Political Roundtable Part VIII

[dckingsfan]

When you become emotional, angry, afraid or some combination of any of the above, rational thought processes and higher order brain function is diminished or shut down entirely. Propagandists of all stripes have been using this phenomenon for ages.

I hear you on this - I am just puzzled why Trump has been so successful now where others before him seem to have failed miserably.

Good question.

A friend posited that it is because he is an entertainer and they look at it as entertainment. Not sure that covers it either.

[nate33]

Now hearing rumors that the Republicans will confirm Garland, but only in a lame duck session after Hillary defeats the Republican nominee.

[I_Like_Dirt]

They basically have to approve him, I think. They're going to try to think of ways to save face, too, so that lame duck session once Hillary is appointed makes sense to try. This makes them look pretty damn bad, though, no matter what they do. They clearly don't want to support Trump, which outright opposing Garland would mean (as you already pointed out), but they don't want to be seen as working with Obama at all. By waiting that long to approve him, they're probably doing a pretty huge disservice to Trump, though, as it's an avenue for media attention that isn't focused on Trump, which has been his specialty thus far. That type of strategy is almost tantamount to an admission that the establishment would rather have Hillary be president with Garland on the SC than have Trump win. It doesn't mean that Trump won't win, but it would show a bit of how the establishment really feels.

[nate33]

They basically have to approve him, I think. They're going to try to think of ways to save face, too, so that lame duck session once Hillary is appointed makes sense to try. This makes them look pretty damn bad, though, no matter what they do. They clearly don't want to support Trump, which outright opposing Garland would mean (as you already pointed out), but they don't want to be seen as working with Obama at all. By waiting that long to approve him, they're probably doing a pretty huge disservice to Trump, though, as it's an avenue for media attention that isn't focused on Trump, which has been his specialty thus far. That type of strategy is almost tantamount to an admission that the establishment would rather have Hillary be president with Garland on the SC than have Trump win. It doesn't mean that Trump won't win, but it would show a bit of how the establishment really feels.

I don't think delaying the Garland vote until November will have much of impact in the Trump campaign. They'll probably talk tough about not giving Garland a vote up until the November election, and if they lose, they'll immediately change their tune and vote on Garland. It's craven politics, but it's not like that's a surprise anyone.

[I_Like_Dirt]

It probably doesn't hurt Trump much, but it is a different battleground that he really wouldn't be a part of in the press.

As for the immediate acceptance of the nomination, I still suggest that's a risky play. There is plenty of precedence of a judicial nomination being withdrawn. That would completely sink their plans. It isn't like Obama has anything to lose, either.

[TGW]

I wonder if Trump is aware that you can't file for bankruptcy if you bankrupt the country. I think someone should explain that to him.

[dckingsfan]

I wonder if Trump is aware that you can't file for bankruptcy if you bankrupt the country. I think someone should explain that to him.

Oh my, yes. His plan is by far the worst in terms of growing the deficit.

Although you might have meant your comment tongue and cheek.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

[Ruzious]

It probably doesn't hurt Trump much, but it is a different battleground that he really wouldn't be a part of in the press.

As for the immediate acceptance of the nomination, I still suggest that's a risky play. There is plenty of precedence of a judicial nomination being withdrawn. That would completely sink their plans. It isn't like Obama has anything to lose, either.

If Trump thinks he has the Republican nomination locked up, he might take this as an opportunity to get non-partisan votes and basically say Screw the Republican machine - the Senate should vote on Garland now.

[nate33]

It probably doesn't hurt Trump much, but it is a different battleground that he really wouldn't be a part of in the press.

As for the immediate acceptance of the nomination, I still suggest that's a risky play. There is plenty of precedence of a judicial nomination being withdrawn. That would completely sink their plans. It isn't like Obama has anything to lose, either.

If Trump thinks he has the Republican nomination locked up, he might take this as an opportunity to get non-partisan votes and basically say Screw the Republican machine - the Senate should vote on Garland now.

Trump is too weak on his right flank to do anything like this. At least not yet.

[Zonkerbl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-lies-gaslighting_us_56e95d21e4b065e2e3d7ee82?section=politics

I was wondering why Trump reminds me of my ex-wife...

[dckingsfan]

You can fool some of the people...

[dckingsfan]

Interesting that Merkel is now "backtracking". Clearly it has shifted politics to the right in Germany. Maybe something for us to "see" to better understand what is happening here.

http://www.politico.eu/article/merkel-migrant-refugee-crisis-germany-imposes-border-controls/

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/immigration_update

It would be a shame if it was the single deciding factor in the presidential campaign.

[dobrojim]

Immigration was/is a much higher priority issue for GOP and GOP leaning voters than other voters.

[crackhed]

Immigration was/is a much higher priority issue for GOP and GOP leaning voters than other voters.

which is why there is much irrational yet absolute loyal support for him out there. as long as he gets rid of the immigrants doesn't matter if he's a rapist or murderer.. or so they think. my prediction is if he wins, he'll boldly claim he never made any such promise. he's already hinted its negotiable, and i don't doubt for a sec that he admitted to the farce in his nypost(?) interview

[cammac]

Looks like Hillary stomped Bernie - everything is over but the shouting on that one.

Now that we know the odds are heavily in favor of a Hillary/Donald matchup, who are the VP candidates going to be?

Too soon?

I think the prudent move for Trump would be to negotiate with Cruz to be the VP, and to do it soon. Cruz's presence would reassure a lot of traditional conservatives who are leery of Trump's rather kneejerk political instincts. He would shore up Trump's right flank. Meanwhile, I don't think that slight drift to the right would make a big impact in Trump's appeal to crossover working class Democrats in the general election. Those guys are thinking solely about economic issues: trade and immigration, and the fact the Cruz is more pro-life and anti-gay-marriage won't really sway them.

Another benefit would be that Cruz would bring his brilliant ground game to the Trump camp, which would be needed in a general election. Trump can't beat Hillary without a radical upgrade in his neophyte ground organization.

Trump and Cruz would have to come to an understanding on trade and foreign interventionism. Right now, they're pretty far apart on those issues.

It would be one nut job combining with another nut job and Cruz is not a traditional conservative he is Tea Party and hated by Republicans in the Senate.

Clinton is a very intelligent lady and has moved left on her policies to bring in Sanders voters. Don't be surprised if she crosses party ranks to bring in someone like General Powell who has no political ambition as her VP. Also I think she might bring Republicans into her Cabinet in 2 or 3 important posts.

[Ruzious]

Powell would be a disasterous choice imo, because he supported the decision to go to war against Iraq - a mistake that can't be under-estimated. He's a good person who made a mistake that many - including me - won't forgive. Having said that, I haven't come up with a good alternative.

[dckingsfan]

Immigration was/is a much higher priority issue for GOP and GOP leaning voters than other voters.

What worries me is that blue collar Ds also show it as the most important issue. It is like they have lost track of the overall economy for this one issue.

[penbeast0]

...
Why does anyone think there are so many economic refugees coming from south of
the border in the decades since? Not saying any president could have completely
fixed that but I will suggest that conservative/authoritarian policies supporting right
wing dictatorships in Latin America were not helpful. We were still suffering from domino theory
fear. A real leader could have stood up to that fear and assured us it was ludicrous to worry
about being overrun by commies coming over the Rio Grande. The bigger concern
should have been the horrible economic conditions and wealth inequality that has
since driven so many people (for good reason) to leave their home countries for a
chance at a better life. Right wing capitalism failed these people in a major way.
They then voted with their feet.

Agree they are voting with their feet, disagree they are voting against right wing capitalism since the USA, for all it's flaws, is seen as the epitome of right wing capitalism throughout the world. Possibly we define the terms differently; I tend to see right wing as being broadly anti government intervention in the economy but pro government intervention in religious based social issues; left wing as broadly pro government intervention in the economy but less government intervention in religious based social issues.

People leaving Venezuela, Cuba, and similar socialist states to come to the USA is voting FOR right wing capitalism and against socialist egalitarian rhetoric that has not brought an equal level of prosperity. I don't see a lot of free market economies in the main immigration groups coming to America because the free market always seems to be one of the early casualties of uncertainty and instability.

Countries with brutal and stupid authoritarian governments are hardly proponents of right wing capitalism except in name only; they are proponents of government crony capitalism which would be left (pro-government involvement in the economy) rather than right (libertarian on economic issues) wing if it had a political dimension. Authoritarian governments are not particularly a left (Communist) or right (Fascist) wing phenomenon and most that claim one side or another do so, in my observation, basically as a cover for greed and a power grab rather than in an ideologically driven manner. The fact that the right wing in this country supported so many of them as part of the Cold War fight against communism doesn't make them actually right wing themselves, just opportunists.

Now, if a strong percentage of the immigrants are moving here for social freedoms (gay rights for example), that would be voting with their feet against a legitimate right wing policy bias . . . some certainly are but not a large percentage from what I've seen and many immigrants are pro-life and anti-gay, possibly more so as a rule than native born Americans.

[JWizmentality]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/black-lawmakers-merrick-garland-pick-220924

Now this is the stuff that p*sses me off. This petty bullsh*t. This is what gives the republicans the ammunition for us playing the race card. This is the f*cking fight you want to have? He's nominated two women, one being a latino and you're going to go b*tch about him not nominating a far left minority over a guy who has some of the most impressive credentials I've seen in a while? Really? Really???? Jesus Mary and Joseph wtf?!?!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWdo6Ianw_0[/youtube]

[dckingsfan]

Nice post penbeast0 - I think you are pretty close.

right wing:
- broadly pro-government intervention in the economy that benefits businesses
- pro government intervention in religious based social issues
- less government intervention in non-religious based social issues
- tend to be more adventurous abroad in military matters
- tend to be less adventurous abroad in non-military matters

left wing:
- broadly pro-government intervention in the economy that benefits workers
- less government intervention in religious based social issues
- more government intervention in non-religious based social issues
- tend to want be more isolationist abroad in military matters
- tend to want be more adventurous abroad in non-military matters

The weird thing is that immigration should be a right wing "thing". Low cost labor benefits business (on the whole). Oh well, go figure.