Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

And the Democrats really needed this reset, given the poor state they are in. Sure, the Republicans need a reset of their own, but the Democrats are actually in a worse off position.

There's another trend, in modern times, after two two-term presidents, there's never been another two term president, they've been one term. Or more simply, it's really rare to have three two-term presidents in a row. The last time this ever happened was in the late 19th century.

Of course, 45 isn't exactly a huge number.

I think I read that in a 538 article, I don't remember the source exactly atm.

[Reelya]

I think it was even earlier than that, 1820.

George Washington served two terms, he was followed by his Vice President Adams, who lost his re-election bid in 1800 to Jefferson, who served two terms, Madison then served two terms, and Monroe won in 1816 and won re-election in 1820. (EDIT: So it literally hasn't happened since the days of the founding fathers).

At this stage, the last three terms have given two-term presidents. Part of that might be the exceptional level of stability enjoyed by America. USA beat their sole remaining global rival to become the bar-none undisputed most powerful nation on Earth by the early 1990s. Crime is down, poverty is down, murder is down, rape is down, most bad things are way down, regardless of the doom and gloom populist rhetoric and occasional flare-ups.

So the question is whether that is going to continue or be derailed by this administration. My gut feeling is that people will have had enough within four years, but you can't really tell because that's what instability is all about. Perhaps the Long Knives will come out, and Trump will not be the Republican candidate in 2020. Normally, the incumbent is basically assured victory so it's a nominal choice, but I believe 2020 will be tooth and nails GOP primaries like never before. Maybe Trump won't even seek re-election, but I doubt that.

[smjjames]

It might have been Vox, but their search engine is terrible (no search by date for one). Still looking at Vox, but have to go through the archive.

This is not the source I'm remembering, but it might partially explain it: http://jimbuie.blogs.com/slenderthreads/2014/01/cycles-of-american-elections-suggest-us-is-ripe-for-one-term-presidency-after-2016.html

[Reelya]

Rather than say it's random chance, which is e.g. what the XKCD comic suggests, there might be underlying reason for it.

Long election cycles between parties might actually encourage both parties becoming full of entrenched inflexible factions, and eventually that erodes both sides of politics' relevance to the public, whereas shorter terms break up those older alliances and lead to a recalibration of party policies more in line with what the public want. e.g. Bush Senior lost after one term, basically the end of "Cold War" political establishment, and then 8 years later Bush Junior comes along with a decidedly post-Cold-War style of right wing politics.

Sure, Obama brought in new blood in 2008, but being there 8 years means there's not a lot of opportunity for other up-and-coming types to get a go.

[Rolan7]

Look, I know this may seem like an amusing speedbump on the way to a brief period of wild, anarchic success.
And maye it is!

Gods, I hope it is.
And so does the main character of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CccPPDe2JU

[Lord Shonus]

Much like the regular attempts to repeal the Presidential Term Limit amendment

Wait, what?

It's like how the President maintains that the War Powers Act is an unconstitutional infringement on the right of the President's rights as Commander-in-Chief. Every single President since it was signed has maintained this stance, and I strongly doubt Trump will break on this (although he might not be aware of it). The President also recognizes that the law is the law and follows it anyway, as to avoid a constitutional crisis, but, well, yeah.

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was referring to the constant "repeal the 22nd Amendment" bills that get introduced and die in committee almost every session of Congress since the 22nd was ratified.

[Reelya]

Sean Spicer is dangerous, that guy basically seems to be making up policy literally while he's talking. I mean his 20% tariff and then he says "It could be a multitude of things. Right? It could be, instead of 20 percent it could be 18 it could be 5"

Yeah, who knows, it could be a multitude of things. Well Sean Spicer, shut the fuck up. You're meant to be the goddamn White House Press Secretary, your job is to already know wtf you're talking about then you tell us. Your job is not to rattle off 5 different mutually exclusive policies per sentence that this administration may or may not pursue. It's that clear level of bullshit that really exemplifies the cowboy nature of this administration above all others.

Or you know the real danger, is that Sean Spicer is Jeff Gannon, but this time he's ringmaster not the stooge in the crowd, and they put a deliberately incompetent person in there so they can turn the whole media side of things into a circus while they enact whatever sinister shit they have planned. Sean Spicer is almost too incompetent for that to be accidental, and calling on "LifeZette" for the first question really drives home how they seem to be turning this into a circus show on purpose.

[Neonivek]

You know Reelya, the president could be Trump, it also could be an orange.

[Loud Whispers]

Argument from popularity

That's so basic m8
For starters just splurging out all the fallacies you've got remembered is not an argument, seconds, I wasn't even making an argument I asked a question xD

No, it's "I'm the one with the gun"!!

I like my saying more. Your one feeds arrogance, mine feeds respect for enemies, the former kills you

[Neonivek]

I like my saying more. Your one feeds arrogance, mine feeds respect for enemies, the former kills you

They both kill you. You don't want to ACTUALLY respect your enemies.

You want to say something that seems like a compliment but is really a biting insult

[Lord Shonus]

Does anyone know anything about Gorsuch other than what Wikipedia has to say? Most of what I can find is either good or neutral, with the only negative being the choice of gay marriage as an example of judicial activism, when it really doesn't compare to most of what that label encompasses.

[Reelya]

He should have gone with Ann C.

[Hanslanda]

So, I was hearing about some of Trump's executive orders, and I was struck by his malignant intelligence. Bear with me, for a moment. So he wrote an executive order to get the wall started or bid or whatever, and his intent was to pay the people building it $85 an hour (This is just what I heard, could be a misunderstanding). Okay, that's unrealistic, and it got me thinking.

Trump promised a wall, knowing it is an ineffective measure to prevent a few countries from illegally immigrating (Mexico, Central American countries) when the real issue is countries like China and India, who are in fact the two nations responsible for the highest amount of illegal immigrants. Common people don't know that much about the stuff, so Trump promises the wall, writes the order, and creates a bloated, impossible-to-get-funded-by-Congress budget for it. Congress turns it down, Trump can say, "Hey, I tried to build the wall, those shifty fuckers in the Senate denied me! Sorry folks! I'm fighting for you!"

He doesn't have to fulfill a blatantly idiotic campaign promise without losing any points on his popularity.

Mind you, I could be wildly misinterpreting, and I don't have... Like, any facts to support this. Just supposition. But shit man, if this is what he is doing, he's one crafty old fucker.

[LoSboccacc]

dunno, "guy with the gun" defines better his characters, somehow - it's telling "might makes right", instead of stating the character alignment and given the scene is the turning point between Ash running and Ash fighting back, underlines more the tone shift.

[Frumple]

He doesn't have to fulfill a blatantly idiotic campaign promise without losing any points on his popularity.

Mind you, I could be wildly misinterpreting, and I don't have... Like, any facts to support this. Just supposition. But shit man, if this is what he is doing, he's one crafty old fucker.

He's not a crafty old fucker, he's a barely competent con man (vis a vis scamming methodology specifically; most other things he's by all appearances and history pretty shit at) that happened to luck into a demographic that seriously wanted to be conned and was entangled with a lot of folks that were willing to push it along so they can take various sorts of advantages of the mess, and had been working to prime the demographic in question for someone like him for literal decades. Making impossible or unlikely promises and then blaming something else (particularly while saying you need more funding/support/whatever to overcome said something) when they fall through is confidence scam 101.* It's the basics of basics of how to con someone that wants to believe you.

*I've been around and listening to a scammer trying to defraud one of my grandparents for, like... a half decade now, probably more. "Oh, I tried, but taxes/bank/government/etc./fucking etc. is delaying what I was trying to send! We need a small down payment to clear this up/process the paperwork/etc./fucking etc." There's nothing crafty about this stuff, you just need someone that isn't going to call you on your bullshit. The tricky part is that latter bit, and trump himself had little to nothing to do with it.

E: Just... just, seriously. Don't play this shit up, please. What trump did was not some kind of coup, it was the same crap you see out of jackasses sitting in bumfuck nowhere behind a caller ID spoofer, spending their days ripping off the elderly. Anyone willing to throw out any resemblance of ethical fiber can do the same thing, the only unusual bit in this case was the circumstances, not the actor involved.