloomberg

-Bernie is 4.5 years older than Trump, and recently had a heart attack

-Bloomberg is 4 years older than Trump

Now with that context, there are lots of reasons to attack/criticize Trump. Are you really sure age is the one you want to go with?

Misfit Misfit's picture

Trump is already showing signs of dementia or senility. The other two aren't. Trump lives on fast food. The others do not. 

JKR

bekayne wrote:

Can you imagine Trump's mental and physical health at age 77?

Can you imagine Trump's mental health age when he was 27? I think Trump has been a psychopath since he was a teenager. I think his very rich, racist, abusive dad traumatized him as a child and now the whole world is suffering because of it. Hitler's father was also horribly abusive.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

So what's the deal, Sean. In another thread where a few (including myself) were  predicting Sanders would crush Trump and you called those who think like that are 'blow hards'

Wouldn't that make this entire thread expecially its title one huge blow hard fest?

Make up your mind or at least be persistent.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

So what's the deal, Sean. In another thread where a few (including myself) were  predicting Sanders would crush Trump and you called those who think like that are 'blow hards'

Wouldn't that make this entire thread expecially its title one huge blow hard fest?

Make up your mind or at least be persistent.

WTF are you talking about? Are you upset that I had something better to do than be on Babble today to respond to the latest repetitions?

I made up my mind. I have been consistent. Even if I do not respond to evey post I think your optimism is based on somthing that is not a all a sure bet.

I have been saying that it will be a close election that is difficult to predict. Trump will be easy to dislodge. I do not even expect Trump to necessarily agree and abide by the result if he does not win and I think there is a chance he can win -- by cheating and lying as needed.

I do not think Sanders cannot win but do not share your feeling that this is a done deal either.

I have no idea why you are calling me out when I have been consistent.

I am consistently arguing with people who claim Trump will win and those who claim he will lose when it is a close election that cannot yet be predicted.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Well, thank you for admitting you are 'full of hot air'

You made up your mind that Trump will win. Goodie on you.

I made up my mind that Sanders will win.

So quit arguing like you have a crystal ball.

Trump ain't winning the election. And I find myself arguing with people who are predicting Trump having an easy win.

What? That's MY opinion? It's no more or less relevant than yours.

You know what they say about opinions. Continue to blow hot air.

JKR

US politics and society are so polarized now that I think Trump would still get at least 40% of the vote even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, especially if they were a Democrat.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

JKR wrote:

US politics and society are so polarized now that I think Trump would still get at least 40% of the vote even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, especially if they were a Democrat.

JKR

If things were remotely sane nowadays that cartoon would be absurd but that cartoon is far too close to the truth to how things are in the US. under Trump. I think the US will be very lucky if Trump's presidency doesn't end very badly.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Well, thank you for admitting you are 'full of hot air'

You made up your mind that Trump will win. Goodie on you.

I made up my mind that Sanders will win.

So quit arguing like you have a crystal ball.

Trump ain't winning the election. And I find myself arguing with people who are predicting Trump having an easy win.

What? That's MY opinion? It's no more or less relevant than yours.

You know what they say about opinions. Continue to blow hot air.

I am not sure why you hate Trump so much. He uses the same tactic you do -- he lies when everyone can see he is lying. So you follow a post in which I say Sanders could win but it will be close with a declaration that I said that Trump will win.

You say I have a crystal ball when I have been the loudest voice here saying that this cannot be known. I have been relentless explaining the reasons why it will be close. I have pointed out the external reasons, particularly the economic picture which has been favourable to Trump at the moment but is so fragile it could blow up at any moment. I explained issues with voting participation rates and the electoral college. I have explained that there are states that Sanders will be hard pressed to win but that other States thought to be secure for Trump may not be if the vote is heavy -- like Texas. 

In one thread I said that it is not certain Trump will win and was attacked for that for days; in another I said that it is not certain that Sanders will win  -- with you piling on.

I am really curious about this becuase don't you understand how this makes you look? Do you want people to think that you are unable to read and understand? Do you want people to think that you can understand but have the personality to be this aggressive in your misrepresentation when it is so easy to see through it? 

ETA: Maybe you are just a grade -A bully who noticed that I pissed off *both* the people who are claiming certainty that Trump is unbeatable and those claiming Sanders is unbeatable and this created an oportunity to get the majority on your side? You, having claimed that Sanders could beat Trump, accuse me of relying on a crystal ball, unable to make up my mind. Good luck with that.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

US politics and society are so polarized now that I think Trump would still get at least 40% of the vote even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, especially if they were a Democrat.

It is probably similar on both sides. Democrats believe Trump is so bad they will also accept anyone. This means that there are 20% who will decide. 

But to some degree this is true on all elections. The undecided voter is as powerful as they are rare. They can decide when everyone else is locked in. Of course there is a second variable: participation rate.

You are right that it is the polarization that forces people to the margins and an obvious choice. When the candidates are so far apart it becomes clear which one is completely unacceptable. When the candidates are gathered in the middle people even with an established ideology could consider more than one candidate.

In a context of this polarization we have two deciding factors:

1) the small minority of truly undecided (this might even be below 10%)

2) The voting rate and enthusiasm (especially when you consider that the undecided are often non-voters)

The second creates the circle providing the causation. Once the pool in the middle of truly undecided becomes smaller than the pool on your side that may or may not vote, the strategy of playing to the base becomes more rewarding. This dynamic only further reduces the middle group.

With respect to the US it actually changes and makes more unpredictable which states would be in play. States with histories of undecided may, once the situation polarizes break to one side more than another. States where they have a history of low participation could become swing states as increased participation could alter the leaning of the State. The is why States that were Swing States might now be more reliably Trump states (perhaps some widwest) whereas states with a large Democrat sympathetic population that did not vote could go Democratic. This makes things less predictable. Texas and Georgia could even go Democratic while Trump takes Pennsylvania.

When you look at Sanders you truly see the problem Democrats are facing. Sanders is the most likely candidate to get people worked up about both in support and opposition. The Republicans will demonize him and more of the right leaning people will come out in fear of him. On the other hand more of the people who have given up voting for change may actually choose to vote. More Democrats may be excited about voting for him. Add to this the potential for cheating and advantages of an incumbant President and you have way to many variables. It is likely that the voting rate in this fall's election will increase dramatically.

Cody87

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

With respect to the US it actually changes and makes more unpredictable which states would be in play. States with histories of undecided may, once the situation polarizes break to one side more than another. States where they have a history of low participation could become swing states as increased participation could alter the leaning of the State. The is why States that were Swing States might now be more reliably Trump states (perhaps some widwest) whereas states with a large Democrat sympathetic population that did not vote could go Democratic. This makes things less predictable. Texas and Georgia could even go Democratic while Trump takes Pennsylvania.

This is exactly correct - the map is changing. Texas probably won't go blue this election cycle, but I bet it does by 2032 at the very latest. It's becoming a purple state. But Ohio is moving more red. Where many of Trump's wins (and losses, to be fair) in 2016 were thin margins, Ohio went republican by 10 points. In the time between impeachment acquittal and the start of the stock market drop, republican influencers were talking about a ceiling of 40 states. Their debate has been the pros and cons of a Sanders nomination, because many believe he will be the easiest to beat in 2020 (proving that they learned nothing from 2016). What they have ignored is exactly what you say - although some blue states that haven't recently been play could be (Nevada, Colorado, Virginia for example), there are also red states that are moving into play, including Texas. It will be hard for the republicans to ever win if democrats win California, Texas, and New York. Everyone said Florida was a "must-win" for Trump and he had no path without Florida. It turns out Trump still would have won in 2016 without Florida - but not without Texas.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
When you look at Sanders you truly see the problem Democrats are facing. Sanders is the most likely candidate to get people worked up about both in support and opposition. The Republicans will demonize him and more of the right leaning people will come out in fear of him. On the other hand more of the people who have given up voting for change may actually choose to vote. More Democrats may be excited about voting for him. Add to this the potential for cheating and advantages of an incumbant President and you have way to many variables. It is likely that the voting rate in this fall's election will increase dramatically.

On top of all that, COVID-19 is going to be the story of the year. I have no idea how that is going to factor. Prior to COVID-19, my prediction was Trump would win against everyone, even Sanders, unless there was a market crash. But implicit in that prediction was the understanding that the crash would either be Trump's fault or at least plausibly so. A market crash in response to a global pandemic (if that's what it turns out to be) - who will people blame for that? If the answer is China, that might not hurt Trump at all...

That's not even getting into the possibility some people in the government and/or race might catch COVID-19 themselves.

The point being, I completely agree that there is absolutely no way to predict the race at this time. I think it's going to be a big fat question mark until at least early October.

Aristotleded24

Now that Sanders has cleared the way for Biden to be the nominee, a second Trump term is a near certainty, with the likelihood of many states that went for Clinton flipping for Trump, and a most likely victory for Trump in the popular vote.

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Now that Sanders has cleared the way for Biden to be the nominee, a second Trump term is a near certainty, with the likelihood of many states that went for Clinton flipping for Trump, and a most likely victory for Trump in the popular vote.

I really disagree here. I think that any Democrat might have had a good chance as the disaster the US is in will soon be undeniably due to their leadership.

People might prefer to bring in a corpse.

That said I suspect Biden will try to help himself with the VP nominee and may succeed.

Ken Burch

He'd help himself "bigly" by promising to only serve one term, and then agreeing not to do anything to work against the nomination of a progressive to succeed him.

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said I suspect Biden will try to help himself with the VP nominee and may succeed.

I will be astonished if the VP nominee is anywhere to the left of Biden. Biden will probably pick Kamala Harris.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..to get an idea of what we/the us is facing, imo, it is best to look at it from the point of power. 

..under trump a concentration of power occurred. it got there by focusing on the other..the same way authoritarian regimes do. on the other side of that came the sanders campaign to challenge that. sanders didn't get his power from his persona nor did he get it form being a senator nor his platform..he got that power from below. from the masses that supported him. his campaign wasn't successful in achieving the goal. much of that was do to the establishment democrats. the party power.

..it's true the reps and dems are not the same in much of their policy but in one aspect they are the same. they are beholden to power and real power doesn't lie in governments. it lies in capital.

..so as far as i can see capital..capitalism..is moving towards more consolidation as it devours its in it's own corruption. and like a snowball rolling down the hill out of control. to achieve this it will need to demand more authoritarianism from it's politicos.

..from another view we see how this corona crisis has created better air well we can only hope that industry..in it's present form..also collapses. power will then have been reduced. but we still would be left with the authoritarian. 

kropotkin1951

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Now that Sanders has cleared the way for Biden to be the nominee, a second Trump term is a near certainty, with the likelihood of many states that went for Clinton flipping for Trump, and a most likely victory for Trump in the popular vote.

I also think that this ensures a second term for Trump. Biden will not bring new voters out to vote for him so where does he get his support from. Nobody who voted for Trump last time cared that he was a lying conman, why should they this time? As well all the media will be telling the US people from now until eternity that the whole mess is China's fault. Trump is standing up to China so he's Captain America not the scapegoat.

josh

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said I suspect Biden will try to help himself with the VP nominee and may succeed.

I will be astonished if the VP nominee is anywhere to the left of Biden. Biden will probably pick Kamala Harris.

Who's to the left of Biden.

Aristotleded24

josh wrote:

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said I suspect Biden will try to help himself with the VP nominee and may succeed.

I will be astonished if the VP nominee is anywhere to the left of Biden. Biden will probably pick Kamala Harris.

Who's to the left of Biden.

The Green Party or the Movement for a People's Party

kropotkin1951

josh wrote:

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That said I suspect Biden will try to help himself with the VP nominee and may succeed.

I will be astonished if the VP nominee is anywhere to the left of Biden. Biden will probably pick Kamala Harris.

Who's to the left of Biden.

Hilary Clinton and Madeline Albright