Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (8 Viewers)

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The football board had the very useful Daily Trump Tracker thread, which was a good place to briefly discuss the latest ridiculous thing that might have ended 97% of prior Presidential administrations even if it didn't necessarily justify an entire thread devoted to it in 2017-2019 (because of the sheer volume of these things). Since I don't see anything like that here already, I'll add one myself.

 

[Complex Kid]

I'm old enough to remember when he used disaster funds appropriated to FEMA to extend unemployment benefits for a couple of weeks before it turned out FEMA actually needed the money for, you know, disaster relief.

Don't forget also funnelling money to his wall from FEMA as well...

Trump admin pulling millions from FEMA disaster relief to send to southern border

Combined with existing space, the funding would allow ICE to detain nearly 50,000 immigrants at one time.

www.nbcnews.com

As someone who's neighbors across the street have been living in tents for the last month with FEMA telling them "don't worry trailers are on the way..." it's pretty infuriating. It's even more infuriating when you go on facebook and read comments about how John Bel Edwards has totally mismanaged FEMA's response to this...uhhhhhhh what do you guys think the F in FEMA stands for?

 

[Farb]

This is true despite Republican efforts to suppress and deny voting across the nation by shutting down voting locations, instituting voting taxes, purging registered voters, etc., etc...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

Lots of good facts in here. Apparently with all the Republican effort to be evil, voter turn out remained about the same through all groups besides the black vote with fell when Obama was no longer on the ticket after setting records for voter turn out when Obama was on the ticket. That sound more like a lack of interest in the candidates to me.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

Lots of good facts in here. Apparently with all the Republican effort to be evil, voter turn out remained about the same through all groups besides the black vote with fell when Obama was no longer on the ticket after setting records for voter turn out when Obama was on the ticket. That sound more like a lack of interest in the candidates to me.

Wasn't for lack of trying.

Polling Places in Black Communities Continue to Close Ahead of November Elections

This year alone, 10 counties with large black populations in Georgia closed polling spots after a white elections consultant recommended they do so to save money.

www.governing.com

In the five years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key parts of the Voting Rights Act, nearly a thousand polling places have been shuttered across the country, many of them in southern black communities.

The trend continues: This year alone, 10 counties with large black populations in Georgia closed polling spots after a white elections consultant recommended they do so to save money. When the consultant suggested a similar move in Randolph County, pushback was enough to keep its nine polling places open.

But the closures come amid a tightening of voter ID laws in many states that critics view as an effort to make it harder for blacks and other minorities to vote — and, in Georgia specifically, the high-profile gubernatorial bid by a black woman.

The ballot in November features Stacey Abrams, a Democrat trying to become the first black woman elected governor in the United States, versus Brian Kemp, the Republican secretary of state who has led efforts in Georgia to purge voter rolls, slash early voting and close polling places.

Since the 2010 elections, 24 states have implemented new restrictions on voting. Alabama now requires a photo ID to cast a ballot. Other states such as Ohio and Georgia have enacted "use it or lose it" laws, which strike voters from registration rolls if they have not participated in an election within a prescribed period of time.

Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman, author of Give Us the Ballot, says that many of the restrictions are part of a broader Republican strategy to tighten access to the ballot — an effort that was bolstered in 2013 by the Supreme Court's Shelby County v. Holder ruling.

"[That] decision," Berman explains, "said that those states with the longest histories of discrimination no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government."

As a result, Berman says, "You're seeing a national effort by the Republican Party to try to restrict voting rights, and it's playing out in states all across the country."

Southern U.S. states have closed 1,200 polling places in recent years: rights group

States across the American South have closed nearly 1,200 polling places since the Supreme Court weakened a landmark voting-discrimination law in 2013, according to a report released by a civil-rights group on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

 

[CoolBrees]

Congress can’t just wave a wand and make them states either.

PR and DC would still have to vote to be states. If they would want to be states, why would we deny them that?

And as far as winning elections, everything being discussed is predicated on the fact that the Dems not only take the White House, but also keep the House and take the Senate.

Wouldn’t that be considered the will of the people? Yeah, it would.

 

[efil4]

Or you guys could win elections? Yall did it in the past with a lot of success so we know the 'system is not rigged'.
I think it would help also to try and find policies and narratives that don't alienate half the population of the country and split your party in two.
All that, in my opinion, would be a lot easier than adding states, adding judges, splitting states, dissolving the electoral college and whatever else the radicals can come up with.

If we do just that Nov 3, and Trump refuses to accept the results, where do you stand on that issue?

 

[B4YOU]

If a vote for PR, goes forward, do you think you guys will follow the precedence of the past of if you bring in a state for purely vote harvesting, which is obviously the reason this it is being brought up, a 2nd state brought in as well to balance it?
Of course not because this is just under the disguise of fairness and justice. It is really just a temper tantrum because the Democrats can't put out a candidate or message that can win without violence and political hostage negotiations.
All this does in my opinion is really put out the message that the Democrats really don't think they have a chance of winning very much in the future with their divisive talking points.

Should we continue to disenfranchise people for political gain? Why would another state need to be brought in when 53 R senators represent 44% of the population which is 15M less than the 47 D senators?

How about you assume honest intent by other people. People in DC outnumber two states and pay federal tax with no voting representation. This is a basic rights issue that needs to be fixed.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Congress can’t just wave a wand and make them states either.

PR and DC would still have to vote to be states. If they would want to be states, why would we deny them that?

And as far as winning elections, everything being discussed is predicated on the fact that the Dems not only take the White House, but also keep the House and take the Senate.

Wouldn’t that be considered the will of the people? Yeah, it would.

Yeah, those folks who still support liars and hypocrites know that they are really a minority in this country but they continue to force themselves to believe that there are more of them than there are of us. PR has already voted to become a state and DC would probably pass that bar by a 90% margin. The folks on the other side are scared. They're doing everything in their power to prevent what the majority of Americans want to happen. They sleep better at night knowing they have convinced themselves that they are right.

If Biden wins and the Dems take the senate, I say the first thing they vote to do is change all rules to simple majority and vote to make PR and DC states. Let the republicans cry about it all they want. Dems should do exactly what they should have done in 2009; pass legislation that the majority of the country wants and run over republicans the same way republicans have run over democrats time and time again. Stop bringing a candy cane to a gun fight. Do what they people put you in office to do.

 

[coldseat]

Or you guys could win elections? Yall did it in the past with a lot of success so we know the 'system is not rigged'.
I think it would help also to try and find policies and narratives that don't alienate half the population of the country and split your party in two.
All that, in my opinion, would be a lot easier than adding states, adding judges, splitting states, dissolving the electoral college and whatever else the radicals can come up with.

Any of these proposals that are being discussed would only be possible if Democrats won the Senate and Presidency and kept control of the House. Winning a majority of the upcoming elections is implied in all of these measures. Or else they wouldn't be possible.

 

[Saintamaniac]

How about you assume honest intent by other people. People in DC outnumber two states and pay federal tax with no voting representation. This is a basic rights issue that needs to be fixed.

That's the only way to come up with an argument against that. Otherwise, there would be no reason to post what was posted. It's a much easier argument to just assume ill-intent and argue for it than to acknowledge an obvious truth and argue against it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It's not a matter of being okay, it's a matter of what is most effective for lasting results. Changing the composition of the Senate gives you lasting results without as big a hit in public perception.

The strategy of trying to pack the Senate will undoubtedly set off a never ending cycle of tribal retaliation and escalation. The Republicans are holding the trump card of their corruptly packed Supreme Court to settle any disputes in their favor in those tribal fights.

There is absolutely no guarantee that DC and Puerto Rico can be added as states or, even if they are added, that it will lead to Democratic control of the Senate. It's not an effective way of getting any results, let alone lasting ones.

As for basing any strategy on chasing public perception, that's a fools errand.

Public perception is that Democrats only have themselves to blame for the corruptly packed Supreme Court, because they removed the filibuster to federal court nominations. "Dumb" is the commonly used term. The Democrats only removed the filibuster, because McConnell and Republicans blocked every judge he nominated forcing the Democrats to remove the filibuster. Yet, here we are with the public perception that Democrats were "dumb."

Being afraid to push back and unpack the corruptly packed Supreme Court because of fears of public perception is playing right into McConnell and the corrupt Republicans' hands. It's what they want and count on to give them the power advantage they want.

All of that said, public perception is actually against McConnel and the corrupt Republicans on this one. The Democrats actually have a good chance at turning that public perception into support for expanding the court by two seats to add Garland and to allow the next president to appoint the second seat. They could easily convince the public that since this still allows a slight majority of "conservative" justices, they have only righted McConnell's wrong and have not "packed" the court in their favor.

Adding Justices to the Court gives you a temporary victory that could easily result in a Republican hegemony in 2024 and beyond.

There is nothing temporary about lifetime appointments and there's no chance of a Republican hegemony in the future, unless we just "live with" McConnell and the Republicans' corruptly packed Supreme Court. Just "living with" the corruptly packed Supreme Court is the only path to future Republican dominance, so if one is opposed to Republican dominance then one should be opposed to "living with" their corruptly packed Supreme Court.

The entire reason that McConnell and Republicans corruptly packed the Supreme Court is because it's their only chance of maintaining their dominance over our country.

• They need their corruptly packed Supreme Court to keep ruling in their favor as they continue to enact laws at the state level that suppress and outright deny people the right to vote.
• They need their corruptly packed Supreme Court to keep ruling in their favor as they continue to gerrymander districts giving themselves disproportionate power over the House of Representatives and state legislatures.

Without their corruptly packed Supreme Court having their backs on rulings in those matters, the current Republican party loses their control over our country at the federal level and a lot of control at the state level. They know that. They are terrified by that. They have known that this time was coming for decades.

That's why they started playing the long game decades ago to corruptly pack the Supreme Court to preserve their minority control over our country.

Sometimes the scalpel is a more effective tool than the hammer.

I agree. Using the hammer of hopefully getting DC and Puerto Rico as states to hopefully pack the Senate to then hopefully control the Supreme Court is like using a hammer to get rid of cancer. It would be a lot more effective to use a scalpel to just cut straight through to the corrupt, cancerous growth and remove it straight away, which would be to add two more seats to the Supreme Court to remove the cancerous growth of a corruptly packed Supreme Court.

What one might call apathy or appeasement, I call a winning strategy.

Some call insanity the futility of repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results. People having been trying to get Puerto Rico and DC as a state for a good while now. How's that been working out?

Just "living with" the ill-gotten gains of McConnell and the Republicans has been a losing strategy. That losing strategy has resulted in McConnell and the Republicans grabbing more and more power, while the actual number of citizens who support them continues to shrink. That losing strategy of just "living with" their ill-gotten power gains is what we have been repeatedly doing while repeatedly telling ourselves that this time the results will be different. This time it will work and give us the results we want.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Wasn't there rumblings about California possibly being split into 3 states? That in itself would result in 4 new senators with at least 2 of them possibly being republicans if they still refer to themselves that way. Splitting California and granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood would drastically alter the senate for generations.

Splitting California is a pipe dream, actually it's a pipe nightmare.

Splitting California is something Republicans want, not Democrats or the majority of those who live in California. It's never going to happen. If that's part of someone's strategy, then someone has a losing strategy.

Has anyone ever asked themselves why there's never any talk of splitting Texas? Splitting Texas could be done in a way that could yeild a bigger net gain in the Senate for Democrats, but we never hear about that do we? The same is true for Florida. I wonder why those states are never mentioned?

 

[LA - L.A.]

On a related note, something that has also been kicked around for awhile is the splitting of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. If that were ever to happen it might include the appointment of a few more judges to shore up the new circuits after a split.

And hear we are talking about splitting up the 9th Circuit. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Of course he did -- you can't criticize "Dear Leader" and expect to get away with it!

And the state department officials lied to Congress about it.

 

[Booker]

The strategy of trying to pack the Senate will undoubtedly set off a never ending cycle of tribal retaliation and escalation. The Republicans are holding the trump card of their corruptly packed Supreme Court to settle any disputes in their favor in those tribal fights.

There is absolutely no guarantee that DC and Puerto Rico can be added as states or, even if they are added, that it will lead to Democratic control of the Senate. It's not an effective way of getting any results, let alone lasting ones.

As for basing any strategy on chasing public perception, that's a fools errand.

Public perception is that Democrats only have themselves to blame for the corruptly packed Supreme Court, because they removed the filibuster to federal court nominations. "Dumb" is the commonly used term. The Democrats only removed the filibuster, because McConnell and Republicans blocked every judge he nominated forcing the Democrats to remove the filibuster. Yet, here we are with the public perception that Democrats were "dumb."

Being afraid to push back and unpack the corruptly packed Supreme Court because of fears of public perception is playing right into McConnell and the corrupt Republicans' hands. It's what they want and count on to give them the power advantage they want.

All of that said, public perception is actually against McConnel and the corrupt Republicans on this one. The Democrats actually have a good chance at turning that public perception into support for expanding the court by two seats to add Garland and to allow the next president to appoint the second seat. They could easily convince the public that since this still allows a slight majority of "conservative" justices, they have only righted McConnell's wrong and have not "packed" the court in their favor.

There is nothing temporary about lifetime appointments and there's no chance of a Republican hegemony in the future, unless we just "live with" McConnell and the Republicans' corruptly packed Supreme Court. Just "living with" the corruptly packed Supreme Court is the only path to future Republican dominance, so if one is opposed to Republican dominance then one should be opposed to "living with" their corruptly packed Supreme Court.

The entire reason that McConnell and Republicans corruptly packed the Supreme Court is because it's their only chance of maintaining their dominance over our country.

• They need their corruptly packed Supreme Court to keep ruling in their favor as they continue to enact laws at the state level that suppress and outright deny people the right to vote.
• They need their corruptly packed Supreme Court to keep ruling in their favor as they continue to gerrymander districts giving themselves disproportionate power over the House of Representatives and state legislatures.

Without their corruptly packed Supreme Court having their backs on rulings in those matters, the current Republican party loses their control over our country at the federal level and a lot of control at the state level. They know that. They are terrified by that. They have known that this time was coming for decades.

That's why they started playing the long game decades ago to corruptly pack the Supreme Court to preserve their minority control over our country.

I agree. Using the hammer of hopefully getting DC and Puerto Rico as states to hopefully pack the Senate to then hopefully control the Supreme Court is like using a hammer to get rid of cancer. It would be a lot more effective to use a scalpel to just cut straight through to the corrupt, cancerous growth and remove it straight away, which would be to add two more seats to the Supreme Court to remove the cancerous growth of a corruptly packed Supreme Court.

Some call insanity the futility of repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results. People having been trying to get Puerto Rico and DC as a state for a good while now. How's that been working out?

Just "living with" the ill-gotten gains of McConnell and the Republicans has been a losing strategy. That losing strategy has resulted in McConnell and the Republicans grabbing more and more power, while the actual number of citizens who support them continues to shrink. That losing strategy of just "living with" their ill-gotten power gains is what we have been repeatedly doing while repeatedly telling ourselves that this time the results will be different. This time it will work and give us the results we want.

The last eight presidential elections have been split 4-4, and if Biden wins that would make 5 out of the last nine (and the popular vote 7 out of the last 9). There is no logical justification for Republicans to have a 6-3 advantage in named justices over that period of time. If the Democrats sweep I'm fully on board with adding 3 seats to balance it out.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The strategy of trying to pack the Senate will undoubtedly set off a never ending cycle of tribal retaliation and escalation. The Republicans are holding the trump card of their corruptly packed Supreme Court to settle any disputes in their favor in those tribal fights.

This is not the equivalent of adding seats to the Court. There are a finite amount of territories. Among those there are a finite amount who would pass a statehood initiative.

There is absolutely no guarantee that DC and Puerto Rico can be added as states or, even if they are added, that it will lead to Democratic control of the Senate. It's not an effective way of getting any results, let alone lasting ones.

D.C., no. As I said, there are some legal arguments against it. Puerto Rico? All it takes is a majority vote of Congress after a ballot initiative is passed. As far as not effective, in my opinion adding seats that would skew Democrat is effective. We'll have to agree to disagree there.

As for basing any strategy on chasing public perception, that's a fools errand.

I'd point you to the 2016 election.

Public perception is that Democrats only have themselves to blame for the corruptly packed Supreme Court, because they removed the filibuster to federal court nominations. "Dumb" is the commonly used term. The Democrats only removed the filibuster, because McConnell and Republicans blocked every judge he nominated forcing the Democrats to remove the filibuster. Yet, here we are with the public perception that Democrats were "dumb."

That might be your perception but I haven't seen much in the media to suggest that is the public perception. Also keep in mind there are tons of voters who don't even pay attention to social media and barely follow politics until major issues come up like Supreme Court appointments and the hurried manner in which they take place.

Being afraid to push back and unpack the corruptly packed Supreme Court because of fears of public perception is playing right into McConnell and the corrupt Republicans' hands. It's what they want and count on to give them the power advantage they want.

Again, agree to disagree. What Republicans want is to portray Democrats as the radical left. It's exactly the strategy they are implementing in 2020.

There is nothing temporary about lifetime appointments and there's no chance of a Republican hegemony in the future, unless we just "live with" McConnell and the Republicans' corruptly packed Supreme Court. Just "living with" the corruptly packed Supreme Court is the only path to future Republican dominance, so if one is opposed to Republican dominance then one should be opposed to "living with" their corruptly packed Supreme Court.

Life is temporary. To assume there will be no change in perception if the Democrats take radical actions is to deny how we've reached the point where a man like Trump can win the Republican nomination and become President. Adding seats to the Supreme Court only fuels the fire. Believe it or not, there are worse people than Trump who could ascend to the Presidency. As in, someone who actually has these far right/theocratic beliefs. Disillusioned voters in the rust belt aren't going away if Trump loses. They'll just wait for the next demagogue to rile them up.

The entire reason that McConnell and Republicans corruptly packed the Supreme Court is because it's their only chance of maintaining their dominance over our country.

They have proven they can win elections. Trump didn't cheat his way to victory in 2016. Nor did the GOP take control of the Senate with the assistance of the courts.

Some call insanity the futility of repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results. People having been trying to get Puerto Rico and DC as a state for a good while now. How's that been working out?

All you need is a majority vote on a ballot initiative and a majority vote in Congress. It's not as difficult as perceived.

Just "living with" the ill-gotten gains of McConnell and the Republicans has been a losing strategy. That losing strategy has resulted in McConnell and the Republicans grabbing more and more power, while the actual number of citizens who support them continues to shrink. That losing strategy of just "living with" their ill-gotten power gains is what we have been repeatedly doing while repeatedly telling ourselves that this time the results will be different. This time it will work and give us the results we want.

It's not 'living with it.' It's a calculated response. All adding seats to the Court will do is gain the GOP more voters. I don't doubt your passion but I feel it is untempered by the practical realities of the American electorate. As much as I would like, we are not at a Bernie Sanders level of social politics. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree about the best way to avoid a President Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

If a vote for PR, goes forward, do you think you guys will follow the precedence of the past of if you bring in a state for purely vote harvesting, which is obviously the reason this it is being brought up, a 2nd state brought in as well to balance it?
Of course not because this is just under the disguise of fairness and justice. It is really just a temper tantrum because the Democrats can't put out a candidate or message that can win without violence and political hostage negotiations.
All this does in my opinion is really put out the message that the Democrats really don't think they have a chance of winning very much in the future with their divisive talking points.

Precedence has long since been thrown out the window. There is no more room for 'what-about-ism' in politics, anymore. Power does what it wants. The GOP doesn't comport themselves any different.

 

[MT15]

Absolutely, the GOP is and has been operating under “might makes right” and “the ends justify the means” for years now. They have no moral high ground left.

 

[LA - L.A.]

This is not the equivalent of adding seats to the Court. There are a finite amount of territories. Among those there are a finite amount who would pass a statehood initiative.

The equivalence is that both would be seen as tribal power grabs and thus would result in a spiral of tribal retaliation. The very thing that has be stated to be a problem that we should avoid. It's the primary objection to adding justices to the Supreme Court.

There isn't a finite number of territories. That's a false presumption. The number of territories, just like the number of Supreme Court justices, are arbitrary and can be changed by adding new states or splitting existing states.

What is the harm of an ever expanding Supreme Court? I've asked several times and haven't received a single answer.

To assume there will be no change in perception if the Democrats take radical actions is to deny how we've reached the point where a man like Trump can win the Republican nomination and become President.

What radical action did the Democrats take that lead to Trump's election? Democrats have been avoiding radical actions, and guess what, Trump got elected. This argument makes no historical or logical sense.

Noting has been offered to support the opinion that the majority of the public would not see trying to pack the Senate by adding or splitting states as a radical action by Democrats, but they would see adding justices to the Supreme Court as a radical action by Democrats.

Adding seats to the Supreme Court only fuels the fire.

As will trying to add states to add to the Senate. It's all the same forest and will fuel the fire all the same.

Disillusioned voters in the rust belt aren't going away if Trump loses. They'll just wait for the next demagogue to rile them up.

Someone waiting for a demagogue to follow is only going to follow a demagogue. They see everything they don't like as a radical action. The only way to appease them and win their support is to be a demagogue.

Trump didn't cheat his way to victory in 2016. Nor did the GOP take control of the Senate with the assistance of the courts.

I didn't say either of those things, so they are irrelevant.

What I said is that moving forward Republicans can only maintain power if their corruptly packed Supreme Court continues to rule in favor of their voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts. It's a fact that the Republican party's per capita support has and will continue to steadily dwindle. They wouldn't have as much power as they currently do were it not for their voter suppression and gerrymandering tactics.

I think it's a mistake to believe that trying to add more states to add more Democratic senators to the Senate would not be seen as radical action by Democrats and that there would be any less of a backlash to it than there would be to adding two seats to the Supreme Court.

Nothing I've said equates to a Bernie Sanders level of social politics. Intentional or not, the repeated use of straw man arguments is disrespectful at best. I've only pointed out a few of them. There have been others used in the course of this discussion.