Ruminations

[grampster]

 I used to mull over what facts I knew for sure about why B Obama was good for our nation as its president. I couldn't come up with much especially when I compared what I heard him say and saw what he did over the last 8 years. When I asked others, there was a good deal of silence. His supporters could not come up with anything that I am aware of that was a positive thing.

Conversely I mull over now what facts I know for sure about why D Trump is not good for America and I can't think of much based upon what he has said and either has done or is trying to do as president. But then he's only been in office 3 months. When I ask others why he might not be good for America, generally all I get is either inaccurate propaganda, obfuscation, prevarication, outright falsehoods, or are buzzword horsepucky that has no basis in fact. Just reactionary emotionalism.

Personally I don't have much use for either political party due to the fact the establishment of both seem more interested in themselves, their power, position, money and their patrons...who generally are not the American people at large. They continue to lead our country down the present path of an Administrative State rather than a Constitutional Republic. If you don't undestand that you aren't paying much attention.

 Personally, I don't care much for D. Trump either as he is a bit self absorbed and thin skinned. But then millionaires, billionaires, and those who seek high office all tend to be rather self absorbed and thin skinned. He's in good company in that regard. (In my view only two presidents during my lifetime were fairly humble; Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. Humbleness can exist jointly with ambition at times.)

It might be a good thing for honest, law abiding, patriotic, decent Americans to cease being Useful Idiots, and stop with the vitriol and ignorant nonsense based upon crap you hear on the news or from social media. I didn't care much for the vitriol and internet stupid when in came to B Obama...even if his record seems it might be well deserved in some cases. If D Trump deserves vitriol and internet stupid, at least wait a couple years and see what happens. Let him earn it.

[TommyGunn]

Trump can use some good LEGISLATIVE wins.  This "first 100 days" thing is a bunch of **** and Trump has played both ends -- recounting his maginificent 100 day record -- and then mulling over how silly the artificial construct is.  Only FDR  seems to have the great 100 day record, but then in his day he was inaugerated in March, giving him two more months to prepare, and as well, he had greater demo majorities in kongress than Trump has repub majorities now.  
Some of Trump's executive orders have pleasantly surprised me.   His freeing up of land taken by EOs authored by Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Obama are very positive moves.   They show a philosophical bent on the part of Trump I highly approve of; a greater respect for the 10th amendment and states' rights than any previous president in my lifetime.
We'll have to see how this translates into Trump leadership in the next 4/8 years if he gets in gear legislatively.

Trump was last in line in my republican list of the 17 wannabe presidents during the campaign last year.  I was never an "never Trumper"   --- if anything I was a "NEVER HILLARY" -- but he's turning into a better president than I thought he'd be at this point.  Room for improvement?
ABSOLUTLY.
Someone needs to hide his twitter device on him.  

We had Obama derengement syndrome for eight years ....I guess we're in for "Trump derangement syndrome" for atleast the next four, maybe eight years.....

[230RN]

I don't look at individual successes or failures of a mere 100 day record.  That's a rather artificial benchmark of a President's --or anybody's --performance.

I look at it more globally, that is, in terms of the shakeup of the status quo, especially with respect to the self-satisfied dominance --nay, tyranny --of the gimme-gimme citified areas of the country.

Or, perhaps it is best described as the tyranny of the majority.

That takes a lot fewer words.

"We" have noticed again and again how mere "population density" exerts an undue influence on our politics and, indeed, our entire judicial system.

But the recent overwhelming upset of the Electoral College vote over the popular vote has brought that concept of the tyranny of the majority to the fore.

That, grampster, is the "good" of the Trump victory.

Whether he succeeds in this or that particular bit of legislation or "EO-ing" or regulatory cutback-ing are rather minor considerations compared to the his effect in returning this country to a "Republic."

Whether his posturing is good or bad --remembering that all politicians do this anyhow --is relatively minor compared to that.

Terry

[AJ Dual]

"We" have noticed again and again how mere "population density" exerts an undue influence on our politics and, indeed, our entire judicial system.

But the recent overwhelming upset of the Electoral College vote over the popular vote has brought that concept of the tyranny of the majority to the fore.

This. The rebuke of not even the "blue states" but the "blue cities" was key here. And while it remains to be seen if the Trump presidency will become mired in, and watered down by "politics as usual", or be truly revolutionary in terms of Federalism and limited government, those things were secondary to the territorial and demographic realignment that occurred.

And I'm not sure the popular vote and EC arguments hold water. If more people in states like CA, NY, IL etc. knew their vote "mattered" Trump may have well won the popular contest as well.

Suburbs and rural against the cities is as big, if not bigger and more important seismic shift in the votes and demographics, as the south was when it finalized "going red" in the 1980 and '84 elections.

[Ben]

And I'm not sure the popular vote and EC arguments hold water. If more people in states like CA, NY, IL etc. knew their vote "mattered" Trump may have well won the popular contest as well.

Indeed. I knew lots of people (in fact until the last minute I was going to be one of them) in CA that voted third party or write in, because "what the hell have we got to lose, and what does it matter?" If they had any confidence that their vote mattered, they might have voted Trump. Kinda goes back to what Scout has been harping on about intra-state electoral votes. That system would easily lose the dems 25-30% of their electoral votes in CA.

[AJ Dual]

Indeed. I knew lots of people (in fact until the last minute I was going to be one of them) in CA that voted third party or write in, because "what the hell have we got to lose, and what does it matter?" If they had any confidence that their vote mattered, they might have voted Trump. Kinda goes back to what Scout has been harping on about intra-state electoral votes. That system would easily lose the dems 25-30% of their electoral votes in CA.

Well... according to a bunch of Facebook Memes I've been seeing lately, letting the Norks continue with their nuclear and ICBM programs might cost the West coast their EC votes too.

[230RN]

I proposed a possible grid system of allocating intra-State electoral votes, or at least a county-by-county EC vote for State matters  But what do I know?



Re: Obama: The electoral college is a "vestige"
« Reply #20 on: December 20, 2016, 08:30:10 PM »

There are times I've wished for an Electoral College system by counties for the gubernatorial elections in CO.  Checks and balances against the tyranny of the cities.

[Andiron]

Well... according to a bunch of Facebook Memes I've been seeing lately, letting the Norks continue with their nuclear and ICBM programs might cost the West coast their EC votes too.

 


As for the rest.  "Madame President", isn't (thank the gods)  That's my win,  Trump just bought us some breathing room.  The Left will be back eventually.  It's been 3 months any they're already going to minor street violence and calling for worse.  This is far from over.

[Monkeyleg]

Right now I'm far more in agreement with what Trump has done and wants to do than with with congress.

[230RN]

AJ Dual noted:

...
And I'm not sure the popular vote and EC arguments hold water. If more people in states like CA, NY, IL etc. knew their vote "mattered" Trump may have well won the popular contest as well.
...

As excellent point, as noted by others herein.  But I still think the EC result in and of itself was more important, without any "ifs" involved.

Terry

[grampster]

I agree with Terry regarding the EC.  That was proof positive that our Republic works according to how the Founders envisioned that it would with respect to the tyranny of the majority: Pure democracy.

Trump got steamrolled by RINOs today with respect to the temporary budget.  Virtually everything he said he wanted to do or get rid of, was expanded.  I'm not sure I trust Trump.  If he is trustworthy, he'd veto the damn thing.  Sure, he'd get overridden, but he'd gain more public support and the "draining of the swamp" might have a bit more fervor.  The Republican Party is a disgrace.  The Democrat Party is worse.  It's too bad the Libertarian Party is in the hands of nut cases.  Trump said something, well two things, the other day that has me sort of shaking my head.  He is alleged to have said that he is both an American first and a globalist.  (smh)  The other thing he said is that the job is harder than he thought because he has to have a heart, while as a businessman it's better if you don't have a heart.

[Scout26]

And I'm not sure the popular vote and EC arguments hold water. If more people in states like CA, NY, IL etc. knew their vote "mattered" Trump may have well won the popular contest as well.

Minor quibble.  I worked as an Election Judge both for Early Voting and Election Day.  Both my polling place and the County as whole had a higher turn-out (both in numbers and percentage) then any other election....ever.   Including B Obama's first election.  Which had the highest turnout....ever (both in numbers and percentage).

[230RN]

Minor quibble.  I worked as an Election Judge both for Early Voting and Election Day.  Both my polling place and the County as whole had a higher turn-out (both in numbers and percentage) then any other election....ever.   Including B Obama's first election.  Which had the highest turnout....ever (both in numbers and percentage).

Quibble notwithstanding, I still think the Electoral College (EC) victory was one of the most important historical events of recent times, at least domestically.  

But then again, I've been bitching about the outlandishly heavy influence of the densely populated areas for years, both across the country and within States.  

I suggested that grid system of assigning intra-state EC areas by taking a map of the state, drawing gridlines on it, and every square gets an intra-state EC vote for important offices like the governorship and State legislative offices.  Or federal Senators.  Or whatever.

That method of course has its drawbacks, and gerrymandering is still possible in terms of establishing the size of the squares et cetera, but it's worthy of serious consideration as a first step to curing the headache.

Or at least bringing the problem to the fore.

Terry, 230RN

[AJ Dual]

Quibble notwithstanding, I still think the Electoral College (EC) victory was one of the most important historical events of recent history.  But then again, I've been bitching about the outlandishly heavy influence of the densely populated areas for years.  I suggested that grid system of assigning intra-state EC areas by taking a map of the state, drawing gridlines on it, and every square gets an intra-state EC vote for important offices like the governorship and State legislative offices.

That method of course has its drawbacks, and gerrymandering is still possible  in terms of establishing the size of the squares et cetera, but it's worthy of serious consideration as a first step to curing the headache.

Or at least bringing the problem to the fore.

Terry, 230RN

The Supreme Court undid precisely that in California, because it's State Senate was elected by districts that were not population-proportional. And was a major turning point of the state's slide into Leftist idiocy.

[Hawkmoon]

Right now I'm far more in agreement with what Trump has done and wants to do than with with congress.

Agreed. We knew the Democrats would be obstructionist. What pisses me off is that, with majorities in both chambers of Congress, the republicans are too interested in fighting each other than they are in taking advantage of what could be a very brief period in the majority. If they don't get their *expletive deleted*it together and accomplish something, their majority is likely to disappear with the 2018 mid-term elections.

[grampster]

Trump ought to call every Republican in the congress and be very clear in telling 'em what's what.  Trump:  This is what we were elected to do by our fellow citizens, so we're going to do it.  If you don't go along with me on this I'll do my best to have you primaried in the next election and maybe you can find something else to do.

[Pb]

I expected Trump to be terrible, so every time he does something good I am pleasantly surprised.  I am actually a lot more pleased with Trump than I thought I would be.

The Republicans in congress are just as repulsively vile as I expected them to be though.  Funding planned parenthood, keeping obamacare, and not funding the wall.  What a disgrace.

[Ben]

Not really trying to defend the Republicans, but rather note a difference between them and the Democrats.

The Rs look like they're in disarray and fighting, because essentially they are. Factions on the Republican side stick to their guns far, far more than any factions on the Democrat side. Hence we rarely see agreement. The Democrats far more easily do the herd thing of coming together for "common cause" even if it violates their individual principles.  I'm not sure which iss better or worse.

What I AM sure of, is that I don't want what Trump suggested today (perhaps just to scare the R's into getting their act together), which is changing the vote from 60 to a simple majority on the budget. We clearly see how the Reid rule backfired on dems. This would backfire just as badly on R's when the next dem president and majority get in.

[grampster]

If only we could sneak a phrase into the budget that said:  Upon the president's signing of this bill into law, the entire congress resigns at that moment and implement the Wm F Buckley rule to pick their replacements out of the phone books in the respective districts.  The Senators to be picked by the replacements.

[230RN]

Or at the very least we could go back to the old system where the Senators are picked by the individual State legislatures instead of the State's collective population.

This notion of a "democracy" as the end-all and be-all of governance was one of the things those dead white guys were pretty damned cautious about. They went to considerable lengths to avoid a "tyranny of the majority," which is what a popular election of Senators leads to.

Which is why we have two houses of Congress and three branches of government. This system supposedly provides "checks and balances" against each others' excesses.

But the way things stood until January this year, we just had one big lawmaking rabble in Washington, and the three branches were all in cahoots with each other.

But things may have changed at that point, grampster, which is why I think our maverick new President is a good thing on the whole, despite his faults.

We will probably survive those faults, but we likely would not have survived the status pre.

Terry, 230RN