6 ms·

The best we can hope for is to weather the next two years without suffering damage to our nation that's truly irreparable, and that the brazen cronyism on displ

by _bxg1 8y ago

The best we can hope for is to weather the next two years without suffering damage to our nation that's truly irreparable, and that the brazen cronyism on display will be a reality-check for all who would otherwise dip their toes into casual corruption. God help us all.

vkou 8y ago
> the next two years By which, you surely mean, the next six. > suffering damage to our nation that's truly irreparable I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement (Who is left out of such agreements is an exercise for the reader.) The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage, that the political system is not at all designed (Or has the will) to deal with.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  > By which, you surely mean, the next six. I think we have a very good chance of un-electing him. He's alienated all but his most dedicated core base, and there's a huge list of Democratic primary candidates from which to whittle down the very strongest. Lots of people who voted for him did it with the mentality of "The establishment's bad; let's try something different. Drain the swamp. Things couldn't get any worse." Now those people are saying, "Oh." > I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement. The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage. This is definitely true, unfortunately. A government is made of people, and no government system can withstand being populated by bad (or at least shortsighted) people. Most of those before Trump weren't massively better people than him, morally speaking. Even Obama quietly did some really shady things. What they did have was tact, and intelligence, and self-control. They didn't take Putin's word over their own intelligence agencies (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-investigations-into-trump-were-extraordinary-steps https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-i...). They didn't display such erratic behavior that their own white-house staff called psychiatrists to ask if they should be worried (https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-told-psychiatrist-trump-1828884897 https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-tol...). They didn't have a nuclear football installed in their personal residence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuclear-football-trump-tower-apartment https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuc...). Whatever objectives his predecessors had, they knew those couldn't happen if they literally endangered the society underpinning them.
  - vkou 8y ago
    That's the root of the problem, though. You're bringing up symptoms of the problem, not the root causes. The problem isn't that he has a nuclear football installed in his summer dacha. The problem is that the nuclear football exists, and that there exist two men that can, at a whim, end the world.
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      Okay, but pragmatism dictates that we don't get a do-over with the governing structure of the most powerful nation on earth. We can work to make it better, but that's a long and slow process, and in the meantime we need to get the various buttons and dials out of the hands of a literal crazy person. I'll put it this way: I disagree with Mike Pence politically on virtually every issue. But it would still be a massive relief for me if he finished up Trump's presidential term.
- tzs 8y ago
  I'm curious why you think his re-election chances are so high? Comparing to the post-WWII Presidents who failed to get a second term, Ford, Carter, and the first Bush, they all had much higher net approval ratings at almost all comparable times through their terms. Carter and Ford both had approval ratings almost as low Trump's at this point, but they had much lower disapproval ratings, giving them much better nets. Scroll down here for post-WWII President approval/disapproval/net rating charges over time compared to the current President over time [1]. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...
  - tomp 8y ago
    My reasoning is, that Democrats seem to be playing the same notes as for previous election (mainly social justice), except with more "socialism" (higher taxes). It seems unlikely that this time they succeed... unless they change strategy before the election, of course!
    - odorousrex 8y ago
      Your reasoning is not backed up by evidence. In the 2016 election, "Social Justice" barely made the top ten issues people voted on[1] (#1, It's the economy, stupid!) The independents that swung for Trump were worried about their jobs (or lack thereof). His base was more concerned with social justice issues, but they would've voted for him anyway. The democratic candidate, nor her running mate were widely known, or even running on social justice issues. [2] Lastly a higher tax on the wealthy is highly popular, even in republican circles. As are some "socialist" type policies like medicare for all. [3] [1] http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-i... [2] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-promises/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22... [3] https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70 https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-m...
      - 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
jMyles 8y ago
This seems to me to be a very pessimistic view. I think that we the best we can hope for is that the government is rendered unusable, and that the world is able to proceed into the information age free from the constant malice of the hegemonic state.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  Unfortunately large portions of our society rely on having a functioning government. If things fall apart, I doubt the masses rising in revolt will magically end up with a libertarian government. Something authoritarian is much more likely. Better the devil you know.
mlevental 8y ago
I would say with two supreme Court justices appointed we're past the point of irreparable
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The Constitution specifies a method for arresting damage by problematic Supreme Court justices.
  - orf 8y ago
    Care to elaborate?
    - avmich 8y ago
      I think that an important principle of the American organization of power is accountability (that one which is "something left when responsibility is subtracted", according to a Scandinavian). I think that Supreme Court almost exclusively (meaningfully) interacts with the rest of the country via its decisions. I think that may mean that Supreme Court can be judged - and e.g. a justice impeached - solely on the basis of their decisions, as it's the only thing they do. Without this, I see a contradiction with the principle. That means that if e.g. Congress finds some decisions of Supreme Court distorting Constitution, the Congress is justified in removing a justice solely on the basis of the decisions made by them.
mnm1 8y ago
Lol. Two supreme court justices. Permanent losses of billions in taxes. Russia meddling in our government. It's way too fucking late for hope that lasting damage doesn't occur. Even if this administration ended tomorrow, the damage is done for decades. Some can be reversed. Much can't. God didn't fucking help us.
Waterluvian 8y ago
I think Americans in most of their political discourse continue to miss the point. There's a significant portion of the country who voted for the guy and will vote for him again. He's just a symptom. Whatever it is that's making those people vote for him is where everyone's attention needs to be.
- avmich 8y ago
  I think that some problems which caused voting for Trump are much harder to fix with Trump in the White House. Some other problems can, unfortunately, be fixed (only) over a long run - e.g. an opinion that "America is primarily for whites".
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  For the most part, the lives of people who live in cities has gotten better over the last generation. They voted for the status quo. For the most part, the lives of people who don't live in cities has not gotten better over the last generation, and they voted for change. These differences are structural, and I don't think anybody knows how to make them better. You can tell people to give up their current lifestyle and move somewhere else with more opportunity and a completely different lifestyle, but that's a really hard sell.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  I find it perplexing that the parent comment so confidently assumes that Trump will not be re-elected at the same time. I mean, if I voted for Trump comments like these would make me want to vote for him again even more.

by _bxg1 8y ago

vkou 8y ago

> the next two years By which, you surely mean, the next six. > suffering damage to our nation that's truly irreparable I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement (Who is left out of such agreements is an exercise for the reader.) The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage, that the political system is not at all designed (Or has the will) to deal with.

_bxg1 8y ago
> By which, you surely mean, the next six. I think we have a very good chance of un-electing him. He's alienated all but his most dedicated core base, and there's a huge list of Democratic primary candidates from which to whittle down the very strongest. Lots of people who voted for him did it with the mentality of "The establishment's bad; let's try something different. Drain the swamp. Things couldn't get any worse." Now those people are saying, "Oh." > I think the past dozen presidential administrations have made it clear that good governance only happens by gentleman's agreement. The executive has no shortage of knobs, dials, and levers that it can pull on, to inflict 'irreperable' damage. This is definitely true, unfortunately. A government is made of people, and no government system can withstand being populated by bad (or at least shortsighted) people. Most of those before Trump weren't massively better people than him, morally speaking. Even Obama quietly did some really shady things. What they did have was tact, and intelligence, and self-control. They didn't take Putin's word over their own intelligence agencies (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-investigations-into-trump-were-extraordinary-steps https://www.npr.org/2019/02/19/695646320/andrew-mccabe-fbi-i...). They didn't display such erratic behavior that their own white-house staff called psychiatrists to ask if they should be worried (https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-told-psychiatrist-trump-1828884897 https://splinternews.com/white-house-staffers-reportedly-tol...). They didn't have a nuclear football installed in their personal residence (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuclear-football-trump-tower-apartment https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/pentagon-nuc...). Whatever objectives his predecessors had, they knew those couldn't happen if they literally endangered the society underpinning them.
- vkou 8y ago
  That's the root of the problem, though. You're bringing up symptoms of the problem, not the root causes. The problem isn't that he has a nuclear football installed in his summer dacha. The problem is that the nuclear football exists, and that there exist two men that can, at a whim, end the world.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    Okay, but pragmatism dictates that we don't get a do-over with the governing structure of the most powerful nation on earth. We can work to make it better, but that's a long and slow process, and in the meantime we need to get the various buttons and dials out of the hands of a literal crazy person. I'll put it this way: I disagree with Mike Pence politically on virtually every issue. But it would still be a massive relief for me if he finished up Trump's presidential term.
tzs 8y ago
I'm curious why you think his re-election chances are so high? Comparing to the post-WWII Presidents who failed to get a second term, Ford, Carter, and the first Bush, they all had much higher net approval ratings at almost all comparable times through their terms. Carter and Ford both had approval ratings almost as low Trump's at this point, but they had much lower disapproval ratings, giving them much better nets. Scroll down here for post-WWII President approval/disapproval/net rating charges over time compared to the current President over time [1]. [1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/...
- tomp 8y ago
  My reasoning is, that Democrats seem to be playing the same notes as for previous election (mainly social justice), except with more "socialism" (higher taxes). It seems unlikely that this time they succeed... unless they change strategy before the election, of course!
  - odorousrex 8y ago
    Your reasoning is not backed up by evidence. In the 2016 election, "Social Justice" barely made the top ten issues people voted on[1] (#1, It's the economy, stupid!) The independents that swung for Trump were worried about their jobs (or lack thereof). His base was more concerned with social justice issues, but they would've voted for him anyway. The democratic candidate, nor her running mate were widely known, or even running on social justice issues. [2] Lastly a higher tax on the wealthy is highly popular, even in republican circles. As are some "socialist" type policies like medicare for all. [3] [1] http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/ http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-i... [2] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-promises/ https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22... [3] https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-majority-of-americans-support-raising-the-top-tax-rate-to-70 https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/425422-a-m...
    - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

jMyles 8y ago

This seems to me to be a very pessimistic view. I think that we the best we can hope for is that the government is rendered unusable, and that the world is able to proceed into the information age free from the constant malice of the hegemonic state.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Unfortunately large portions of our society rely on having a functioning government. If things fall apart, I doubt the masses rising in revolt will magically end up with a libertarian government. Something authoritarian is much more likely. Better the devil you know.

mlevental 8y ago

I would say with two supreme Court justices appointed we're past the point of irreparable

dragonwriter 8y ago
The Constitution specifies a method for arresting damage by problematic Supreme Court justices.
- orf 8y ago
  Care to elaborate?
  - avmich 8y ago
    I think that an important principle of the American organization of power is accountability (that one which is "something left when responsibility is subtracted", according to a Scandinavian). I think that Supreme Court almost exclusively (meaningfully) interacts with the rest of the country via its decisions. I think that may mean that Supreme Court can be judged - and e.g. a justice impeached - solely on the basis of their decisions, as it's the only thing they do. Without this, I see a contradiction with the principle. That means that if e.g. Congress finds some decisions of Supreme Court distorting Constitution, the Congress is justified in removing a justice solely on the basis of the decisions made by them.

mnm1 8y ago

Lol. Two supreme court justices. Permanent losses of billions in taxes. Russia meddling in our government. It's way too fucking late for hope that lasting damage doesn't occur. Even if this administration ended tomorrow, the damage is done for decades. Some can be reversed. Much can't. God didn't fucking help us.

Waterluvian 8y ago

I think Americans in most of their political discourse continue to miss the point. There's a significant portion of the country who voted for the guy and will vote for him again. He's just a symptom. Whatever it is that's making those people vote for him is where everyone's attention needs to be.

avmich 8y ago
I think that some problems which caused voting for Trump are much harder to fix with Trump in the White House. Some other problems can, unfortunately, be fixed (only) over a long run - e.g. an opinion that "America is primarily for whites".
amanaplanacanal 8y ago
For the most part, the lives of people who live in cities has gotten better over the last generation. They voted for the status quo. For the most part, the lives of people who don't live in cities has not gotten better over the last generation, and they voted for change. These differences are structural, and I don't think anybody knows how to make them better. You can tell people to give up their current lifestyle and move somewhere else with more opportunity and a completely different lifestyle, but that's a really hard sell.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
heavenlyblue 8y ago
I find it perplexing that the parent comment so confidently assumes that Trump will not be re-elected at the same time. I mean, if I voted for Trump comments like these would make me want to vote for him again even more.