The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[KHCast]

The near universal backlash from this has made Trump do what he always does when under pressure and not wanting the heat. He's now saying it's up to congress. And also, saying he loves these people's,  while not attempting to fight and simply hand this all to congress, lol. Fuck off 

[8ther]

4 hours ago, KHCast said:

The near universal backlash from this has made Trump do what he always does when under pressure and not wanting the heat. He's now saying it's up to congress. And also, saying he loves these people's,  while not attempting to fight and simply hand this all to congress, lol. Fuck off 

Sadly, seeing how they couldn't even do away with the ACA, something they've been longing to do for years, i have no faith in congress to come up with a solution to protect dreamers

[8ther]

More bad news, the GOP are attempting to take away the Dem supermajority in CA and Nevada using recalls

 

After a poor performance in the 2016 state election, California Republicansare looking to an age-old device to regain some semblance of power: the recall. They have targeted state Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who won office in an almost evenly split district by less than 2,500 votes. While the recall leaders have publicly focused on Newman’s vote to raise the gas tax, their real motive is most likely to strip Democrats of their two-thirds majority in the state Senate.

This controversial use of the recall has led Democrats to push through legislation changing recall rules. They complain that anti-Newman signature gatherers tricked some signers into thinking the petition was just about repealing the gas tax. The new rules give signers time to remove their signatures, which will at least delay a recall vote by months. Newman’s opponents, however, can continue to gather signatures, and they already had more than enough to trigger a vote.

Most recalls that manage to get on the ballot are successful. Still, it depends on the nature of the campaign and voter perceptions: The results of recalls apparently based on purely partisan motives suggest Democrats may have reason for hope.

Neither party has been shy about using the recall for naked legislative gain in California. In 2008, we saw a mirror image of the Newman recall, as the Democrats unsuccessfully targeted then-state Sen. Jeffrey Denham (R-Atwater), ostensibly because he voted against the budget. Democrats clearly had hoped that with Denham ousted, they could win in another try at his Democratic-majority district, and thereby gain a supermajority in the Senate.

In 1995, the Republicans in the Assembly went to the recall three times, after one Republican member flipped and deprived the party of its first majority and speakership in 25 years. The Republicans were successful in recalls against two of their members: the original flipper, Paul Horcher, and Doris Allen, who voted against the Republican speaker after Horcher was removed. But a GOP recall attempt against Assemblyman Michael Machado (D-Linden), who had promised to be “an independent voice,” was unsuccessful.

This use of the recall to gain legislative control has been on display in other states in recent years as well. In Wisconsin in 1996, a state legislator was kicked out for voting for a stadium tax, resulting in a switch of majority control in the state Senate from Republican to Democratic. Then in 2011-12, Wisconsin saw 13 recalls against legislators (as well as against the governor), with the Democrats, who initiated nine of the recalls, finally winning the three seats necessary to gain control — though only for a few months’ time.

Republicans almost had the same success in Colorado in 2013, when they cast out two Democratic senators who voted in favor of gun control, including the Senate majority leader. A third Democrat resigned and, due to a quirk in Colorado law, was replaced by another Democrat to preserve what was then a one-vote majority.

A similar attempt is now gaining traction in Nevada, with attacks on three Democratic or Democratic-leaning independent state senators — exactly the number needed to give the Republicans a majority. These campaigns don’t as yet have a specific issue to hang on, but the fact that the law firm of the Republican lieutenant governor is representing the recall proponents suggests how significant the partisan motivation is behind the attempt.

For Newman and the Democrats, this history, and Gov. Gray Davis’ removal in 2003, shows that voters will sometimes turn out an elected official even if it means handing over political control to the other party. But the history also shows that recalls are most likely to be successful when there is either a single issue to rally around, such as gun control in Colorado, or when voters feel politicians betrayed them.

The California recalls in 1995 are a perfect example of the latter phenomenon. The two Assembly members who were removed from office lost because they were elected Republicans who voted to prevent the Republican leader from being elected speaker. The third recall, against an elected Democrat, failed as voters rejected the idea of punishing a Democrat for voting in line with his party. 

Newman is another Democrat targeted for voting like a Democrat, which may be why the leaders of the push to remove him are focusing on the gas tax instead of the wider partisan implications of their efforts. To fight back, Democrats should make sure voters understand the stark political nature of the recall. Even in an evenly split district that has regularly elected Republicans, it may help Newman retain his seat — and help the Democrats keep their two-thirds majority in Sacramento.

 

[Tani Coyote]

3 hours ago, CD Sanic said:

Sadly, seeing how they couldn't even do away with the ACA, something they've been longing to do for years, i have no faith in congress to come up with a solution to protect dreamers

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/congress-probably-has-the-votes-to-make-daca-law-will-it/

Based on voting records, the Senate can probably come up with at least 60 votes in favor. The problem is that isn't the two-thirds necessary to overcome a possible veto from Trump, and then the House has the Hastert rule.

The Hastert rule is a newer tradition - followed by Republicans in particular - that says the Speaker of the House will not bring issues to a vote without majority support within their caucus. This basically serves to keep a few renegade Republicans from caucusing with Democrats on policies.

Now while a majority of House members can vote to bring bills to a vote anyway, members of the majority party seldom agree to do so, because they could be punished by their caucus.

If you needed any further evidence of how awful the Party system is, here it is. Otherwise a small number of Republican House members would be able to freely side with Democrats on key legislation. Instead, we have a rule in place that basically forces all legislation to please the right or the left.

3 hours ago, CD Sanic said:

More bad news, the GOP are attempting to take away the Dem supermajority in CA and Nevada using recalls

The good news is that by the time they actually get any of these recall elections around, it's probably less than a year until the 2018 midterms.

[Candescence]

Arnold Schwarzenegger is rallying bipartisan support for eliminating partisan gerrymandering.

While both parties are very much guilty of indulging in this practice, the GOP benefit from it the most, and I'm surprised that there seem to be quite a bit of bipartisan support for this initiative. Arnold's superstar status and his position as a moderate Republican is certainly something he's leveraging well.

... Why hasn't he run for president yet? I'd sure take him over Trump, and it helps that he has actual governing experience, even his tenure as CA's governor had its problems, but he's considerably more sane than the vast majority of GOP politicians.

[Dizcrybe]

37 minutes ago, Candescence said:

Arnold Schwarzenegger is rallying bipartisan support for eliminating partisan gerrymandering.

While both parties are very much guilty of indulging in this practice, the GOP benefit from it the most, and I'm surprised that there seem to be quite a bit of bipartisan support for this initiative. Arnold's superstar status and his position as a moderate Republican is certainly something he's leveraging well.

... Why hasn't he run for president yet? I'd sure take him over Trump, and it helps that he has actual governing experience, even his tenure as CA's governor had its problems, but he's considerably more sane than the vast majority of GOP politicians.

He wasn't born in the US; he can't run.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/us/robert-lee-iv-resigns-church-pastor-mtv-vma-confederate/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlarge

Robert E. Lee IV, the fourth great nephew of the Confederate General, has resigned from his pastoral pulpit after backlash regarding Civil Rights remarks.

...he praised BLM, condemned the violence at Charlottesville, called for removing Confederate monuments, and expressed support for the Women's March. It prompted enough media attention and anger within the denomination that he chose to step down.

Lee speaks out on these issues on purpose, feeling obligated to given his ancestry, wanting to redeem his family name.

On the subject of Confederate monuments:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/opinions/where-are-monuments-to-confederate-general-longstreet-opinion-holmes/index.html

Neo-Confederates would know all about "erasing history," given they erased their own. General Longstreet, despite being extremely close to General Lee, has basically no monuments to his name despite his role in key battles in the Civil War.

It's not hard to see why, given Longstreet backed Reconstruction, became a Republican, supported President Grant, and led a majority-black militia against white supremacists after the War.

The one Confederate General perhaps most deserving of a monument is of course the one who doesn't have one. Or at least, not one funded by taxpayer dollars: a private group built a statue of him in Gettysburg Park in 1998.

General Lee (whose belief slavery was a civilizing institution and whose army captured free blacks and sold them into slavery) is often ascribed the "person fighting for the wrong side" status on par with Erwin Rommel, but the evidence seems to say Longstreet has that distinction if anyone. And of course, he is not remembered.

Now, for the sake of nuance, it is key to note Longstreet still had racist views, thinking white cooperation with Reconstruction was good because it would preserve white dominance. But let's not kid ourselves here: the North was just as full of racists. Very often, a person arguing for abolition would argue in the same sentence that full Civil Rights and racial equality were not possible at any point in the near future. Both sides were interested in preserving white domination, they just disagreed on the details.

50 minutes ago, Candescence said:

... Why hasn't he run for president yet? I'd sure take him over Trump, and it helps that he has actual governing experience, even his tenure as CA's governor had its problems, but he's considerably more sane than the vast majority of GOP politicians.

Schwarzenegger was born outside the country, and not to American parents or on leased American soil (embassy, base, etc.), so he's not a natural born citizen and so is ineligible for the Presidency.

[8ther]

I know we shouldn't be surprised at this about how disgusting this man is, but still this is flat out despicable

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/paul-ryan-daca-response/index.html

Paul Ryan is calling for larger border security negotiations as part of a deal on the DREAM Act.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/schumer-dream-act-trump-daca/index.html

Democrats are calling for a one-issue vote on the DREAM Act, period, and have said they will consider logjamming future votes if they don't get it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/daca-trump-states-lawsuits/index.html

While all that goes on, blue states are suing over DACA, just as red states were preparing to sue over DACA. Ironically, they are using the same argument as the red states for one of their points: that rescinding DACA violates formal rulemaking procedures and so it can't be legal. The red states had previously argued that implementing DACA did the same.

Either way, the blue states have a tough case to make. DACA was easy to argue for because it was merely directing immigration officials to refrain from deporting certain people. Obama's attempts to expand DACA and implement the DAPA for the undocumented parents of legal citizens were struck down because they authorized new entitlements contrary to the will of Congress - that is, the law.

Legally speaking, Trump is most likely well within his rights to end DACA. Doubly so since the beneficiaries are non-citizens who most likely won't have the same standing as citizens do. Compare how the Supreme Court kept the travel ban from going through for close relatives, but let it go through no problem for people without legal residency.

The DREAM Act is realistically the only way to protect those affected, as it would change the law itself, which the courts will use in any arguments.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/trump-deal-congress/index.html

Republican leaders have reason to be angry with Trump, as he accepted Democratic leaders' debt ceiling plan in order to rapidly secure funding for Hurricane Harvey victims. The Democrats agreed to a 3 month extension of the debt ceiling. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were hoping for an extension of at least a year, or possibly until after the 2018 midterms. Now Democrats are in a position to threaten government shutdown sooner rather than later.

Paul Ryan of course issued a statement demonizing the Democrats for "playing politics" with the 3 month extension, ignoring that he's just as eager to play politics with his longer extension.

Either way, odds are the Democrats wouldn't have refused a year long extension if it meant getting money to Harvey victims. Nobody wants to be the person with that on their record.

So basically, Trump cut a quick deal that ensured funding for Harvey victims and ensures the GOP's path ahead is difficult. Win-win. Truly a fine negotiator.

[8ther]

Is there anything that could be done to keep Trump from deporting these people?

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, CD Sanic said:

Is there anything that could be done to keep Trump from deporting these people?

Nothing, legally speaking. Without legal residency, they have no rights. Not even humane treatment: the USA hasn't signed on to human rights laws other than those covering combatants. They are at the mercy of authorities until they are outside the border.

But that's legally speaking. Sanctuary cities and many states are not going to cooperate with the administration, and that will make finding and deporting people harder. Many people are no doubt aware of the bad optics of deporting people who are basically the same as any American born and raised here, and that might also hamper enforcement; not every immigration officer is a xenophobic militiaman. We have to remember, a lot of these immigration officials are also the ones who provide blankets and water to the very people they'll detain and deport. Overall, there's a lot of factors that could lead to ineffective enforcement in areas with large numbers of Dreamers, like California and New York.

Now, I have no doubt that as part of DACA (a program one had to pay a healthy fee to participate in), the government has itself a large list of beneficiaries, a list that now doubles as a weapon. I assume many Dreamers are smart enough to realize they've given the government all it needs to make their lives Hell, in a way you'd normally only see talked about in libertarian conspiracy theories, and will make arrangements to flee their current residences. Their success in finding places to hide will determine a lot of how things go.

Overall, I think there will be resistance at the local and state government levels, by many private citizens, and quite possibly by lower level federal agents. Federal agents have been told for years that they should let these young people be, and it's probably not an easy pill to swallow that now they're told to round them up and deport them.

It sounds odd, but while we hear the most about law enforcement looking the other way to hurt people, it also happens in cases where they want to help people. Letting people off with warnings over tickets. Pretending they didn't see any marijuana. And so on. I have no doubt there are federal agents who, having joined immigration enforcement likely as part of some desire to serve their community, can see there is something fundamentally evil about deporting people who have grown up here and are indistinguishable from citizens besides their legal status.

There's also another option: seeking asylum in Canada. Canada has robust asylum laws and is culturally similar enough to the USA that it no doubt would be a good home for Dreamers until the DREAM Act is passed. Unfortunately, there are so many Dreamers - 800,000 - there's no way Canada - a country of 36 million - can help them all.

[KHCast]

It's interesting how people claimed Obama passed the DACA act illegally, but all of Trumps executive orders have been pardoned by those same people. Trump is not the guy upholding the law here, and the fact people are still thinking that is beyond reason. These same people that have justified every single decision made by Trump as constitutional clearly are using that as a buzzword and have no idea what actually is and isn't lawful and/or constitutional

"Trying to block something that was made illegally..To protect illegals from our laws and constitution..Only the new versions of liberals would see this as right."

"

If your parents sneak you into Disneyland without paying, is it Disney’s fault when you are booted out, or is it the fault of your parents?

If your parents sneak you into a country illegally, is it the country’s fault when you get deported, or is it the fault of your parents?

Blaming America or Trump or anyone other than the parents for any of this, is a ruse."

"Why aren't they suing Obama? He's the one that passed the DACA act illegally. Trump is just upholding the constitution." 

 

Just jesus. The justifications I'm seeing, and the amount of support they get astounds me. I mean I have to say it again, these are people that were raised in America with only American based experience. We're deporting them to places where they have no knowledge of potentially, or even language experience outside English. Republicans live to use children to justify outcry, but it's rich that here, these white republicans are blaming them and going "not my problem", expressing clear hypocrisy.

[Tani Coyote]

9 hours ago, KHCast said:

It's interesting how people claimed Obama passed the DACA act illegally, but all of Trumps executive orders have been pardoned by those same people. Trump is not the guy upholding the law here, and the fact people are still thinking that is beyond reason.

I mean hey, it's like how all the people yelling at Obama for being out golfing are strangely quiet now that Trump's President and is golfing almost literally every weekend.

Or how there's so much whining about government expenses, but no Republican has backed the SWAMP Act, despite the fact it would help keep the Secret Service funded with something besides tax revenue by charging the people who misuse its protection.

Quote

Republicans live to use children to justify outcry, but it's rich that here, these white republicans are blaming them and going "not my problem", expressing clear hypocrisy.

Now let's be fair for a moment. There are a lot of Republicans who are saying it would be wrong to deport the Dreamers, as it's their parents' fault that they're here.

Problem is, there's enough xenophobic "enforce the law just because it's the law" Republicans to make this into a tough battle, particularly given the Hastert rule in the House.

But who knows. Maybe Paul Ryan will do something good for a change and break the Hastert rule. Many Speakers have broken it a few times when it came to a key vote. Especially given Paul Ryan's likely to one day try to court the young vote. Being the one who paves the way for close to a million people to enjoy legal status would help him there immensely.

The youth vote isn't as lopsided as we think it is, with Obama and Clinton pulling in around 60 percent to Romney and Trump's 37 percent. That's a good margin, but it's a far cry from how black voters lean Democrat at rates of over 90 percent. The right young Republican could very likely make inroads, especially if he's focused more on libertarian policies over conservative ones. Libertarianism sells surprisingly well among young voters, it's just the emphasis on religiosity, tradition, etc. that tends to turn them off. "It's the economy" really is a selling point.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/who-retiring-congress/index.html

2 more GOP House reps have announced plans to retire from office, and the GOP's House majority looks more shaky as a result.

Incumbents traditionally have a bipartisan boost in their re-election bids, at around 10% as I recall. The more open seats there are, the more likely the Democrats can overcome the gerrymandering disadvantage.

Worth noting a lot of GOP House reps are aiming to run for Senate next year, which will very likely culminate in their House seats opening up as well. There are also a fair share of Reps planning to run for Governor.

The incumbency advantage is noteworthy because of next year's strange setup: while there are a lot of exposed Democratic seats, most of the incumbents are likely to run again. On the other hand, there's a lot of exposed Republican seats, and most of them are prevented from running again due to term limits, as most GOP Governors came to power in the 2010 GOP wave.

In short:

Senate: Lots of exposed Democratic seats, but incumbency advantage. Republicans will spend a lot of money trying to unseat these incumbents.

Governorships: Lots of exposed Republican seats, with most being open. Governorships are the real prize in 2018, as most states let Governors veto redistricting, and they can't be gerrymandered.

House: Republicans have gerrymandering as an advantage, but many seats are open or were won by Clinton in 2016. The midterms tend to see a swing against the President's Party. As more appointments and retirements happen, the GOP's odds of keeping the House will likely look less certain as November 2018 approaches.

While the GOP is well known for its voter suppression, its record of success is mixed. Many of the states that are pushing for voter ID are also making registration and early voting easier. What's more, there's the uncertain status of voter ID laws and gerrymandering in the courts; the Supreme Court will hear a case about gerrymandering next month, and with lower courts striking down voter ID laws in Texas and elsewhere, those are likely to reach the SCOTUS as well.

A lot can happen between now and next November, but modest Democratic gains are likely.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/house-vote-hurricane-aid-debt-ceiling-package/index.html

Democrats scored a huge victory yesterday, as Trump signed a deal extending the debt ceiling for 3 months while providing aid for hurricane victims. 90 Republicans voted against the bill in the House and 17 in the Senate, but this does speak to opportunity for Democrats: if Schumer and Pelosi can routinely get Trump to make deals with them, they're likely to prevent a lot of damage over the next 40 months.

The fact this bill that favors Democrats passed the Hastert rule in the House, meanwhile, means the odds of the DREAM Act have soared.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/9th-circuit-travel-ban/index.html

A federal court has ruled that grandparents and extended relatives count as having a bona fide relationship with the USA, and so they are exempt from the ban.

The Supreme Court did not clarify who had a "bona fide" relationship when it let the ban go through back in June, and that means lower courts are free to define it until the Supreme Court issues another ruling on it.

[KHCast]

2 hours ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Democrats scored a huge victory yesterday, as Trump signed a deal extending the debt ceiling for 3 months while providing aid for hurricane victims. 90 Republicans voted against the bill in the House and 17 in the Senate, but this does speak to opportunity for Democrats: if Schumer and Pelosi can routinely get Trump to make deals with them, they're likely to prevent a lot of damage over the next 40 months.

Was this the thing Trump signed because he was getting "bored" of all the bickering and arguing between republicans and democrats that also caused everyone to go silent in disbelief?

[Patticus]

When one party is looking like a shoe-in to dominate that electoral cycle's midterms, the typical behavior of the side expected to do badly is twofold:

1: Recruitment suffers. A party looking to do well in a midterm election needs a strong recruitment game, and if that party's morale is depressed due to woeful performance expectations (usually the party in the White House at that time), not nearly as many people are going to want to put their reputations on the line for them.
2: Retirements increase. Elections when your party is obviously going to suffer hardcore are seen as being a pretty good time to get out of politics. Why end your career on a low note, or risk a very public humiliation, when you can end it on your own terms? Of course, a ramping up of retirements isn't always a useful predictor of terrible times to come - but it can be, especially if we start seeing some major party figures throwing in the towel.

The GOP is going to suffer. How badly remains to be seen.

[Tani Coyote]

7 hours ago, KHCast said:

Was this the thing Trump signed because he was getting "bored" of all the bickering and arguing between republicans and democrats that also caused everyone to go silent in disbelief?

Some Republicans think he wanted to get back at them for refusing to cooperate with him on subjects like the wall, or failing to get a healthcare bill passed, etc.

It was a shocking move: for a guy who prides himself on being a negotiator, he went for the Democrats' first offer, and threw his own party's future under the bus given this gives Democrats the ability to force a shutdown and blame it on the GOP.

It is entirely possible he just wanted to look good in the aftermath of Harvey. With a lot of destruction from Irma just around the corner, he wants to be seen as the President who rises above politics and gets money to people in need.

Give him credit, at least he's not a total dummy if so.

5 hours ago, Patticus said:

When one party is looking like a shoe-in to dominate that electoral cycle's midterms, the typical behavior of the side expected to do badly is twofold:

1: Recruitment suffers. A party looking to do well in a midterm election needs a strong recruitment game, and if that party's morale is depressed due to woeful performance expectations (usually the party in the White House at that time), not nearly as many people are going to want to put their reputations on the line for them.

Doubly so given Trump has become a divisive issue on the campaign trail. Republican candidates differ on how closely they want to support Trump's agenda, and this is actually becoming an avenue of attack during the primaries, with those embracing Trump wholeheartedly attacking those who are hesitant to fully embrace him. This could possibly decrease GOP turnout in the general election, if a caustic primary campaign is run by either side, which is quite possible based on some of the special election races we've seen this year.

The GOP may very well end up cannibalizing itself next year in a way that puts the Sanders-Clinton divide to shame.

Quote

2: Retirements increase. Elections when your party is obviously going to suffer hardcore are seen as being a pretty good time to get out of politics. Why end your career on a low note, or risk a very public humiliation, when you can end it on your own terms? Of course, a ramping up of retirements isn't always a useful predictor of terrible times to come - but it can be, especially if we start seeing some major party figures throwing in the towel.

The best part is it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because every retirement increases the odds of a flip.

A part of me wonders if Ryan is going around begging House members to stay on until 2020 at least (when any Republican newcomer could hope to ride Trump's coattails), with state-level speakers doing the same. A lot of the GOP's advantage coming not just from gerrymandering, but the slew of incumbents it has amassed under Obama, retirements could pose a serious threat to GOP majorities everywhere.

[KHCast]

"What if we had a supervisor who did not enforce the be on time to work  rule? Then the new supervisor comes in and enforces the rule.  You still don't care and come in late. You get fired.  Is it your fault?  The old supervisors fault or the new supervisors fault?"

 

these comparions really show how uneducated people are about DACA, and how they try to break it down into a really shallow simplistic issue smh.

*rolls eyes* the big difference here is there's actually lots to gain from these citizens vs someone simply getting into Disneyland and mooching. 

 

On 9/10/2017 at 5:03 AM, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Give him credit, at least he's not a total dummy if so

Given this is Trump we're talking about, who is sparatic and out there in decision making, it's not like him having a short attention span and simply getting bored vs tactically thinking this through and throwing his party under the bus for the greater good, is some hard concept to swallow given his literal track record this entire presidency. This is the guy that would take bad press with getting rid of DACA, banning trans people from the military, not even acknowledging LGBT people in pride month, and pushing acts that would make life harder for many in minority groups, for his party. Optimism is not something easy to have with someone like Trump. Suddenly growing a conscience? Good luck convincing most of America on that.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/barack-obama-fundraiser-dnc/index.html

Obama will be holding a fundraiser to aid the DNC. It's assumed his help will go a long way to solve the DNC's ailing fortunes.

The article reveals how bad the Democrats look going into next year: the DNC has a net $3.4 million, while the RNC has $47.1 million.

Despite the numbers, the DNC plans to spend $1.5 million on the Governor's race in Virginia.

17 hours ago, KHCast said:

Given this is Trump we're talking about, who is sparatic and out there in decision making, it's not like him having a short attention span and simply getting bored vs tactically thinking this through and throwing his party under the bus for the greater good, is some hard concept to swallow given his literal track record this entire presidency. This is the guy that would take bad press with getting rid of DACA, banning trans people from the military, not even acknowledging LGBT people in pride month, and pushing acts that would make life harder for many in minority groups, for his party. Optimism is not something easy to have with someone like Trump. Suddenly growing a conscience? Good luck convincing most of America on that.

Here's the thing to consider with this, though.

Trump ran on a lot of those proposals. In his mind, he's just fulfilling campaign promises. For all his stupidity, ignorance, etc. he is intelligent enough to realize re-election odds are slim and he really needs to keep the coalition that won him last year together. So he wants to cultivate an image of keeping his promises and in general being better than any alternatives.

He filed for re-election the day he was inaugurated, after all.

Of course, his problem is he suffers from massive confirmation bias and doesn't acknowledge polls that don't agree with him. That, if anything, will be what costs him re-election. His problem is he's pandering to the far right elements that won him the primaries and put him in a position to beat Clinton as a protest vote, not pandering to the moderates and independents who will inevitably decide who wins in 2020. Because of his lack of trust for polls, he assumes that he won because people genuinely like him and his ideas, not that they were that opposed to Clinton.

So it's not growing a conscience, it's interest in his political future. He builds it up both by doing things he thinks will sell well, as well as demonizing and discrediting his opponents. This is again, his problem: he's thinking his whole base is 100% on board with every one of his ideas, not realizing he built a coalition with varying interests, bringing traditional conservative votes together with disaffected Democrats and moderates as well as white supremacists. If this coalition fragments, he's toast.

The problem is he's being fed the wrong information. He sees his most avid supporters still fully loyal to him and sees no reason to change course, even as he bleeds moderates who liked some of his ideas, wanted to give him a chance, wanted to spite Clinton, etc. For a guy who won by less than or barely over single digits in several key states, this is a very dangerous path to walk. He'll win the primaries again no problem, but he's not guaranteed to be the "lesser evil" again in the general.

[Johnny Boy]

So in today's news, Good ol Ted Cruz has a scandal on his hands. What is the scandal in question you ask? Why it involves him liking a porn video on twitter. What he didn't know is that an accounts likes are public. And naturally, the internet is clowning him for it.

[KHCast]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the trump admin can keep the travel ban. Fucking Christ these people are on and off about this thing 

[8ther]

 

In somewhat brighter news, democrats managed to flip 2 state house seat in New Hampshire and Oklahoma

Trump won both these districts in 2016 by double digit margins

 

[PSI Wind]

11 hours ago, KHCast said:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the trump admin can keep the travel ban. Fucking Christ these people are on and off about this thing 

Wrong. They have ruled at the moment that some parts can stay. They will do a full review of it in October.

[KHCast]

1 hour ago, PSI Wind said:

Wrong. They have ruled at the moment that some parts can stay. They will do a full review of it in October.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/12/politics/travel-ban-supreme-court-refugees/index.html

on most refugees

[Tani Coyote]

http://nypost.com/2017/09/13/schumer-pelosi-reach-deal-with-trump-for-daca-protections/

Trump has cut a deal with Schumer and Pelosi over putting DACA's provisions in place by an Act of Congress, and he didn't require the wall as part of it. There is extra funding for border security, but no wall funding. Otherwise, the Dreamers will be allowed to stay as they would under DACA.

This is the second time in mere weeks where Trump has sided with the Democrats over his own Party.

Naturally, even his closest supporters are furious. Breitbart - Bannon's home - ran an article calling Trump "Amnesty Don" despite Bannon's earlier statements that he would remain loyal to Trump. Several other far right pundits like Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have slammed the decision.

Trump is currently doing damage control on Twitter by saying the wall's construction is taking the form of "renovations."

He claims no deal was reached on DACA, while at the same time saying it would be wrong to deport the Dreamers. The comments on his Tweets in support of the Dreamers are surreal: all the people who were once proclaiming him the God-Emperor hate him now.

http://ir.net/news/politics/127319/report-nancy-pelosi-actually-dictated-trumps-last-tweet/

Meanwhile, some reports are saying that Nancy Pelosi actually requested he make the Tweet reassuring the Dreamers there'd be no immediate deportation.

On 9/13/2017 at 8:54 AM, CD Sanic said:

In somewhat brighter news, democrats managed to flip 2 state house seat in New Hampshire and Oklahoma

Trump won both these districts in 2016 by double digit margins

That puts Dems at a net +5 for seats gained. Angry Dem turnout is likely to cause upsets in other ruby red districts as the midterms approach. We won't have a real idea where Democrats stand until much higher profile (and higher turnout) races like Virginia's are settled, though. Democrats made ground in the special elections in Montana and Georgia, but not enough to flip them.

Hopefully angry turnout will be enough to put Democrats over the top in key special races like Washington's. It would be even better if it puts Dems over the top in Maine's Medicaid expansion referendum.

On 9/13/2017 at 1:28 AM, KHCast said:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the trump admin can keep the travel ban. Fucking Christ these people are on and off about this thing 

Looks like the court ruling that allows for extended family to be exempt is still in effect though.

All the Supreme Court is reinforcing is something that predates Trump's ban: if you don't have legal residency here, you have basically no rights. This isn't a Trump issue, Trump just brought it to the forefront.