The only way I see the Dems getting rid of Trump and Trumpism is to let him fail, miserably, by allowing him to get his way, not blocking appointments or bills, etc. Only then will his supporters see how bad he is and hopefully stop supporting him. Painful, I know. But if he's hindered in any way, he'll blame others for his failures and will continue to garnish support. Thoughts?
I agree. Let him get what he wants. We'll either learn he was right or he's wrong and the congress will turn in 2 years. I especially think Dems should let him get his way on the no tax on Tips, OT and Social Security. Those tax cuts benefit people on the lower end of income. Executives don't make tips or OT. Many seniors live on SSA alone. Then if it tanks the economy in 2 years they'll get power back and can institute tax on higher earners to get us out of the hole.
I agree Lesley. Although very painful it will put a quick end to this forever. His supporters don't respond to verbal arguments, but they do respond to actual evidence, even it is does require us to connect the dots. We could, for example, put ourselves into the future and then point out that Trump took away the ACA which is the same as Obamacare, and therefore many elderly folks die painfully without care. (assuming he takes it away and this happens, which it probably will. They won't trust us if we predict it now but they will if we point it out after the fact, by connecting the dots in easy-to-understand ways.)
Elderly have Medicare...that's not a part of Obamacare. Obamacare covers people younger than 65 and helps them with the cost when they normally couldn't afford insurance. They took away the individual mandate which was the one thing that would require everyone to have some form of insurance
Republicans have been emboldened by Trump. While there were some bumps along the way in his takeover, his way is now the way to go and there is no room for questions. I feel like Democrats are seen as weak or lacking direction because they don’t have such a rigid platform. But is it really wrong to be a party that can shift with the times, adapt their positions and represent different points of view in a world where things change pretty fast? Republicans are successful because there is no “freedom” of thought. Is it possible for a political party or movement to have a platform that is more flexible and malleable, and still be effective politically? It feels like it’s not, and that feels to go against everything America is supposed to be about. Thoughts?
My question is simple. I have not seen any mainstream coverage of Trump‘s promise to pardon all of the January 6 criminals. Surely any nominee for Attorney General will face questions about that in the confirmation process. So therefore, what would the answer to those questions be
Without the fear of reprisals from Donald Trump now that Matt Gaetz is no longer an AG candidate, aren’t there some Republicans who hate him enough to see that the report is released? They don’t owe him a future career as governor and what harm would come to them if they screwed the guy?
My Question revolves around your debating the Trump mandate and some of the promises he made that people supposedly bought into. How can one reconcile the fact that he will deport 11 million illegal immigrants, a good percentage of which work in the food industry, while "lowering the cost of basic food items" or being the king of tariffs while "making America respected in the world again" etc...?
Chris- You said you were not disappointed that Trump won. Are you disappointed that one of the founding principles of our nation that no one is above the law has been destroyed? Regardless of whether Trump would have been found guilty or not, it is a travesty that he was never tried for the 2020 election interference and the stealing of classified documents. He will dismiss the special counsel or they will resign before he takes office. With the Supreme Court granting him immunity, he may very well pardon himself and other allies on his way out of office and nothing can be done to hold him accountable. As an American citizen this makes me feel a deep sense of shame about our country. How can we look at the results of any other legal action in our country the same way going forward? Our trust in the justice system has been seriously injured and I don't know how it can ever recover from this.
I know you took heat in the comments for posting about Trump's overwhelmingly electoral win (which he said and you seem to concur gives him a mandate), but with the popular vote (which I does not matter) now at under 50%, DOES he have a mandate or is this just further proof that the winner-take-all electoral system is undemocratic?
One voice that has been quiet since the election-JD Vance. What’s going on?
I enjoy and appreciate your charts and analysis - but wonder why any of it matters when it is clear that facts and reality don't matter anymore?
The only way I see the Dems getting rid of Trump and Trumpism is to let him fail, miserably, by allowing him to get his way, not blocking appointments or bills, etc. Only then will his supporters see how bad he is and hopefully stop supporting him. Painful, I know. But if he's hindered in any way, he'll blame others for his failures and will continue to garnish support. Thoughts?
I agree. Let him get what he wants. We'll either learn he was right or he's wrong and the congress will turn in 2 years. I especially think Dems should let him get his way on the no tax on Tips, OT and Social Security. Those tax cuts benefit people on the lower end of income. Executives don't make tips or OT. Many seniors live on SSA alone. Then if it tanks the economy in 2 years they'll get power back and can institute tax on higher earners to get us out of the hole.
I agree Lesley. Although very painful it will put a quick end to this forever. His supporters don't respond to verbal arguments, but they do respond to actual evidence, even it is does require us to connect the dots. We could, for example, put ourselves into the future and then point out that Trump took away the ACA which is the same as Obamacare, and therefore many elderly folks die painfully without care. (assuming he takes it away and this happens, which it probably will. They won't trust us if we predict it now but they will if we point it out after the fact, by connecting the dots in easy-to-understand ways.)
The sky is falling. The sky is falling.
Elderly have Medicare...that's not a part of Obamacare. Obamacare covers people younger than 65 and helps them with the cost when they normally couldn't afford insurance. They took away the individual mandate which was the one thing that would require everyone to have some form of insurance
Truth is like the sun You can shut it out for a time but it ain't going away
Chris, why are you so convinced our democratic institutions will survive a second Trump presidency?
Should Trump try to force the Senate into recess and appoint someone objectionable, what recourse does the Senate have?
Who do you predict will be named head of the DNC?
Since Gaetz was reelected, can he be seated in January.
Republicans have been emboldened by Trump. While there were some bumps along the way in his takeover, his way is now the way to go and there is no room for questions. I feel like Democrats are seen as weak or lacking direction because they don’t have such a rigid platform. But is it really wrong to be a party that can shift with the times, adapt their positions and represent different points of view in a world where things change pretty fast? Republicans are successful because there is no “freedom” of thought. Is it possible for a political party or movement to have a platform that is more flexible and malleable, and still be effective politically? It feels like it’s not, and that feels to go against everything America is supposed to be about. Thoughts?
Good question!
My question is simple. I have not seen any mainstream coverage of Trump‘s promise to pardon all of the January 6 criminals. Surely any nominee for Attorney General will face questions about that in the confirmation process. So therefore, what would the answer to those questions be
I'm sure they'll get questions about the idea but I don't think the AG has anything to do with pardons. He / She is the prosecutor.
With Gaetz out, which nominee is now least likely to be confirmed? Also any idea on who is appointed to replace Gaetz?
Without the fear of reprisals from Donald Trump now that Matt Gaetz is no longer an AG candidate, aren’t there some Republicans who hate him enough to see that the report is released? They don’t owe him a future career as governor and what harm would come to them if they screwed the guy?
Can DeSantis appoint Gaetz to the open US Senate seat? Will he? 🤔
Please NOOOO!!!
My Question revolves around your debating the Trump mandate and some of the promises he made that people supposedly bought into. How can one reconcile the fact that he will deport 11 million illegal immigrants, a good percentage of which work in the food industry, while "lowering the cost of basic food items" or being the king of tariffs while "making America respected in the world again" etc...?
Chris- You said you were not disappointed that Trump won. Are you disappointed that one of the founding principles of our nation that no one is above the law has been destroyed? Regardless of whether Trump would have been found guilty or not, it is a travesty that he was never tried for the 2020 election interference and the stealing of classified documents. He will dismiss the special counsel or they will resign before he takes office. With the Supreme Court granting him immunity, he may very well pardon himself and other allies on his way out of office and nothing can be done to hold him accountable. As an American citizen this makes me feel a deep sense of shame about our country. How can we look at the results of any other legal action in our country the same way going forward? Our trust in the justice system has been seriously injured and I don't know how it can ever recover from this.
I know you took heat in the comments for posting about Trump's overwhelmingly electoral win (which he said and you seem to concur gives him a mandate), but with the popular vote (which I does not matter) now at under 50%, DOES he have a mandate or is this just further proof that the winner-take-all electoral system is undemocratic?
Does a cabinet nominee have to get the affirmative vote of 50 senators (without Vance)?
Besides Rubio. I assume he's a given.