The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
Admin hat: Thread title changed to better reflect the discussion.
---

Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump's impeached. Gone. Donezies.

- How do the Republicans recover? Pence is in office, can he rebuild confidence in the GOP?
- You have to find a candidate for 2020. Who? Democrats can sit back and position themselves now, but the GOP can't "build" presidential hopefuls with Trump around. Not fully at least so that brings us back to the above: what can Pence do to fix things?
- I figured the Clinton machine wouldn't return, but will she? Third time's the charm or does her own party tell her to sit the rest of them out? This is the same group that sank Sanders' chances for Hillary's and lost the farm. Will the DNC treat her like they treated Sanders in '16?

Impeaching a president is a horrific proposition, but might prove to be necessary in this case. Is the GOP ready to go there and how will they recover?

My opinion: I don’t think President Trump gets impeached, he makes it to 2020 and worst-case decides not to run like LBJ.

President Trump has lied almost continuously through his campaign until now – demonstrably about minor and major things in abundance. He has failed to deliver or reversed himself on more than 80% of his promises. The deliveries he’s made so far are much more on tone than substance. He was elected on a populist economic and national-security message, a nationalist view of government power, an appeal to white-identity politics, and an outsider’s promise to combat corruption and bring technocratic competence from the business sector into government management and leadership. So far, in 120+ days he has reversed himself to making traditional conservative noises and positions on the economy, national security, and government power. He has been startlingly ineffective in leadership/management/technical competence and has set a new low in 100+ years for corruption. He’s maintained the façade of white identity politics but other than justice department sentencing guideline changes and the failed muslim ban it’s mostly been talk.

After all that President Trump’s approval rating has never fallen below 38% in even the lowest polling – and isn’t hanging out that low now. President Nixon dropped to 24% at the nadir of Watergate. President Trump faces an incredibly hostile media and opposition party that will not give him the benefit of the doubt on anything. Yet, he’s still only suffering minor shifts in support – which were not high to begin with, but were still enough to get him elected. If you disagree with my first paragraph it in many ways proves the point. There is a significant internet and alternative/conservative media counter-narrative to the mainstream one and it has as much traction as it had during the campaign. Though not as prevalent ‘fake news’ is still a significant part of the narrative – just look to the murdered DNC staffer who according to the alternative media was definitely the wikileaks source (not the Russians) and was clearly murdered by HRC/DNC/Elizabeth Warren in Native American garb.

President Trump’s supporters are not going to budge. The Republican party has masterfully managed the electoral map since 2010 with gerrymandering, voter suppression, and very effective local rule-setting. That means Republicans in districts or states President Trump won by more than 5 points get nothing but a primary challenger for siding with Democrats or opposing President Trump – period. Short basketball players get weeded out in college – politicians who don’t know how to keep getting elected get weeded out shortly after. It doesn’t matter how egregious the sins of the administration – the majority of Republican elected officials aren’t going to turn on the President until their electorate does. We’ll see continued criticism from states and districts with closer votes from 2016 but the majority of the red state jokers are going to hold their nose and toe the line.

But, to your hypotheticals:

- How do the Republicans recover? Pence is in office, can he rebuild confidence in the GOP?

I think the damage to the Republican brand will last a generation – but I’m not sure how bad the damage is, I think it depends on the voting block. I think we’re seeing Christian Conservatives, Financial sector (Wallstreet), Energy Industry, and Chamber of Commerce voting blocks pretty lined up on their core concerns. Christian Conservatives will vote for anyone who puts anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-Muslim policies and judges on the docket. Wallstreet and chamber of commerce cares about deregulation and tax cuts. Energy cares about deregulation. Each of those groups talked about a bunch of stuff before the election – but we’re seeing them line up without the rest of it, with just those policies.

So, I don’t see the Republican brand losing those folks. I think what they’re losing are college-educated and young people across the board. Not all of them, just cutting significantly into their margins. The reason is the necessity of buying a totally alternative narrative in order to get behind President Trump. You’ve got to sign off on a shit ton of lying, anti-science BS, and casual bigotry. That’s going to bug a lot of people for a long time. Still, most people are pretty apathetic. More people will just get turned off to politics in general than will really become anti-Republican.

VP Pence doesn’t rebuild. He just doubles down on turn-out from existing supporters. And that’s been enough to win – especially if there is no successful effort to combat gerrymandering and voter suppression. It’s been good enough to get Republicans in control of every chamber of national government and 30+ statehouses and governorships.

- You have to find a candidate for 2020. Who? Democrats can sit back and position themselves now, but the GOP can't "build" presidential hopefuls with Trump around. Not fully at least so that brings us back to the above: what can Pence do to fix things?

You’ve got to run VP Pence. The worst crime for a Republican to their base is to try to admit mistakes, missteps, or weakness. President Trump, even when polling abysmally for competence and honesty, always polls well as a ‘strong leader.’ The Republican base likes bluster and fighting words – you tell them how everyone is against you, nothing is fair, and you’re mad and aren’t going to take it. Rick Perlstein talked in his book Nixonland at how President Nixon was a master, back to his days in high school, of giving voice to priviledged people who felt oppressed. He called his group ‘orthogonians’ and it’s been a great strategy (across the spectrum) ever since.

- I figured the Clinton machine wouldn't return, but will she? Third time's the charm or does her own party tell her to sit the rest of them out? This is the same group that sank Sanders' chances for Hillary's and lost the farm. Will the DNC treat her like they treated Sanders in '16?

I don’t know, but the Democratic field is very weak. The DNC, and the Democratic apparatus, was clearly against SEN Sanders – as the RNC was against President Trump – the difference being a single alternative vs over a dozen, and not having your dirty laundry published. But, that shouldn’t override the reality that HRC beat SEN Sanders almost everywhere most people voted. Sanders had the most devoted following – but it was a minority of Democratic voters. Sanders does not represent the majority of the party, only the most enthusiastic minority. Sanders will lose in the general in my opinion, I’m a liberal and I would struggle to vote for him vs anyone but President Trump. If the Democrats can’t field a decent generalist candidate (and HRC is not it) they are fucked in 2020.

Impeaching a president is a horrific proposition, but might prove to be necessary in this case. Is the GOP ready to go there and how will they recover?

I think the only way the GOP impeaches President Trump is if they think President Pence can navigate through to success. That works if Democrats impeach the President and Pence gets all of President Trump’s support. If the GOP participates a lot of Trump partisans are going to punish the GOP – as an example look at what happened to Paul Ryan’s popularity in the party.

If I were a smart Democratic strategist I would say put all your energy into playing up what a great President Pence would be publicly, about how he could do so much better than President Trump, and how he secretly thinks President Trump is a buffoon – and false flag it to be coming from Republicans and independents. President Trump will go jihad on VP Pence if enough of that gets him spun up and the Republicans won’t have any options in impeachment.

But, nobody every accused the DNC of having smart strategist – at least not since 1992.
 
Pence's record on conversion therapy is not something he stands on, and you have to go back to 2000 to find any written evidence that kinda-sorta support the idea.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/us/politics/mike-pence-and-conversion-therapy-a-history.html


@TLDR20 - Anything specific regarding women you are referencing, or just on a whole? Truthfully Pence's stance on things have not been on my radar. To really dig up the dirt, I went looking for an anti-Pence article and found: Mike Pence and his team pose ‘biggest threat in a generation’ to women, say campaigners

- He is pro-life and not in support of free contraceptives.
- He is against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions.
- He falls on the religious argument on these...he loses me there.

I'd much rather he say that he believes that the government should not be in the business of supplying free contraceptives and 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are just wrong.

This is not me being a smartass, but what do birth control and abortion have to do with gender equality?

He won't attend meetings one in one with women, or have lunch with another women because..? If women aren't just tasty seductresses, and are equal, why not take the same independent meetings? I don't have time to find the articles about it now, but call it a due out..
 
He won't attend meetings one in one with women, or have lunch with another women because..? If women aren't just tasty seductresses, and are equal, why not take the same independent meetings? I don't have time to find the articles about it now, but call it a due out..

Not a bad idea in a city like D.C. No power-hungry staffer can accuse him of sexual harassment or abuse 10 years down the line when it's politically convenient without having other witnesses to confirm or deny. Makes sense to me. Protect your reputation.
 
He won't attend meetings one in one with women, or have lunch with another women because..? If women aren't just tasty seductresses, and are equal, why not take the same independent meetings? I don't have time to find the articles about it now, but call it a due out..

I've read the articles you will post later. He's fucking smart not to meet with women alone. He avoids false claims of sexual harassment or sexual assault that way. He's one of the only candidates that HASN'T had Gloria Steinem wannabes trot out onto the stage screaming about what a closet perv he is bc he touched or commented on her naughty bits when in private. That's because he's never given them the opportunity.

Unless and until you've been directly involved in a blatantly false report of sexual harassment (whether as the subject, or having to testify that it's false), I wouldn't expect anyone to understand just how important it is. This is one tactic that I get behind VPOTUS on 100%.
 
Not a bad idea in a city like D.C. No power-hungry staffer can accuse him of sexual harassment or abuse 10 years down the line when it's politically convenient without having other witnesses to confirm or deny. Makes sense to me. Protect your reputation.

I've read the articles you will post later. He's fucking smart not to meet with women alone. He avoids false claims of sexual harassment or sexual assault that way. He's one of the only candidates that HASN'T had Gloria Steinem wannabes trot out onto the stage screaming about what a closet perv he is bc he touched or commented on her naughty bits when in private. That's because he's never given them the opportunity.

No offense intended, but these are really strange rationalizations. If someone is so afraid of the opposite gender that they're willing to cut them out entirely, there's something more there than just the specter of false sexual harassment/assault allegations. I'm not saying that they happen, but avoiding women entirely because you fear that is on par with weirdo Wahhabist rationalizations.
 
I know several men in professional positions that will not meet with women alone. They aren't afraid of anything except the climate that has been generated in many workplaces. I don't blame them. I also know of female executives that don't meet men alone.
 
No offense intended, but these are really strange rationalizations. If someone is so afraid of the opposite gender that they're willing to cut them out entirely, there's something more there than just the specter of false sexual harassment/assault allegations. I'm not saying that they happen, but avoiding women entirely because you fear that is on par with weirdo Wahhabist rationalizations.

Hard disagree, dude. There's a huge world of difference between "I won't meet with you alone," and "You have no place in this world except at home, barefoot and pregnant."

No offense taken, though.
 
Last edited:
No offense intended, but these are really strange rationalizations. If someone is so afraid of the opposite gender that they're willing to cut them out entirely, there's something more there than just the specter of false sexual harassment/assault allegations. I'm not saying that they happen, but avoiding women entirely because you fear that is on par with weirdo Wahhabist rationalizations.

I won't meet anyone within the company I am employed by, that is the opposite sex, alone. I have already had the cards thrown for wholly professional one on one interactions. Never again. You'll learn, eventually.
 
This seems strange to me, as a person that works in a field that is 90% female, has 90% female management, and if I refused to be in a room with a woman alone would be fired.

To me it is crazy. While it may be partially to avoid sexual harassment claims, no doubt some of it is related to his religious fundamentalism. I don't like it. My opinion.
 
This seems strange to me, as a person that works in a field that is 90% female, has 90% female management, and if I refused to be in a room with a woman alone would be fired.

To me it is crazy. While it may be partially to avoid sexual harassment claims, no doubt some of it is related to his religious fundamentalism. I don't like it. My opinion.
Maybe there are good people in your field, or there is some sort of social mechanism that keeps the weirdos away. I dunno man, but I've noticed that crazy tends to be attracted to those who have something to lose. Jealousy or the prospect of advancement will make people say or do anything so they can drag someone down and take their place or gain something from it.
 
This seems strange to me, as a person that works in a field that is 90% female, has 90% female management, and if I refused to be in a room with a woman alone would be fired.

Good call out, and maybe I should have been more clear, but I am in management and have seen what a vindictive woman is capable of.

There have been times when I've had to have 1:1 private meetings and I have tactfully turned on the audio record function of my iPhone. Especially true if I am doing a counciling session.

False or not, in my world it only takes an alagation to sink a career.
 
There was a female SFC in my old commo battalion that tried to hem up a male soldier for having morning wood in his PT's during OIF 1. Seriously. A piss boner was sexually harassing her.

Another female used to talk mean game, but when someone returned the joke in kind, talking about tits and gravity, she ran to file an EO complaint.

Yet another female accused her TL of trying to look at her naked in the shower when she popped her head out of the bathroom to speak to him. Problem was, he was standing in the barracks room doorway with eyes averted, her roomie at the door, and me behind her roomie; Clark and I not only had to testify that the accusations were false, but that we weren't coerced into covering for the accused. The complaint was deemed unfounded, but he never was going to pin his 6 after that. His military career was over because of a lie.

There's much more, but I'll save that for another day. Suffice it to say, I always told all of my junior soldiers that there's safety in numbers. Protect your career. You're fortunate to not have run into some vindictive cunts, @TLDR20; I pray it stays that way.
 
There was a female SFC in my old commo battalion that tried to hem up a male soldier for having morning wood in his PT's during OIF 1. Seriously. A piss boner was sexually harassing her.

Another female used to talk mean game, but when someone returned the joke in kind, talking about tits and gravity, she ran to file an EO complaint.

Yet another female accused her TL of trying to look at her naked in the shower when she popped her head out of the bathroom to speak to him. Problem was, he was standing in the barracks room doorway with eyes averted, her roomie at the door, and me behind her roomie; Clark and I not only had to testify that the accusations were false, but that we weren't coerced into covering for the accused. The complaint was deemed unfounded, but he never was going to pin his 6 after that. His military career was over because of a lie.

There's much more, but I'll save that for another day. Suffice it to say, I always told all of my junior soldiers that there's safety in numbers. Protect your career. You're fortunate to not have run into some vindictive cunts, @TLDR20; I pray it stays that way.


Multiply the risk by 1000 for high profile individuals, especially politicians who might be baited in a honey-trap, or any famous cat with big money.

That's why Charlie Sheen bangs hookers. But even they can come back and bite you in the ass. Metaphorically speaking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top