Andrew

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,171 through 1,185 (of 1,205 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: compromising position #26126
    Andrew
    Participant

    You’re on fire tonight, Langston!

    Trust me – all of this sounds so incredibly crazy and far fetched that I could never have believed it…a year ago. But now?

    I suspect Republicans in Congress are not going to need too much prompting to jettison the new president, if any of this stuff has any bit of truth. You have to wonder if this stuff isn’t going to start coming out bit by bit. I still won’t predict anything – but if Republicans wanted to jettison Golden Boy, they’d probably want to do it sooner rather than later.

    Andrew
    Participant

    Largely “yes” to the second question.

    I’d say the ultimate goal for Republican leaders (and the people funding them) is tax cuts mostly for the rich. Everything else is gravy if they achieve it.

    Andrew
    Participant

    Of course McConnell is a hypocrite.

    But pointing it out is a losing issue for Democrats. Most of the country isn’t even paying to the Supreme Court and doesn’t care (they should!); that’s why Republicans were able to ignore the nomination of Merrick Garland without much more than a yawn from the media and the general population.

    in reply to: Quality doc on Chicago on CNN #25956
    Andrew
    Participant

    Chicago is slipping: they have surrendered their #1 title for bedbugs to wimpy old BALTIMORE! In fact, Chicago has plummeted to #3 in bedbugs:

    Chicago No Longer Number One In Bed Bugs

    Sorry, I need a doc’s prescription to watch CNN these days!

    in reply to: The drumpf disaster gets under way soon #25940
    Andrew
    Participant

    Skeptical, I agree that Trump may not be as bad to his now opponents as they fear – but because expectations for him now are so extreme and bad, it would be pretty easy for him to be not-as-bad.

    And Trump has already feuded with Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders, so it wouldn’t be a surprise to see that continue. For Republicans not to support him in 2020 would be pretty extreme – he’d have to be really, really unpopular in the US in general. The incumbent is almost always re-nominated. The Republican establishment already went up against this guy once and failed – their voters went with him, not them.

    Can’t imagine Trump would re-nominate Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, though.

    in reply to: The drumpf disaster gets under way soon #25937
    Andrew
    Participant

    Resigning makes you look like a failure. Nixon did it only because the alternative – being impeached and probably convicted and removed – was a lot worse for his “legacy.” I again can’t really imagine why Trump would resign unless, like Nixon, it was a necessity.

    The only other scenario I can imagine Trump resigning would be if there was some perceived moment of triumph – like either of the two Bush’s high moments right after the Iraq wars or something – and he could claim to want to go out on top. But it still seems unlikely to me. If things were bad, why resign? They could get better before you go.

    Who knows if he would want to run again? He was already quoted once in the last few weeks talking about “the next eight years” – something first term presidents usually don’t presume to do. (Most at least pretend they “haven’t decided whether to run again” until they need to announce.)

    Again – why even make such predictions at all? What’s the point? Have you all been so correct in your previous predictions? I sure haven’t, and I doubt any of you have a much better average than I do.

    in reply to: The drumpf disaster gets under way soon #25932
    Andrew
    Participant

    I don’t know if Trump would resign if not faced with a Nixon-like impeachment. Wouldn’t he just delegate more tasks if he got bored? As president, he can be as disengaged and uninvolved as he wants to be. There’s no more prestigious job in the world than President of the United States. Somehow, resigning makes you look like a quitter.

    in reply to: The drumpf disaster gets under way soon #25931
    Andrew
    Participant

    Yes, the next economic collapse is coming – but when? Before 2020 or after? Or too soon before?

    Reagan took office in 1981 with a shaky economy – high interest rates, high unemployment…but it got a lot worse with a bad recession that same year. It happened early enough in his term that it could be blamed on Carter But by 1984, the economy seemed to have recovered, and of course Reagan sailed to re-election.

    If the economy collapses in mid-2017, Trump will just blame Obama, and voters may agree with him. But if it collapses in 2019 or 2020…history shows the incumbent president is probably toast in the next election.

    in reply to: The drumpf disaster gets under way soon #25928
    Andrew
    Participant

    One of my 2017 New Years resolutions is to stop making predictions about politics! Because like most of you, I have a pretty poor track record at being right. So why even bother?

    I have no idea if Republicans will suffer big losses in 2018 or not. (The president’s party doesn’t always lose seats in Congress- see: 1998 and also 2002 mid-terms.) I have no idea if Trump will flounder or act as a Democrat or as a Republican or neither. Maybe because expectations for him are so incredibly low now, he has nowhere to go but up. And he’s the first president since 1989 not to inherit a recession – so he probably has more freedom to flex his political muscles than other new presidents, with other big worries, have been able to.

    So why even speculate? Let’s just see what happens – because there’s not much we can do about it at this point anyway, right? I sure hope he is out of power soon and that Republicans collapse in the next four years, etc., etc., but just because I desire it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

    in reply to: The drumpf disaster gets under way soon #25922
    Andrew
    Participant

    When Trump won the election, I assumed we were in for an awful four years. Some terrible laws will be passed and signed, and some bad people will be appointed to government, etc. The courts are jacked probably for 20-30 years.

    Elections have consequences, and we lost.

    But I for one refuse to wallow in the misery of Trumpland, because there’s almost zero I can do to change it for at least two if not four or eight years. So why should I worry about it?

    I’ve already unfollowed a dozen or more Facebook friends who can’t seem to get enough of, “Ohmygod, can you believe he said THIS?” posts and articles. Sorry, I have zero interest in that stuff. If you want to wallow, feel free.

    All I care about is what I can do to change it in 2-4-8 years. Anything else is just a waste of time.

    in reply to: How Journalists Covered the Rise of Mussolini and Hitler #25826
    Andrew
    Participant

    Let’s hope Trump is more like Silvio Berlusconi:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/the-right-way-to-resist-trump.html

    in reply to: Nuclear Arms Race #25763
    Andrew
    Participant

    Maybe it’s time for Democrats to turn the tables on Republicans and become deficit hawks, given how this issue seems to resonate among the Republican base. Being a deficit hawk doesn’t mean you have to favor reducing the size of government – just spending our tax money more wisely (less on defense, more on other things) and raising more tax revenue, not less.

    All Democrats need to do is a clever marketing campaign – repetition is the key! – showing historically how deficits go up under Republicans and down under Democrats. Repeat over and over and over again…

    in reply to: Nuclear Arms Race #25761
    Andrew
    Participant

    Trump said during the campaign that he wants to build a new, modern navy, too.

    I guess all of this stuff will be paid for by the huge tax cuts he has proposed for the wealthy? No chance in hell any Medicare cuts that are politically possible (to today’s recipients) would save enough money even to make a dent.

    Unfortunately, don’t expect a peep out of Republicans once $2 Trillion deficits become the norm – at least until the next Democrat is elected.

    in reply to: Blame #25737
    Andrew
    Participant

    I think Dems need to figure out how to persuade more people who don’t vote at all to vote for them (especially in mid-term elections) to make “stupid white mid west voters” irrelevant.

    in reply to: Blame #25733
    Andrew
    Participant

    Yet, Democrats won the House in 2006 and 2008, right? After losing in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.

    Gerrymandering isn’t new (and Democrats have done it too). Surely it makes the problem even harder for Democrats, but it’s not the only reason they have mostly lost the House since 1994.

    And you can’t explain the Dems’ loss of the US Senate or numerous governorships (MI, WI, MA, for example) with gerrymandering, which doesn’t affect those types of races.

    I do think the Dems need more “thought” over why they have lost so many seats in the House and in local state houses, not to mention US Senate seats and governorships. I think they need to find ways to win on issues like guns and economic issues.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,171 through 1,185 (of 1,205 total)