U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Mr Sifter]

16 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

In the Senate, which has 6 year terms, 1/3 of the seats are up for election every 2 years. It just so happened that the seats that were up this year were the worst possible combination for Dems.

 

In the House, which has 2 year terms, all seats were up for election.

 

16 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

6 year term for senate seats so im guessing some arent due.

 

Thanks for the education folks, appreciated?? Although I’m now wondering who decided what seats would be up, and if there was any strategy behinds it’s design (Kalamazoo, if it ‘just so happened’ this was a bad hand for the dems, dos this mean either party could almost write off any particular mid term senate election, on the assumption there must be ‘safe’ seats, just as in the UK?)

 

interesting stuff I must admit...although I’ll never understand why the worlds biggest superpower seems to have only two political parties ?

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Mr Sifter said:

 

 

Thanks for the education folks, appreciated?? Although I’m now wondering who decided what seats would be up, and if there was any strategy behinds it’s design (Kalamazoo, if it ‘just so happened’ this was a bad hand for the dems, dos this mean either party could almost write off any particular mid term senate election, on the assumption there must be ‘safe’ seats, just as in the UK?)

 

No shenanigans involved - the schedule has basically been in place since 1789, with Senators from new states added along the way. It just so happened that this group of Senators had many more Dem incumbents than Republicans, and just about every Dem Senator who was vulnerable was in this group.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, Mr Sifter said:

 

 

Thanks for the education folks, appreciated?? Although I’m now wondering who decided what seats would be up, and if there was any strategy behinds it’s design (Kalamazoo, if it ‘just so happened’ this was a bad hand for the dems, dos this mean either party could almost write off any particular mid term senate election, on the assumption there must be ‘safe’ seats, just as in the UK?)

 

interesting stuff I must admit...although I’ll never understand why the worlds biggest superpower seems to have only two political parties ?

 

It is probably that their 6 year term had come to an end, thus the reason which seats were up for re-election whilst others weren't, in other words I don't think anybody choose which seats were due, I think they had just come to the end of their term.

 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

3 hours ago, Mr Sifter said:

Only just learned that GOP stands for Grand Old Party (is that right?)

 

Yes, that’s right. I use the term but I don’t think the GOP is grand in any way, shape or form

[Des Lynam]

As midterms usually go this was a success for Trump. The Democrats need a message for 2020 or it’s four more years of the Donald. 

[Unknown user]

15 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

Yes, that’s right. I use the term but I don’t think the GOP is grand in any way, shape or form

 

I don't think it's a good term to use in the uk, it isn't generally known what it means. I thought it sounded like an official government committee or something before I found out what it really meant. 

I wouldn't want to dictate what terms should be used, but IMO that's one that could lead to misunderstandings fairly easily. 

[Cade]

32 minutes ago, Mr Sifter said:

 

 

Thanks for the education folks, appreciated?? Although I’m now wondering who decided what seats would be up, and if there was any strategy behinds it’s design (Kalamazoo, if it ‘just so happened’ this was a bad hand for the dems, dos this mean either party could almost write off any particular mid term senate election, on the assumption there must be ‘safe’ seats, just as in the UK?)

 

interesting stuff I must admit...although I’ll never understand why the worlds biggest superpower seems to have only two political parties ?

It's like the UK, it does have more parties but the system encourages two-party partizan politics.

 

If everybody who voted for the Libertarian Party in the 2016 Presidential election had actually voted Democrat, Hilary Clinton would be in the White house right now.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

It's like the UK, it does have more parties but the system encourages two-party partizan politics.

 

If everybody who voted for the Libertarian Party in the 2016 Presidential election had actually voted Democrat, Hilary Clinton would be in the White house right now.

 

And what a harrowing thought that is! 

[Seymour M Hersh]

5 hours ago, Barack said:

Well done, Texas...

 

Re-electing Ted Cruz?

[Mr Sifter]

28 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

No shenanigans involved - the schedule has basically been in place since 1789, with Senators from new states added along the way. It just so happened that this group of Senators had many more Dem incumbents than Republicans, and just about every Dem Senator who was vulnerable was in this group.

 

28 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

It is probably that their 6 year term had come to an end, thus the reason which seats were up for re-election whilst others weren't, in other words I don't think anybody choose which seats were due, I think they had just come to the end of their term.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

Yes, that’s right. I use the term but I don’t think the GOP is grand in any way, shape or form

 

Once again, cheers ??

[Mr Sifter]

5 minutes ago, Cade said:

It's like the UK, it does have more parties but the system encourages two-party partizan politics.

 

If everybody who voted for the Libertarian Party in the 2016 Presidential election had actually voted Democrat, Hilary Clinton would be in the White house right now.

 

Was not even aware they had any more than two parties. Christ this thread (or last couple of pages anyway) has been an eye opener! 

 

Thanks Cade??

[Justin Z]

22 minutes ago, Mr Sifter said:

 

Was not even aware they had any more than two parties. Christ this thread (or last couple of pages anyway) has been an eye opener! 

 

Thanks Cade??

 

I mean, to be fair, the Greens in the US have about as much impact as they do here. The Libertarians, even less than the Lib Dems.

 

So while there *are* more than two, the two big ones are quite happy to keep the status quo just as it is. Almost like the SFA status quo duopoly...

 

[Notts1874]

Fair play to Dennis Hoff for his victory last night. Some achievement.

[Cade]

1 minute ago, Notts1874 said:

Fair play to Dennis Hoff for his victory last night. Some achievement.

Just shows how ludicrous their system is when a dead bloke can win and his party get to just nominate anybody they want to fill the seat.

[milky_26]

29 minutes ago, Cade said:

Just shows how ludicrous their system is when a dead bloke can win and his party get to just nominate anybody they want to fill the seat.

What?

[Maple Leaf]

12 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

....and for those not in either of those categories. 

Indeed. 

[Notts1874]

13 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

What?

Yep died three weeks ago and won with 60% of the vote.

[Sharpie]

I get the impression that Impeachment is not high in the Democratic list of intent. I did hear that the man who will be chairman of the Finance commitee is planning to demand Trumps tax returns which have still not been produced. There is also the fact Mueller will be releasing his first report on Russia now the election is over. Trump is also facing the possibility of some New York State attorneys financial impropriety investigations. Trump is to some extent safe from some of the things he could be accused as his  appointments to the Supreme Court have provided some breathing room.

 

Listening to the fake news and Fox last night it seems some of the "experts" feel Trump has angered some of his needed support by pandering to his base by pushing immigration, caravans, etc. rather than the successes of the economy, and tax regulations. They feel that neglect lost many of the seats that were lost.The next two years are going to be even more interesting with the possibility of Trump avoiding prosecution but his sons, daghter and son in law possibly in jeopardy.

[Homme]

9 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Yep died three weeks ago and won with 60% of the vote.

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

4 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

So the Blue Wave never materialised. It may well a difficult couple of years for Trump but not not as bad as the Democrats wished.

 

A blue wave materialized. A blue tsunami did not.

 

For Dems, this was the equivalent of a going into Parkhead with an in-form team and leaving with a 1-1 draw. It's a good result, but you always kind of hoped it could be a better one.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

3 hours ago, Mr Sifter said:

 

 

Thanks for the education folks, appreciated?? Although I’m now wondering who decided what seats would be up, and if there was any strategy behinds it’s design (Kalamazoo, if it ‘just so happened’ this was a bad hand for the dems, dos this mean either party could almost write off any particular mid term senate election, on the assumption there must be ‘safe’ seats, just as in the UK?)

 

interesting stuff I must admit...although I’ll never understand why the worlds biggest superpower seems to have only two political parties ?

 

Major differences in the American system vs. the UK system:

 

The big one is federalism. States do most of the "day to day:" governing. If Scotland had gotten the old "Devo Max" deal, as I understand it, that would have *almost* given the national government as much power as states. The federal government largely does taxes, the military, interstate coordination, and some major social insurance programs (retirement, elder health care). Exactly what the federal gov't does and doesn't do is a subject of intense partisan fighting.

 

The other one is separation of powers. There are three branches of the federal government and almost all state governments -- executive, legislative, judicial. Congress controls the legislative branch, with two houses, the House and the Senate. The House is basically Commons. The Senate is a more complicated beast that, again, derives form the fact that states are primary in the US.

 

The executive has one election -- the Presidency -- but they run all the major departments (i.e., ministries). Notably, Congressional and Presidential elections are entirely separate -- unlike in the UK, one party can win the Presidency and lose Congress. 

 

The judiciary consists of the courts. It's complicated how they get there -- different between federal and state (and between states)

 

The idea is that the three branches are "co-equal," and keep each other under control through various "checks and balances." Unfortunately IMO Congress is functionally a disastrous mess at the moment, in large part due to the exceptional and cynical power mongering by GOP Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.. I mean all Congresses have had their tinpot tyrants but McConnell is really a cut above. He's doing what Newt Gingrich did in the House in the 1990s, but twice as bad. Congress being completely dysfunctional has opened the door for Trump's dictatorial style.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I mean, to be fair, the Greens in the US have about as much impact as they do here. The Libertarians, even less than the Lib Dems.

 

So while there *are* more than two, the two big ones are quite happy to keep the status quo just as it is. Almost like the SFA status quo duopoly...

 

 

You have a far higher opinion of the US Greens than I do!

 

The US system makes it very hard for a third party to make an impact. The US Greens respond to this by uniformly taking the least effective approach to trying to have an impact, then whining about it.

 

Policy-wise I'm highly aligned with the Greens, but they're so incompetent and whiny that I basically can't stand the whole party.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

1 hour ago, bobsharp said:

I get the impression that Impeachment is not high in the Democratic list of intent. I did hear that the man who will be chairman of the Finance commitee is planning to demand Trumps tax returns which have still not been produced. There is also the fact Mueller will be releasing his first report on Russia now the election is over. Trump is also facing the possibility of some New York State attorneys financial impropriety investigations. Trump is to some extent safe from some of the things he could be accused as his  appointments to the Supreme Court have provided some breathing room.

 

Listening to the fake news and Fox last night it seems some of the "experts" feel Trump has angered some of his needed support by pandering to his base by pushing immigration, caravans, etc. rather than the successes of the economy, and tax regulations. They feel that neglect lost many of the seats that were lost.The next two years are going to be even more interesting with the possibility of Trump avoiding prosecution but his sons, daghter and son in law possibly in jeopardy.

 

(Sorry everyone for posting so much.)

 

Dems are very circumspect on impeachment. Impeachment happens in the House and means he gets a trial in the Senate, where it takes 67 votes to remove from office. There's absolutely no point unless the case against him is so horrific and air-tight that a large number of Republican Senators feel they have to vote him out to save their careers or their consciences (if those still exist). It's inherently political, which is why Clinton got impeached for a white lie about a blow job in a deposition about something completely unrelated, but if the offense is bad enough (e.g., Nixon covering up Watergate), they might have to.

 

This is why Mueller is so important -- if he gets, say, audio of Trump colluding with Putin to rig the election (unlikely but possible), he'll get tossed. If it's just something that kind of smells bad, the Republicans will waive it away, and the Dems know that, so they won't bother with impeachment.

[Mr Sifter]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I mean, to be fair, the Greens in the US have about as much impact as they do here. The Libertarians, even less than the Lib Dems.

 

So while there *are* more than two, the two big ones are quite happy to keep the status quo just as it is. Almost like the SFA status quo duopoly...

 

 

If the USA is anything like the SFA then it’s no wonder the place is ****ed ?

[Mr Sifter]

24 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

Major differences in the American system vs. the UK system:

 

The big one is federalism. States do most of the "day to day:" governing. If Scotland had gotten the old "Devo Max" deal, as I understand it, that would have *almost* given the national government as much power as states. The federal government largely does taxes, the military, interstate coordination, and some major social insurance programs (retirement, elder health care). Exactly what the federal gov't does and doesn't do is a subject of intense partisan fighting.

 

The other one is separation of powers. There are three branches of the federal government and almost all state governments -- executive, legislative, judicial. Congress controls the legislative branch, with two houses, the House and the Senate. The House is basically Commons. The Senate is a more complicated beast that, again, derives form the fact that states are primary in the US.

 

The executive has one election -- the Presidency -- but they run all the major departments (i.e., ministries). Notably, Congressional and Presidential elections are entirely separate -- unlike in the UK, one party can win the Presidency and lose Congress. 

 

The judiciary consists of the courts. It's complicated how they get there -- different between federal and state (and between states)

 

The idea is that the three branches are "co-equal," and keep each other under control through various "checks and balances." Unfortunately IMO Congress is functionally a disastrous mess at the moment, in large part due to the exceptional and cynical power mongering by GOP Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.. I mean all Congresses have had their tinpot tyrants but McConnell is really a cut above. He's doing what Newt Gingrich did in the House in the 1990s, but twice as bad. Congress being completely dysfunctional has opened the door for Trump's dictatorial style.

 

A comprehensive summary of the US political set up. Genuinely thankful you posted that, very interesting. thanks ??

[Justin Z]

50 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

You have a far higher opinion of the US Greens than I do!

 

The US system makes it very hard for a third party to make an impact. The US Greens respond to this by uniformly taking the least effective approach to trying to have an impact, then whining about it.

 

Policy-wise I'm highly aligned with the Greens, but they're so incompetent and whiny that I basically can't stand the whole party.

 

Hah well not really. My implication was that Greens barely do anything in the UK, just like in the US.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

53 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Hah well not really. My implication was that Greens barely do anything in the UK, just like in the US.

 

Fair enough, but they do actually win seats sometimes, which the US Greens effectively never, ever do. Since my research is in land reform I follow Andy Wightman's career, and he certainly manages to have an impact in Scottish government.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, Notts1874 said:

Yep died three weeks ago and won with 60% of the vote.

Imagine how electable hillary could have been. 

[Jamboelite]

Trump says loss in House opens 'much easier path'

Trump says he gives Nancy Pelosi “a great deal of credit”.

“Hopefully we can all work together,” he says. He names infrastructure, trade, prescription drug costs ...

“If the Republicans won and let’s say we held on by two or one or three, it would have been very hard” to hold a majority, he says. “That puts us in a very bad position. In other words, had we kept ... it puts us in a very tough position.”

He does not seem to understand the nature of congressional leadership and the majority party’s ability to run committees, conduct oversight and advance a legislative agenda. 

Stuart Rothenberg (@StuPolitics)

Trump suggesting losing the House is better than having a very narrow majority. Seriously. You can’t make this up.

November 7, 2018

“Now we have a much easier path because the Democrats will come to us ... and we’ll negotiate.”

Then his biggest whopper yet: “The Democrats stick together well.”

“I really respect what Nancy said last night about bipartisanship and ... uniting.

“I can see it being extremely good politically because I think I’m better at that than they are.”

 

****ing hell....

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

Trump is dodging any questions, asked about healing devision after antisemitic attacks in the US and he starts talking about Israel and his so called success there. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Getting a bit rattled, the Donald is.

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

Getting a bit rattled, the Donald is.

You can hear his small brain rattling around the empty space in his heid. 

[The Mighty Thor]

Just watched the presser that he did where he unloads on the CNN reporter. What a total ***** the man is. 

 

He's rattled and hopefully he gets what he deserves. 

[Notts1874]

CNN's official response

 

 

 

[Shanks said no]

That press conference was one of the most astonishing things I have ever watched on TV

[Notts1874]

I take it the troops that were sent to the southern border as a campaign tool will now be quietly withdrawn?

 

Not heard him mention a tent today never mind a caravan.

[Notts1874]

Sessions away for an early bath.

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

Bet he doesn't even know!

 

 

 

I don't normally enjoy watching a breakdown. I will make an exception on this occasion.

 

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

Think he was actually made aware, in fairness. Still...let's see what happens to Mr. Mueller now...

The constitution may not be his friend on Mueller or Rosenstein with the Dems controlling the House. Damn those checks and balances.

[The Mighty Thor]

Sessions held on long enough til the Dems won the house?

 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Whelp, here we go!

[JackLadd]

Appointing some stooge in an attempt to shut down Mueller shows how desperate Trump is.

[DETTY29]

Can't see anyone else having linked, but Panorama from this week.

 

Loads of similarities to Nixon, but at this stage probably similar to Clinton, he wouldn't be impeached, and may actually make the prime a-hole more popular.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0brg0ls/panorama-trump-what-next

 

 

[Cade]

[Boab]

Not long now, Trumpet !

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

Just saw the news conference.

What an embarrassment to the office of President.

In fact he’s an embarrassment to the Human Race.

[Sharpie]

Trump appoints a man as interim AG, who was Chief of Staff for Sessions. His main function was to report directly to Trump what  was being said and by whom. From personal experience, I was attending a department meeting in Cornwall Ontario one time. The man who hired me and was now the National chief, and his deputy approached me. They asked me to report to them what a colleague was saying about them, as they wanted to get rid of him. I got really angry told my boss that I was disappointed and disgusted knowing me that he would  ask me to do such a reprehensible thing,m I was so peed  off and made some other comments and felt sure I would be fired. I just for the life of me cannot believe a man would stoop so low for someone like Trump. Is he so stupid he cannot see he will be next because he cannot with his secrets be kept around.

 

Trump is a most ruthless person , he is prepared to make appointments not for the benefit of the United States and its people but to protect  himself and his family,  obviously his base and staunchest supporters are not students of history and compare his actions with past despots.

By the way the reputed hard man didn't have the balls to do the firing himself, got John Kelly to do it.  There is another man who has lost all credibility in my unasked for opinion.

Edited November 8, 2018 by bobsharp

[J.T.F.Robertson]

 

Jim Acosta  of CNN is now barred for having the temerity to insistently question this man/child about a subject he had no real answer for.

If there remained any doubt about Trump's mental fitness for the position he has somehow attained, that "performance" today surely put the proverbial lid on the biscuit tin. Today showed precisely why (in his demented mind) he puts so much store in "getting along" with the likes of Putin, Kim, the house of Saud, it's because he would give his whole hairpiece to be in a position to get away with what every one of these despots considers to be their right.

How anyone, especially so, his Republican acolytes (although this is now the Trump Party, it no longer belongs to them) can still give him any benefit of doubt ......... 

That, today, was an embarrassing disgrace.

 

[Sidelight]

Looking forward to 2020, it seems to me that the viewed mid term election results were good for the Republicans.

Trump now has an increased 54 to 46 Senate majority.  From what I have read Trump can now appoint and fill up to 135 federal judge vacancies. Surely this carries substantial weight for the future.

I would imagine that the House will move into full failed socialist agenda mode, which in turn will be such a disaster that they will be terminated again in 2020.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The WH is accusing Jim Acosta of "placing his hands" on a WH interm and that is the reason why his media pass has been revoked.

 

Watch the video and decide for yourself.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7688219/trump-bans-cnn-reporter-jim-acosta-from-white-house/