04-30-2019, 05:40 PM
(04-30-2019, 12:28 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(04-30-2019, 10:32 AM)David Horn Wrote:(04-30-2019, 09:00 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:(04-22-2019, 11:41 AM)David Horn Wrote:(04-20-2019, 11:39 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The fault with Donald Trump is obviously not in his stars, as the Mueller report shows. We have no Presidency with this level of known scandal, but also no precedent for the consequence of so many and so pervasive scandals.
He got elected with the aid of electoral misconduct in which he is complicit. Close as the 2016 election was, Trump may have little legitimacy as President except for the legal presumption that electoral results are valid even if they prove wrong after the fact.
Scandal only counts if people can be scandalized. Trump has managed to make scandal into a social game by playing it in the press as theater with lines that change at every performance. 10 years from now, we may look back and be embarrassed. But, for now, hoi polloi thinks it's all fun and games.
Perhaps. Or perhaps more accurately, PBR only sees what he wants to see and believes only things that he wants to believe like everyone else does.
It is a fact that Mueller found nothing on the President worthy of further investigation. He couldn't find much dirt on his cronys either (and yes all presidents have those--don't let PBR try to persuade you otherwise) other than a ten year old money laundering charge (that cost more to investigate than they will ever recover) and he hired a dumbass as a lawyer once, oh and his tenants might have some scandals (seriously do we drag the local slum lord out and try and lynch him cause his tenants are smoking the crack in the stair well? No.).
Mueller did what he was supposed to do: he investigated interference by the Russians, and referred the rest to other offices. That hardly qualifies as an exoneration. Several career prosecutors have stated unequivocally that they have successfully prosecuted others with much less than the incomplete info in Mueller's report.
Yes. And Muller found nothing because it is virtually impossible for a foreign power to hijack the decentralized system the US uses. Exactly how Obama said it couldn't be hijacked before the first Tuesday in November in 2016. Since it can't be both hijackable and not hijackable either Obama lied or he told the truth until it became politically expedient not to.
Obama was wrong for once. Maybe he did not want to create a panic, and maybe he did not want to kick the hornet's nest. He believed that
(1) Trump would lose,
(2) by supporting Trump, Putin put himself in a position in which he would have to be 'rescued' by the Hillary Clinton administration
(3) the accusation that a nominee for President would collaborate with a foreign power was impossible even for him to convince Americans of its possibility.
Yes, I know Vince Lombardi's saying
"Winning isn't everything -- it's the only thing"
-- but at least Lombardi was not known to cheat. He didn't drug the opponents' water supply. He didn't cut the telephone line from the opposing coach to the press box. He was a step ahead. The only advantage that he seemed to have was supposedly the brutal weather around Green Bay -- but that was so only in November and December, and his Packers usually played the Detroit Lions, Chicago Bears, and Minnesota Vikings -- all of whom faced brutal winter weather before they played in domed stadiums. (Chicago and Green Bay still play in open stadiums). Keeping the game credible so that it is something other than a sick spectacle is even more important.
Quote:And yet there aren't any indictments. Personally I don't care what some random prosecutor has to say; unless they are directly involved with they don't know the details and thus do not know what the situation is.
What???????
Quote:Quote:Kinser Wrote:I would argue that the President is able to "play the press" the way he does because he knows how the Lame Stream media ticks. He's been playing them for years. Indeed if one really wants to know what the President is doing, saying or thinking one would be better servedjust following him on Twitter.
Not to be missed: POTUS TV, also known as Fox News, is no longer the most followed. Now it's MSNBC. I suspect that's telling.
It really isn't telling us anything other than much of the Silent Generation has died out. I occasionally do glance at MSDNC...er...I mean MSNBC. I find it telling that most of their commercials are for denture cream and bathtub replacements for those with mobility conditions most often associated with advanced age.
News programs have always had rather old audiences. Series television is made for people in the 18-49 age group, as people over 50 have usually either established their brand-name loyalties or are so capricious that they never will establish brand-name loyalties. Over 50? If one is in an upper-income group one might be a market for large-volume life insurance policies, brokerage services, long-distance travel, and high-end automobiles. That explains why golf is on television despite small audiences. No other television audience has people who would think of buying million-dollar insurance policies or going on a second honeymoon to Vienna -- and I don't mean Vienna, Virginia. Golf is not where one advertises detergents, mass-market beer, fast food, or sodas -- let alone used cars, payday loans, or rip-off vocational schools.
Quote:In short it tells us only that Boomers watch MSNBC--since you guys are the oldies now. Across the board cable news viewership skews old and except for the very few GIs around and the slightly more numerous Silents that means that Boomers are still watching the Tee-vee. Everyone else gets their news from other sources.
Older people are more likely to have their residential mortgages paid off, are more likely to have investments, and make bequests to charities, colleges, etc.
Quote:Kinser Wrote:Indeed if one simply sits back and observes the Democrats they are defeating themselves at every turn.
There's is truth here. The Dems have a genetic death wish that seems to emerge when things are looking brightest for them.
Quote:I would say it would take a miracle on their part for Trump to not be re-elected. Lets see how many of the keys to the White House he has currently.
Quote: Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Not really relevant. Most Presidents lose seats in Congress during their first mid-term. This key should be removed actually because it isn't a key at all--rather I'd argue that Congressional Mid-term elections largely are based on the locality in question and do not reflect on the chances of any Presidential candidate. Incumbent or otherwise.
Most Presidencies lose here. There usually is some disappointment.
Quote: Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Quote:There is some rando attempting to run on the Republican Primary. I've forgotten his name because that is how important he is. He will be no challenge to the President. Unlike say when then Governor Reagan primary-ed Ford.
His name is William Weld. He was Governor of Massachusetts a couple decades ago. Because most Presidents are current or former Governors or Senators, Vice-Presidents, or Cabinet officers, I consider him a serious challenger. I do not consider him a joke. Primary challenges indicate significant dissent within his party, and the opposition party can usually exploit such dissent.
Quote:Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Quote:Donald Trump is the current President and baring him being assassinated, or dying in next year he will be running for a second term.
I consider this a solid key for the GOP because even if the Grim Reaper should pay a visit to your idol, Mike Pence would be the incumbent and I would reasonably expect him to run for re-election. The last three Presidents got re-elected, which demonstrates that incumbency is an asset.
Quote: Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Quote:The only third party that is significant at the moment is the Green Party and they are threat to the Democrats and not the Republicans.
Libertarian, Constitution, Reform, Taxpayers'... I can easily see an anti-Trump conservative running on such a Party or forming his own. The point is that a significant Third Party or Independent nominee draws off people who might ordinarily vote for the candidate of their Party. I consider Perot, Anderson, Wallace, and Thurmond significant since WWII, with Greens playing a role in razor-tight elections in 2000 and 2016.
I can imagine many usual conservatives disliking Trump for hurting their economic interests (farmers and ranchers are a significant bloc in some states). Sure, Trump gave farmers and ranchers a piddling tax cut but gave them a trade war that reduces their income (cuts to income taxes do not compensate for lost revenue) and tariffs that make much of what farmers buy more expensive. Tariffs are taxes. Trump's foreign policy is unconventional, to say the least -- and even reckless.
Quote: Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Quote:The economy is not in recession now, and indicators look like 2019 will be another good year economically. But a year is an eternity in business and politics.
That is what people were saying in the summer of 1929, too. The leading indicators aren't so great now -- increases in inventory stock and an inverted yield curve.
Quote: Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Quote:Over Trump's term mean GDP growth has been fairly good. As long as the GDP continues to grow at 2% or better per year the economy will not be sputtering.
It is hard to outdo the economic growth coming out of a recession that threatened to become a full-blown depression. I thought that Trump had no chance to make a positive out of this, and even if he has been lucky so far, he cannot get faster growth than what happened under Obama.
Quote: Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Quote:The President has spearheaded deregulation (which is good for the economy), and made headway in foreign affairs with powers that are usually antagonistic to the US's interests. The other, and most important change in national policy is currently being thwarted by Congress but that should change soon.
Lichtman does not judge what those changers are. This key would be positive if the President successfully outlawed homosexuality, undid the 1964 Civil Rights Act, gave the Interstate Highway system to foreign profiteers, nationalized several industries, or started a persecution of people for their religion. Foreign policy is in another key.
Quote: Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Quote:The only social unrest in the country is coming from the antifa type and other assorted groups of radical leftists acting like the terrorists they are. It makes the Democrats who are pandering to the Left look bad.
Lichtman explains that polite dissent such as the Tea Party Movement is not the sort of social unrest that topples a Presidency, and I would say the same of the Women's March on Washington, Black Lives Matter, and many other anti-Trump causes. The Long Hot Summers of the 1960s and anarchist or Bolshevik violence going into the 1920 election are.
I draw the line on repeated terrorist activity associated with causes. Isolated terrorism may suggest a lone
kook or cell, as with Ted Kaczynski or with the KKK violence associated with "Bombingham". Racist violence has resulted in deaths in Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, and Poway (note well: antisemitism is racist above all else). One Trump supporter was caught mailing bombs to Democratic political figures and Democratic-friendly celebrities.
The Trump administration has not handled these events well.
Quote: Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Quote:The Present Administration doesn't have any real scandals. Russia-gate was a giant nothing burger. Now Schiff wants to investigate the President's taxes. What a big scandal it will be when the IRS reports that he paid them. Seriously the man is a billionaire and gets audited every year (because he's a billionaire). If he was cheating on his taxes the IRS should have found out about it by now and if they haven't then they all should be fired and replaced.
The only scandals in the White House happening right now are in the fevered mind of the lamestream media and the congress critters who have a D after their name. Everyone else knows that they are just witch hunting.
This is the most corrupt Presidential administration in American history. Ulysses S. Grant ousted the shysters, and Warren G. Harding was insignificant in contrast to this awful President. This is an administration that even cheated to get elected. Case closed! This is by far the strongest key against the President.
Quote: Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Quote:There hasn't been any military failures yet, unless you count not completely pulling out of Syria a failure. But that can be blamed on Congress because they won't vote the money to repatriate the troops. On foreign affairs the President has a consistant winning streak. Mr. Kim has been pretty quiet since he and The Donald had a sit down. I wonder if it is because he appreciates the President's business style. It also works with Mr. Xi and Mr. Duarte as well, even if it does piss off the likes of Macron and Merkle. But what are their options? NATO is run by the US and NATO protects them from that big bad Soviet--er I mean--Russian Bear to the east that is oh so threatening.
America's usual allies hold this President in disdain.
Quote: Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Quote:Making deals with Xi and Kim. More than enough but he has at least another year for more winning. And Xers like winning, since the world is composed of winners and losers and if you aren't a winner, you are a loser by definition.
Neither of which I trust. Just see what John Xenakis has to say about China.
Quote:Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Quote:The President is very charismatic. I would argue that becoming president without being charismatic is impossible unless we're talking about a person who becomes president due to unfortunate circumstances.
Ford for example.
He could be an emotional wreck in the autumn of 2020. Definitely not established.
Quote: Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Quote:I've looked at the Democrat roster....Biden is the best they have and he's neither charismatic nor a national hero. His sons might or might not be but the Biden I'm talking about is Creepy Uncle Joe who makes #MeToo jokes on stage with children after sniffing their hair.
Not established.
Quote:Quote:Kinser Wrote:Kinser's Prediction for 2020: Donald Trump will be re-elected (with the Popular and Electoral vote) defeating any Democrat that the DNC manages to come up with.
Possible but not likely.
Quote:From where things sit now the Democrats have to find someone who isn't Sanders, isn't Biden, isn't Fauxahantas--er I mean Warren and isn't a rabid leftist. Patrick Francis O'Rourke might be charismatic (to somebody) but he can't even beat Greaseball--I mean Cruz in Texas. The rest of the country will have even less time for his antics.
Trump is doing what he can to ensure that he be a one-term President.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.