According to Hannity,Obama made artificially cheap money.
Hmm. Look two posts up.
This might be true, I don’t know. I know both Bill Clinton and Obama suffered major defeats in the first midterms of their tenures (1994 and 2010).
Bush sr. and Bush jr. did not experience any losses in their first midterms (Bush jr didn’t experience major congressional losses until his 6th year).
In a way, low voter turnout benefits the democrats too.
Womenhave higher voter turnout than men. Highly educated people (college degree or graduate degree) vote more than the high school educated.
Women are more democratic than men, and highly educated people are more democratic than the high school educated (at least among white voters, among non-whites it doesn’t matter much). So in theory, periods of low turnout should see more women, and more college educated people voting while the less educated and men are more likely to stay home. Who knows.
But yeah, its a dark time. For the GOP to lose they have to fuck everything up royally. For the democrats to lose they just have to not be perfect.
To those who are seriously depressed about the big picture (and not without cause), I talk myself off the ledge by telling myself:
Between the Civil War and Teddy Roosevelt, aka The Gilded Age, the country was run by robber barons and the legislative process was completely corrupt.
McCarthyism (1945-1955): we totally lost our minds in response to the post-war Soviet Union and decided we couldn’t afford a Bill of Rights – blacklists and loyalty oaths ensued.
So we’ve been here before. If the rot is deeply engrained it can’t be fixed by just passing a law (e.g., I dunno, requiring that presidential candidates pass a high school civics test) and it may take a generation, but we can pull out of it.
I hope you’re right.
We can pull out of it, but we need to get over this pervasive idea that if Trump is shown to be a criminal monster blah blah blah and is thrown out of office that the GOP will be forever tarnished and ashamed and liberalism will triumph. There is no such thing as a permanent win.
The work will not end, no matter what any election or any investigation or any swing in public sentiment may look like. The work is just getting started.
ETA: There’s also no such thing as a permanent loss. Just get back up.
When I start to feel better, I like to remind myself that Nixon was chased out of office, totally disgraced, widely recognized as a crook. Republicans were shamed! In 1976, Carter won! In 1980, we got Reagan.
Exactly.
There is no happy ever after, not for us and not for our political foes. So, no complacency, no waiting for a savior, just hard work.
Bah. Yes the political two step. trump is so, so much worse than Nixon. That was peanuts.
trump is actively trying to destroy the FBI and the Justice Department for no other reason than his vanity. His supporters in congress and the billionaires that aren’t rich enough are using this dull tool to further enrich themselves.
True. Nixon and his cronies were crooks, but not all the Republicans in Congress. The Republicans were the ones who got him to stand down, after all–Barry Goldwater delivered the cup of hemlock. The Nixon crisis wasn’t anything like what we’ve got going on today.
я знаю, and used to write it like that, until eschereal interestingly brought to my attention that the цар spelling embeds “tsar” in the middle, which is, indeed, a much more apt description of President Burning Shitbag.
State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert is all woe-is-me over Russian sanctions deterring those aaaawww, those poor widdle Russian defense acquisitions.
Where the hell do these folks get their names? 
:smack: heh - nothin like addressing people twice over.:smack:
There’s also the fact Nixon was a crook, but at least he was a patriotic crook.
Nixon was essentially fighting his own fight. Once certain truths were revealed, he lost his supporters in the polls and in congress. It’s true that in some regards it was easier for Nixon to abuse his power - it was easier for him to fire his subordinates at the DoJ, for instance. But overall, institutional strength and public trust in the institutions that were challenging Nixon were much more formidable. People have always been skeptical of the news media, but they had more faith in mainstream media than they do now.
It’s a different era now, and we’re so fixated on Trump that we’re ignoring the gradual shift in the balance of power between private interests and public institutions. The repeated attacks on the FBI and the DOJ represent some of the most strident attacks on law enforcement institutions in at least the last 50 years, and in some regards, they’re without precedent. If Trump were politically isolated, his attacks would be increasingly futile, but it’s just the opposite. They’re becoming more and more strident. And that’s because he has very powerful people - who share the same desires to demolish federal power - standing behind him, and they’re not always obvious or visible.
It’s a different era now, indeed, and if we’re looking to precedents to find comfort, we’re not going to find them. The attacks are going to continue. The attempts to destroy the federal government and the balance between public and private power will also continue. And they will be increasingly shocking.
Never in American history has a political party - not a single candidate, but a political party that controls the congress, the white house, and dominates most state legislatures - knowingly colluded with an avowed foreign adversary. That’s unprecedented in American history, and it’s probably unprecedented in the history of any modernized Western democracy. And we’re not using the past tense here – they’re almost certainly still colluding. This is off-the-charts compared to anything Richard M. Nixon ever even fathomed doing on the nights of some of his worst drinking binges.
Just to pick a nit, they won’t destroy the FBI or the DOJ; what’s at stake is whether these institutions continue to serve the public interest, or whether they are ultimately reconstituted to serve special interests and weaponized to destroy opponents of the regime. That’s what’s at stake here, just to be clear.
I agree with the ‘no permanent win,’ etc.
But though you’re right that Trump being proven a criminal won’t tarnish the GOP (nor cause the GOP Congress to do anything whatsoever about Trump), that doesn’t mean that nothing would cause the GOP congress to do something about Trump. And I think we just saw, yesterday, a hint of what actually WOULD budge them from their current position of enablers. What we saw, yesterday, of course, was that historic plummet of the stock market.
If any reputable polling organization had checked on Trump’s favorability on Thursday, February 1 (before Friday’s 666-point drop) and then again today, after yesterday’s 1175-point drop, then, I’d guess, the results would have shaken the resolve of the Trump-apologists in both House and Senate.
Of course all this means ‘rooting for the economy to fail’ and I don’t want to do that. But an accumulation of economic failures of post-January-2017 policies does have the potential to scare off Trump’s Congressional bootlickers. The over-stimulus of the tax cut; the return of ‘fleece-the-consumer’-style dropping of regulations; the already-apparent failure of Trump’s signature ‘bring jobs back to the USA’ efforts----all of this could add up…
…Without, I hope, genuinely crashing the economy. If Trump Admin/GOP Congressional policies stick it to the to 5%—as continued stock market drops would do—then the 5% will let their GOP Senators and Representatives know that they’re not happy.
And that could lead the enablers to…stop enabling.
No, he was a treasonous fuck.
e.g.: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/opinion/sunday/nixons-vietnam-treachery.html
Aye; he was. And all because he wanted power for himself. Not to wield on behalf of the nation, but to wield for himself. A monumental megalomaniacal asshole: Nixon.