Speaking entirely as someone who can’t afford that, yeah it is.
Speaking as someone on another continent who would take a hit from this as well, it would be a global disaster.
See, this is the wrong way to think about it. There might be a backlash, but you’d definitely be in power.
The Democrats don’t have to cut deals with the congressional Republicans. In fact, they likely can’t. However, Trump himself doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the GOP or its platform, he only cares about Trump. That could be a huge asset.
For example: Democrats come to Trump with a plan they can call the “Trump Middle-Class Tax Relief Plan”. It has a tax cut of 10% for the middle classes, but undoes to the fullest extent possible the cuts that were just made to the 1%. They could sell it as “taxing people like Soros and Bloomberg and the Kochs” - people Trump detests - and show up with focus group data showing that this cut would turn Trump into a hero among whole new constituencies. Faced with the ability to get his name on something major and popular and prove his bipartisan chops, with practically no cost to himself (as Trump’s unwillingness to release his tax documents suggests he is not a 1%-er), he would not refuse, and as the GOP needs him more than he needs them they might have to go along with it.
Trust me, me and mine wouldn’t do well, either.
Maybe demographics will save us eventually, and economic collapse will be an unnecessary corrective.
Not American, remember? I don’t watch any cable news, and I don’t see US local news either. GOP talking points about sub-Presidential politics don’t make it to the Australian media.
I’m aware that the GOP hates Pelosi, just as they do with every Dem Speaker. But that’s about the extent of my awareness of their view, because I haven’t seen any need to dig on that subject.
While radleft Twitter also contains substantial critique of Pelosi, it’s coming from a rather different angle.
I guess this was going to need to be addressed at some point. I totally get that, but even though I live in a state which re-elected a festering dickbone-weilding knife-carrying miscreant (Don Young, and I say that even knowing I’ve voted for the bastard in the early 1990s, and really those ARE his good points), and voted to fuck its own economy (again), there’s still a lot more good here than bad.
In part, because I knew a blue wave was not only more feasible than a tsunami (however you define it) given how the senate v. house election cycle works, the Senate was going to be harder to take back than the House, but that’s ok, because I think the House is more important now anyway.
This was first waves crashing on the beach. Large, but for the Republicans, perhaps not too alarmingly large. But a lot of work remains behind carrying that next round, that momentum forward. When 2020 comes, the gains might be even more significant because of this round.
There are more ominous waves coming over the horizon. I intend to help push them forward as best I can. Perhaps a few hard-won victories will make them seem even more valuable, and encourage further participation. We’ll see.
And you know what else vivifies me? The fact that we are going to have people who accept science again running relevant committees in the House. This is huge.
Most of the old British Empire, such as Australia, Fiji, Canada, New Zealand, etc.
Constitutional Monarchy ≠ republic.
I think you’re right!
Unless Justice Kavanaugh convinces 4 other SCOTUS members to accept his views on Dual Sovereignty…
Possibly. On the other hand his liver could just as possibly burst in the meantime.
A better bet is still getting folk to vote.
Economic collapse: I still see sentiments which are express this as being uncritically desirable and I ask: cui bono?
And the answer is much more Putin, and much less us.
AH Australian. I had it in my head you were Canadian for some reason. Canada and the British isles seem to get American politics right in the face.
For color the hierarchy of the illuninati apparently goes
The odds of gains in the Senate were nigh-impossible. Maybe the worst thing there is senators at risk can vote against the party so as to look less like goose steppers because McConnell will always have 51 votes.
Meanwhile, I’d like to think the incoming House leadership knows enough to keep the base energized and keep swing voters repulsed and repelled by the GOP and, obviously, the minority POTUS.
Three states helped hugely to put Trump over in the slave owners’ Electoral College, as I recollect: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. All turned blue Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Donald only campaigned in safe places so anyone extrapolating how awesome he’s going to be for his reelection, well, the nicest thing I can say is time will tell.
So, you know, let the orange turd boast about how awesome he is. Game f***ing on. Like the cynical wing of the punditocracy said, 2020 has started.
people are free to run for the leadership position, the problem is that opposition to Pelosi split between her left and right flanks, so they can’t get behind a replacement
That’s both a massive amount of wishful thinking. And a deep misunderstanding of Trump. Much more so than the guy doesn’t give a shit about the GOP or its traditional agenda.
Above all the man hates.
A lot of what he does is specifically driven by a desire to harm and offend. And quite specifically to harm and offend the left, minorities, immigrants, and women. He’ll target GOP members who don’t lick his taint hard enough sure.
But he’s not going to accept a policy wholesale from the DNC just because they pitch it right. One of his primary concerns is fucking them over just for the sake of fucking them over. And aggrandizing himself in the process.
I was just trying to give a concrete example of what sort of thing might work, and not engage in the sort of vague argument that is so common here, such as
Above all the man hates .
The Democratic leadership obviously has to work out themselves what might work, and what they come up with will be a result of their knowledge of the man and their collective political experience, which BTW is extensive. (Contrary to what some people seem to believe, people like Pelosi haven’t been around for decades because they’re politically naive.)
But he’s not going to accept a policy wholesale from the DNC just because they pitch it right.
I think this is wrong; millennia of political history is full of examples of how to steer a bull around a china shop, with examples at least as bad as Trump. Trump doesn’t intrinsically dislike the Democrats any more than he does the Republicans, his likes and dislikes are based on his whims of the day. Just today he was talking about how much he likes and respects Nancy Pelosi, even though a few days ago he was painting her as a monster.
What he wants is for
his father people to like and admire him, and that can be used by anyone who knows how.
He was already doing that. Facts got nothing on him!
Her experience is certainly considerable, I’m just wondering if it’s starting to become less relevant in the current political climate. Trump is a pretty compelling case study in someone who was able to trounce political opponents who had far more experience (and qualifications, and knowledge, and intelligence, and basic humanity…)
Could be that Pelosi’s skill set is still our best bet. Could be that a change in tactics is due.