Is Donald Trump Done for?

[rah]

Well, we can count on hearing Trump crow for a few days. Regardless of him not being totally exonerated.

 

[Imaus]

Well, we can count on hearing Trump crow for a few days. Regardless of him not being totally exonerated.

I'm sure fudging tired of all this losing. If he's not dragged into a court of law and found guilty, it doesn't matter if he's not 'totally exonerated', nothing sort of a formal guilty charge will dip him.

And then he'll still ride out the rest of his term as impeachment is not expulsion from the Presidency.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I can't help but worry that the Democrats made a huge mistake of hanging everything on "Russia Collusion". Now, the Mueller Report concludes that there was no evidence at all of direct collusion with Russia, Trump can claim total exoneration and it will be very difficult to investigate the real crimes that probably occurred. My question is since there was no collusion, why did Trump fire Comey, relentlessly attack the Mueller investigation, criticize Sessions for not shutting down the investigation, lie about the Trump tower meeting, lie about the Stormy Daniels payments and lie and try to cover up the negotiations for a Moscow Trump Tower? The answer is that while there was no collusion, Trump was worried that all the other bad stuff would come out. Unfortunately, it will be hard politically to go after Trump over the Stormy Daniels payments or tax issues like deflating the value of his properties or the Moscow Trump Tower meeting because now it will look like a political with hunt. I don't think Trump is innocent at all but he will claim that he is totally innocent on everything because he was exonerated on the one issue of "Russia Collusion". And lastly, I think it was silly to pin everything on "Russia Collusion" because it was highly unlikely that Trump ever directly colluded with Russia in the first place. I mean, I doubt Trump ever called Putin and was like "hey bud, do you want to collude?" So really, "Russia Collusion" was the wrong issue to investigate in the first place.

 

[rah]

Well it certainly didn't hurt that it was his hand picked man that got to decide if there was enough to go forward on OOJ. Yeah further action against him is going to look bad. But his children are still fair game.

 

[Zelig]

Hmm, isn't this younger generation proposing free college, health care for all, and UBI but at the same time saying we got things for free that they aren't getting.

You don't have to look back to see what they got for free. The Canadian government currently spends about 4x more on average on people age >65 than they do on people age <45, while the >65 age bracket is about 4x wealthier than the <45 age bracket in the first place. I expect American demographics look similar.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

FWIW, this was meant entirely tongue in cheek but I don't think it reads that way.

Therefore old people are wrecking the country.

--------

The youth have a considerable numbers advantage and refuse to vote in a big enough percentage to change things.

It's almost like I didn't address this or something. This is a very frustrating debate because you just keep repeating this without acknowledging the counterargument. We're just talking past each other at this point.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Well it certainly didn't hurt that it was his hand picked man that got to decide if there was enough to go forward on OOJ. Yeah further action against him is going to look bad. But his children are still fair game.

Yeah, the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice but Barr conveniently did, is getting lost in the noise of "no collusion". Of course, AG Barr was never going to pursue OOJ charges against Trump. Personally, I think Trump did commit OOJ, just not to mask collusion. Rather, Trump committed OOJ to try to prevent all the other dirt from coming out (cohen payments, Trump Tower meeting etc). I also fear that the entire Mueller Report will never come out because Barr will not want anything to come out that would make Trump look bad. So Barr can release his "principled conclusions" that exonerate Trump and now has an excuse to bury the full report, preventing any specifics that would damage trump from ever coming out.

In terms of the best path forward now for Dems, I think they should lay low and just focus on winning 2020 on the issues. After all, the presidential election is still 1.5 years away which is a long time in politics. A lot can happen. If the economy does turn sour (not that I am wishing for that) it would help the Dems.

 

[rah]

You claimed voter suppression and gerrymandering while I'm countering with the number advantage could easily outweigh that if you bothered to vote. I at least provided numbers to support that. You did not. So claiming it's futile to discuss is true until you provide numbers that prove me wrong.

 

[innonimatu]

Yeah, the fact that Mueller did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice but Barr conveniently did, is getting lost in the noise of "no collusion". Of course, AG Barr was never going to pursue OOJ charges against Trump. Personally, I think Trump did commit OOJ, just not to mask collusion. Rather, Trump committed OOJ to try to prevent all the other dirt from coming out (cohen payments, Trump Tower meeting etc). I also fear that the entire Mueller Report will never come out because Barr will not want anything to come out that would make Trump look bad. So Barr can release his "principled conclusions" that exonerate Trump and now has an excuse to bury the full report, preventing any specifics that would damage trump from ever coming out.

In terms of the best path forward now for Dems, I think they should lay low and just focus on winning 2020 on the issues. After all, the presidential election is still 1.5 years away which is a long time in politics. A lot can happen. If the economy does turn sour (not that I am wishing for that) it would help the Dems.

I see that the religious faithful will just keep on believing that judicial prosecutions can even be done against one of the wealthy and powerful. Without first changing the system that protects the wealthy and powerful. Trump didn't have to do any obstruction of justice because it's easy to be legally a con man in the US. He's one of them, and they can't go after him (a move that would have to be publicize all along the way) without spoiling the game for others. For allies and members of the democrats.

You don't have to wait for the economy to turn sour - as if it isn't sour for a lot of people, with gains concentrated on top. You have to attack the current system for its current failures. Actually believe it. But you can't expect that from a party that sells itself to the highest donators.

 

[Berzerker]

Your generation started at a time when the US accounted for half of world economic output. You created a full employment economy which included plenty of family-supporting jobs for people with no high school degrees, went to college for a fraction of the real costs to students today, made it easy and affordable for anyone white to buy a house. You then systematically destroyed all these things when the time came for subsequent generations to benefit from them.

Coming out of WWII the USA was king but other countries recovered and cold war policy exported jobs

 

[Hrothbern]

Coming out of WWII the USA was king but other countries recovered and cold war policy exported jobs

There is no real difference in the reported unemployment rate from 1945 onward. There are some spikes related to economical shocks ofc. And the WW2 war industry period does not count.
https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

Now... unemployment figures can differ over time from definitions etc.

But if I use the Penn Table figures of "number of persons engaged (in millions)" and "average annual hours worked by persons engaged" and calculate the Utilisation % by dividing the total hours worked by "available labor on the population from 15-64 year", the utilisation is pretty much constant from 1950-2017. The 90ies relative good, and dips in the 70ies and after the GFC. Now at 0.5% lower than the average over 1950-2017.

 

[Lexicus]

You don't have to wait for the economy to turn sour - as if it isn't sour for a lot of people, with gains concentrated on top. You have to attack the current system for its current failures. Actually believe it. But you can't expect that from a party that sells itself to the highest donators.

I sort of oscillate between believing the Democrats need to win, and believing they need to be completely destroyed and remade, and to do that they will need to lose badly.

 

[innonimatu]

I sort of oscillate between believing the Democrats need to win, and believing they need to be completely destroyed and remade, and to do that they will need to lose badly.

I assume that would have been done 3 years ago when Trump won. But I underestimated how entrenched the Democrats who had just vacated the White House were in the structures of the state and in the media. The defeat was not strong enough for the party to be remade, and they managed to create a distraction for their base with the phony (am I now allowed to say it without being accused of "working for the russinas"?) russia collusion story.

I though that the purpose of that story was to hamper Trump (hamper, because he would never be actually impeached without evidence). I now think that some of the participants believed that, some even believed they'd manage to impeach him (who cares about the truth?). But for the DNC is was primarily about keeping the party's base busy, distracted, channeled away from demanding changes within the party.

Judging by the true believers who cling to it as if it was a talisman, whose time and attention and hopes were spent on it rather than on promoting things like a national health care system or actually controlling the banks, it worked magnificently!

 

[inthesomeday]

I sort of oscillate between believing the Democrats need to win, and believing they need to be completely destroyed and remade, and to do that they will need to lose badly.

Mood

Leaning towards the last bit for a few years now

 

[Estebonrober]

I sort of oscillate between believing the Democrats need to win, and believing they need to be completely destroyed and remade, and to do that they will need to lose badly.

It is very possible they will lose badly in 2020 and therefore doom the another generation to crony capitalist policies. If the wrong one wins in 2020 its probably the same result. So yea its a tough call, you have certain liberal types who are basically republican light and they are still very much into selling their votes and policies to the highest bidders.

 

[Phrossack]

If the Democrats are "completely destroyed," there won't be any more elections in which the Republicans can lose. Unfettered Republican control means a *permanently* Republican SCOTUS, full GOP control of federal judge appointments for decades, and full gerrymandering and voter suppression.

 

[Zkribbler]

I sort of oscillate between believing the Democrats need to win, and believing they need to be completely destroyed and remade, and to do that they will need to lose badly.

2016 wasn't badly enough? Dems lost in the House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court, plus the majority of state houses and governorships.

 

[rah]

The gerrymandering will be in states they control. In the states where Dems control the gerrymandering things will not change.

 

[Berzerker]

There is no real difference in the reported unemployment rate from 1945 onward. There are some spikes related to economical shocks ofc. And the WW2 war industry period does not count.
https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

Now... unemployment figures can differ over time from definitions etc.

But if I use the Penn Table figures of "number of persons engaged (in millions)" and "average annual hours worked by persons engaged" and calculate the Utilisation % by dividing the total hours worked by "available labor on the population from 15-64 year", the utilisation is pretty much constant from 1950-2017. The 90ies relative good, and dips in the 70ies and after the GFC. Now at 0.5% lower than the average over 1950-2017.

By exporting jobs I meant good paying jobs were lost and replaced with low paying service sector jobs.

 

[Synobun]

Regarding the Barr summary: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1109913558333210629

Worth a read.