President Trump

[jal]

I refuse to believe that the Democrats' answer to Hillary is Bernie or Liz Warren. I will not accept that capitalism and our financial system has to be torn down completely, and make no mistake, these two would tear it down. True, capitalism was running amok from 1994 until 2007, I even said so on these pages in the past. But regulation has taken it to another extreme, and the tepid growth of the last few Obama years is, I am convinced, the result of overeager regulators that have all but choked lending by banks to small businesses.

Now, conservatism has not covered itself in glory either. The social agenda of the GOP has long been to "Protect Thy Tycoon" by lowering taxes on the super rich while removing the safety net from the middle and lower classes. The result is that the party was hijacked by a vulgar demagogue.

What's the answer? I don't have one. I would love a candidate who embraces a social agenda with a conservative fiscal one. I did think Hillary for all her character flaws was the closest thing around.

I'm truly depressed by the results. I now think that once Trump fails the next president will be Warren.

[JCNorthway]

jal said,

I would love a candidate who embraces a social agenda with a conservative fiscal one.

I think that is how our BD has described his philosophy. Is it time to start the grass roots effort now?

[Chateau Vin]

jal said,

I would love a candidate who embraces a social agenda with a conservative fiscal one.

I think that is how our BD has described his philosophy. Is it time to start the grass roots effort now?

That's what I have been yearning for. Fiscal conservativism with inclusive social agenda...

[Blanquito]

Fine, I am not sure I buy it, but I'll accept the fact that most Trump supporters may have been hiding in the closet for fear of confrontation. I totally buy the change argument, though, I have never been an Obama groupie (I cringed when you put him in #8, Jim, omitting Polk and Truman). I also accept that Hillary was an unacceptable candidate to many voters.

What I am still shocked about is how wrong the pollsters were, I mean we're not talking small margins here, according to all these luminaries, she should have won by a landslide, 93% chance of winning!! And I don't want to hear crap about the FBI, conspiracy theories or popular vote vs electoral college! This should not even have been an issue, the experts should have been able to sift through all this crap and at least give us a hint of how close this could be.

The final polling average gave Clinton a roughly 3% lead in the national vote (and a few polls even had Trump ahead). After all the remaining west coast absentee and provisional ballots are counted, she should "win" the national vote by close to 1%. I only read 538 for the most part which gave Hillary a 70% chance of victory the day before, but they warned for months that if things tightened all it would take was a 2 point polling error (which is the average national polling "miss" since 1972) for Trump to win and that he was more likely to win the electoral college than the popular vote. The only time it looked like a blow out win for Hillary was in the week or so after the Access Hollywood tape came out. Then the FBI bombshell hit and the race tightened up again a lot and left us with a collection of polls that said it would be a close election.

One can argue that which such a flawed opponent, Hillary should have won handily whatever October surprises came along. I can see that point to be sure.

[jal]

I was mainly looking at the NYTimes election projections.
Still, 70% chance and we get this?

[Blanquito]

I would add that even with close polling, I (like most) didn't see this coming, I thought Hillary would win and for all of her focus-group ersatz, that she would be a good president. I knew it would be close in FL and NC but I thought her turnout operation would put her over the top there, and nothing I saw said we needed to really worry about PA, WI and MI.

This was an incredibly close election historically. The 2000 election numbed us to how close this was. But the election turned on 100,000 votes in 3 states whose combined population is 28.2 million people.

[Racer Chris]

One thing that stands out to me is the relatively low participation of the electorate this year, and not much different for both sides of the aisle.
I thought that close to 60% participation was typical, but I saw a chart that showed over 46% of eligible voters did not vote this time.
The pro change electorate needed to be more energized than the pro status quo electorate and that's all it took.
The complacency of Democrats who weren't motivated to participate is troubling given how much was at stake.
But I'm really bothered that what did energize the normally disaffected voters was largely a pack of lies.

[Blanquito]

Yes, turnout was down by more than 7 million votes from 2012 and nearly 10 million from 2008. John McCain in 2008 won more votes than Trump just did.

[JimHow]

Watching Trump's arrival at the White House.
My head is going to explode.

[Blanquito]

I wonder how Bernie would have fared.
I'll bet he would have won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
One thing we know, he wouldn't have done worse than losing.
The public wanted change.
They're tired of the same old establishment politicians.
They're tired of the Clintons, and the Bushes, and the same old hacks like Bayh, Feingold, blah, blah, blah.
I know the Trumpsters don't like it when we say this, and I'm certainly not saying all Trump supporters are racists, but there was some level of a racial element to what happened on Tuesday. As the guy on CNN said, there was a (certain) "white-lash." Trump brought out a pent up hatred in a lot of people that has been stewing for 8 years. That's just one man's opinion.
There also needs to be a housecleaning in the Democratic Party. I have been bitching about it here. Enough of this Chelsea Clinton, Huma Abadin, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman, Donna Brazile (yikes, all women) let's-rig-the-primaries-with-"super"-delegates and hand the nomination to Hillary crowd.
The Democratic elites wanted Hillary, and they got her.
The Democratic elites are incredibly arrogant, and they got spanked.
The grass roots wanted Bernie, but the elites did everything they could to cut him off.
Hillary was just an uninspiring candidate. She was same-old-same-old. She didn't campaign hard. Her crowds were uninspired and small. Her polls were declining before the first Comey letter. The Republicans did a number on her. I never bought into the whole email or Benghazi "scandals," but she has had many "issues" over the years that have skirted ethical/legal boundaries.
And this sex stuff, people just don't care about. I personally have no doubt that Trump is a misogynist, but people don't care. in fact, I think the piling on by all the women who came out decades letter had a reverse effect, it gave Trump more ammunition to spread his lies and propaganda against the rigged media, crooked Hillary, etc. I tried to tell you guys that the race was far from over after the Access Hollywood tape.
One thing that this election makes clear is that, when picking a nominee, you better get it right. The weak, bloated, content, elite, arrogant, score-me-tickets-t0-Hamilton-wine-and-cheese-Park-Avenue-crowd Democratic Party picked tired old Hillary and it was the wrong choice. And now we will face disastrous consequences. There will be massive religiosity interjected into public policy at all levels. I predict an "era of Mike Pence," in the same sense that Dick Cheney really ran things behind the scenes in Bush's administration. There will be more gerrymandering, more voter suppression (supported/advanced by a Guilliani DOJ and ultra-conservative federal judges), Roe v. Wade is dead as a door knob, there will be infringements on a free press, the white male will be back with a Mad Men vengeance the likes of which we haven't seen since, well, the sixties.
There will be an increase in terrorism in this country, with predictable Patriot-Act-like responses.
There will be more poverty. The hate, bigotry, war-against-the-poor that guys like Paul LePage have perpetrated in places like up here in northern Maine will continue to spread in large pockets across the country. Trump, who like Bush campaigned as a non-interventionist, will instead, like W, be quick to invoke th U.S. military in the middle east and elsewhere.
I'm dying to see how The Wall and his trade proposals all pan out.
And on and on….
It's gonna be very ugly.
The U.S. public was hoodwinked by a demagogue.
But the Democrats share a lot of the blame for not recognizing what the game was.
The two most dangerous men in the country right now are Mike Pence and Paul Ryan. Mark my words.
Ah well, I could go on for hours but I gotta rush off to court.

The American public is very, very stupid and malleable.
This country just totally sucks. It used to be a great place.
But now we are becoming a broken, failed society.
And it is going to get a lot worse….

Time for a revolution….

Warren-Klobuchar '20!

Most depressing post of the year, the vision of the Trump presidency. Jim should have recorded a campaign spot for Hillary.

I also have wondered how Bernie would have done a lot in the last day.

[Blanquito]

[wishful thought for the day]... If the era of Pence plays out like you say, Jim, the mid term elections will be a rebuke to trump and a check on his power. Dems take back the house like in 2006.

[JimHow]

Yeah, I'm less worried about Trump than I am worried about the unbridled radical Republican Congress.

Some of my lawyer buddies and I were drinking our sorrows in a local Lisbon Street restaurant last night. Susan Collins, our moderate U.S. Senator, was there. I didn't get a chance to talk to her. She is literally the only moderate Republican in the senate, and of course the House is completely lost.

[JimHow]

I hope you are right, Patrick, but I think I heard somewhere that 25 out of the 33/34 senators up for reelection in 2018 are Democrats, which will make it tough to make inroads. Usually the first off-year election is good for the party out of power but it seems to me that it's gonna be tough to accomplish a net gain of seats in the senate.

What was the final shift in the House this year?

[Blanquito]

Looks like the Dems will gain +5 seats in the house, with few races not called yet. But a quick glance showed that the Republicans held onto 15-20 seats by very small margins (2-4 points), so these will be up for grabs in 2 years.

[AKR]

I keep hearing these meme of 'if only 100k votes had been flipped, all would be good'.

That is like blowing a 14 point lead in a ball game, and carping about a 10 yard penalty along the way.

If the race was really that tight, do people really think the policies didn't matter at all?

There are 20mm people in Obamacare -- are they all happy about their premiums and deductions and so on? aren't some of them in swing states? could they not have been the margin of defeat? Every story I pick up in the media about that seems to have some level of unhappiness. This is people experiencing a government program in real life, as opposed to the rosy promises when it was sold. Who are they going to believe - someone's flapping lips, or they own lying eyes? http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/03/im- ... lose-call/

Obama & HRC campaigned hard against the NRA this last cycle. Both took every chance they could to denounce them, and in states where there is ironclad blue control (NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA, MD etc.) gun owning voters in other states have observed what happens, no matter how much HRC says she will permit RKBA. 300mm guns in the US, perhaps among I don't know, 50mm households? Could not some gun owners/NRA members been in swing states? Could some of them not been that margin of defeat? Was nothing learned from her husbands 1994 gun ban, and Congress flipping 50+ seats?

I could go on. But it seems like its easier for liberals to blame HRC, rather than platforms and policies, for what happened.

[JimHow]

Trump snuck into the White House for his meeting with Obama.
Presumably to not give the mainstream media any photo ops.
Jesus Christ, here we go.

[Chateau Vin]

[wishful thought for the day]... If the era of Pence plays out like you say, Jim, the mid term elections will be a rebuke to trump and a check on his power. Dems take back the house like in 2006.

I wish what you said becomes true, but I doubt it. IMO Democrats will not be able to take the house until redistricting occurs after 2020 census. All the gerry mandering that was done after 2010 is paying dividends for Rep and will continue to do so.

There will be no check on his power. Heck, he will nominate judges that are favorable for his business. It raised eyebrows how much money Clintons made through speeches, dealings, etc. after Clinton left office pretty much average, if not broke (we know their finances because they showed their taxes for decades). This would be peanuts compared to what Trump et al would make within next 4 years. We don't know his business, his income, his dealings, etc. If one could think about personal benefit the clinton foundation has facilitated for the clintons, it's not that hard to imagine what personal financial benefits Trump and his business would garner he being in the whitehouse. If someone questions about the financial benefit through presidency, he will scoff that he made all the money through his "tremendous" business before he took office. Moreover, he would never release his taxes (audit or not) and the public wouldn't know anything. Even now, we don't even know whether he is millionaire or a billionaire... The people have been played for suckers, and will pay for his presidency bigly...

[Chateau Vin]

I keep hearing these meme of 'if only 100k votes had been flipped, all would be good'.

That is like blowing a 14 point lead in a ball game, and carping about a 10 yard penalty along the way.
.
.
.

But Arv, the difference is if you blow the 14 point lead, that's your making and it's your fault. But if that 10 yard penalty determines the game between losing and winning by 1 point, because of a third person referee calling the penalty (that was not a penalty in the first place), that's a problem...

I was just saying this is a problem, because I served as the Precinct Inspector the day before and I understand to what great lengths the training/operational dos and donts and procedures go to have a fair election, starting with what to/what not to wear, what to/what not to say, what to/what not to do, etc. IMO, the FBI did not do what is supposed to do...

[AKR]

I keep hearing these meme of 'if only 100k votes had been flipped, all would be good'.

That is like blowing a 14 point lead in a ball game, and carping about a 10 yard penalty along the way.
.
.
.

But Arv, the difference is if you blow the 14 point lead, that's your making and it's your fault. But if that 10 yard penalty determines the game between losing and winning by 1 point, because of a third person referee calling the penalty (that was not a penalty in the first place), that's a problem...

I was just saying this is a problem, because I served as the Precinct Inspector the day before and I understand to what great lengths the training/operational dos and donts and procedures go to have a fair election, starting with what to/what not to wear, what to/what not to say, what to/what not to do, etc. IMO, the FBI did not do what is supposed to do...

I don't even think HRC blew the game, to continue that analogy. Before the game even started they were locked into policies and strategies that had consequences. Being the handmaiden to urban progessives and ignoring those who live outside the top 20 MSA's, eventually had some cost. Bill Clinton didn't ignore that segment, he won all kinds of areas and regions. Didn't he win Arizona and Montana and some of these areas that might be expected to be GOP? He did that by pulling his party to the center, away from the 3 prior losing campaigns, run on more liberal promises.

Those are what look to me like they cost the big differences in voters. I guess we'll see the next cycle if the same policies, the same ideas, presented on a different plate are more palatable.

==========

I was listening to NPR on the ride home last night (almost never listen to it) and they had some interview with a Freedom Caucus GOP member. Very polished guy. They were asking him about DJT's massive spending plans. The guy had a great line "We know Trump is the master of bankruptcy but we aren't going to let him bankrupt America".

[Chateau Vin]

==========

I was listening to NPR on the ride home last night (almost never listen to it) and they had some interview with a Freedom Caucus GOP member. Very polished guy. They were asking him about DJT's massive spending plans. The guy had a great line "We know Trump is the master of bankruptcy but we aren't going to let him bankrupt America".

It's funny what he said. Agreed, not everybody is in the same tax bracket and does not pay equal amount of taxes, but isn't the per capita debt in the US around $60K, and the median per capita net worth around $50K? Go figure.

Starting in the eighties, every president used the borrowed money to prop up the economy when in trouble, to avoid political suicide. Some of the borrowing was warranted and most of it unwarranted. Just spend, spend like drunken sailors. Yeah, spending works for the economy, until it breaks the back...

Will the republicans truly stop him from binge spending? Polished, my A$$. You can't polish a turd...

[Blanquito]

Watch the deficit and debt explode in the next administration. Between massive tax cuts, a presumed injection of unneeded new military spending, and Trump's spending plans (the wall, infrastructure, deportation force, military aid to Russia, loans to his businesses, etc), and boom goes the deficit. Just like under Reagan and Bush II.

We'll see just how committed the Right is to fiscal probity. But their tax cut plans alone could cause trillions in new debt according to independent analysis.

From what I've read, Obama's deficits were mostly a product of the Bush Great Recession, as revenue plummeted and automatic spending on social programs like unemployment sky rocketed.

[JimHow]

I refuse to believe that the Democrats' answer to Hillary is Bernie or Liz Warren.

Boy, I don't know, Jacques. I looked at the final electoral map. I don't see a single state that Clinton won that Bernie would have lost. And I definitely think he would have won ALL of Maine, including the second district.

Would Bernie have done 1% better in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania?

I say he would have, easily. He would have captured every single person who voted for Hillary. His rallies would have been big, raucous, energized, like Trump's. And he would have tapped into angry white displaced worker resentment, in places like Flint, Lewiston, etc. And he would have brought in the millennials and college crowd in places like Madison, Ann Arbor, etc.

But… alas… Debbie's super delegates knew better….

[AKR]

CV: I meant polished in that he really was slick, no hemming and hawing, knew exactly all his talking points. Now of course he may be all for austerity both for its fiscal and moral cleansing attributes, but he's only got 40 congressmen with him, and if tricky Trump triangulates around him by getting some mix of other congressmen (GOP and Dems) who do want to spend/borrow/lather/rinse/repeat then the deficits could explode. So this group is attuned to that danger, especially from someone who is a serial bankrupter, and has questioned paying our national obligations in the past.

Blanquito: of course the debt/deficits are going to go up -- that's what he promised. That's why conservatives fought him in the primaries, and suffered shattering and humbling defeats before the Dems tasted his trickery. And the bond markets are waking up to the dangers again today. More government spending, more reckless waste, means higher interest rates, which translates into higher mortgage rates for every day people.

Markets are willing to finance deficits if they believe its for good purposes, ie. accretive over the long haul. Right now, investors are willing to lend to the US Treasury, albeit at ever so slightly higher rates. But in Puerto Rico there is no money to be had, no matter what. Personally I think deficit spending is dangerous and needs to be brought downwards, but most politicians have only lived in a world of ever lowering finance rates, and have no taste of 14% government bond yields, and budgets where the biggest line item was interest & principal due.

Maybe he can not be stopped and the best the Freedom Caucus can do is contain him. Give him his spending, and extract cuts elsewhere. I don't underestimate the power of the imperial presidency to coax legislators into betraying the public purse. What elected official can resist when someone offers a bridge in their name? or an overpass? or any other tangible sign of bringing home the bacon to constituents?

[Chateau Vin]

I refuse to believe that the Democrats' answer to Hillary is Bernie or Liz Warren.

Boy, I don't know, Jacques. I looked at the final electoral map. I don't see a single state that Clinton won that Bernie would have lost. And I definitely think he would have won ALL of Maine, including the second district.

Would Bernie have done 1% better in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania?

I say he would have, easily. He would have captured every single person who voted for Hillary. His rallies would have been big, raucous, energized, like Trump's. And he would have tapped into angry white displaced worker resentment, in places like Flint, Lewiston, etc. And he would have brought in the millennials and college crowd in places like Madison, Ann Arbor, etc.

But… alas… Debbie's super delegates knew better….

Although I do not like Bernie's far left policies, I think he would have fared better than Clinton as he did not have the baggage of hers with regards to emails, foundation, elitist attitude. In fact his policies about trade, his talk about washington establishment, his denunciation of corporations, (all of which Trump was also harping on his trail) would have been music to the ears of the distraught people in the rust belt. It's one thing if people do not agree with your policies, but it's another thing if you are personally disliked/hated by the electorate who are angry at washington.

As Arv points out, she embraced so much of the left/progressive agenda of the urbanites, but ignored the needs of the displaced rural folks of the rust belt (talkingabout shutting coal industry while campaigning in WV does not help either). But I think as she was disliked by the Bernie's supporters and had to court them, she could not have moved towards the center. Her usage of 'basket of deplorables' did more harm to her than Trump's derogatory remarks did to him. What she did not realize is that regarding the usage of words, she was being judged differently than Trump. Ah well, we shall see what's in store for US.

[Chateau Vin]

CV: I meant polished in that he really was slick, no hemming and hawing, knew exactly all his talking points. Now of course he may be all for austerity both for its fiscal and moral cleansing attributes, but he's only got 40 congressmen with him, and if tricky Trump triangulates around him by getting some mix of other congressmen (GOP and Dems) who do want to spend/borrow/lather/rinse/repeat then the deficits could explode. So this group is attuned to that danger, especially from someone who is a serial bankrupter, and has questioned paying our national obligations in the past.

.
.
.

I know you meant about the guy being polished in presenting his talking points. In my post, what I meant was, however polished he might be in presenting it, I can see the turd of 'deficit spending' behind his veil of polished presentation...

[AKR]

Oh yeah. Politicians moral fiber in standing fast against spending is always weakened when its on things that they favor.

[JimHow]

Omg have you seen all the neocons on his transition team.
Even the big man Cheney himself.
And the public sees these wonderful friendly images from the Oval Office and think everything, well, maybe, is gonna be ok.
Omg are we in for a ride.

[Tom In DC]

Random thoughts from somewhere in the middle...

Wouldn't we all "love a candidate who embraces a social agenda with a conservative fiscal one"? If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

I agree with Jacques et. al. that Bernie or Liz would blow up too many of the good things from the first 240 years of our country. I dumped the bath water, has anyone seen the baby?

Obama might have written (ever so slightly) fewer executive orders, but some of them were doozies. He made more "fiat law" than any predecessor, so it's all fair game in the future. And the usual stats don't count executive memos that also make policy.

Winning the popular vote is always a big deal for the loser. So let's take a peek at the numbers. A total of 200,000 votes??? That's less than 4,000 votes per state, right? And if we take away the 2,500,000 vote majority in California, HRC loses by 2.3 million votes in the other 49 states. I don't want to get into a flame war about the electoral college, but the country would have never come into existence without it.

Gerrymandering is not the private domain of either party - they are both quite good at it.

Both sides are intolerant to the extreme (look at the previous 50+ pages of screed in this thread if you need any proof) and feel completely justified in their opinions.

75% of the eligible voters did not vote for DJT.

75% of the eligible voters did not vote for HRC.

Jim said:

The American public is very, very stupid and malleable.
This country just totally sucks. It used to be a great place.
But now we are becoming a broken, failed society.
And it is going to get a lot worse….

DJT said the same thing for the last two years. So they agree on a really fundamental basis.

We are already at the end of day two of the 2020 presidential campaign, and I find that horribly depressing.

And you can polish a turd.

[jal]

He would have captured every single person who voted for Hillary.

He would not have captured my vote.

Wouldn't we all "love a candidate who embraces a social agenda with a conservative fiscal one"? If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

I think Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker supporters don't. I think Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren supporters don't. I have no idea what Trump supporters want. Maybe not to be ignored because they certainly were during Obama, Bush and Bill.


Anyways, Tom, I agree with everything else you said. Yes, pretty depressing.

[JScott]

Interesting post-election analysis. Good points all around, Arv, Tom Jacques, Chateau and everyone.

I think Bernie would've done better, and possibly won (without my vote). We've been talking here for six months about the anti-establishment nature of this election. Everyone knew it but the establishment smugly ignored it. The media grossly overplayed their hand here. The past two days I've had more Trump supporters coming out of the woodwork. A few are hard core and love the guy, but most say they didn't like either candidate and voted for Trump last minute because they got tired of hearing everyone tell them they shouldn't. It was a total eff you vote. From that perspective, Kristol, the National Review, Ryan et al probably also played a role (I'd consider giving them credit for a really sly reverse psychological tactic here, but I don't think they're that clever and I think they genuinely despise the guy).

I'm also hearing a lot of histrionics. A young woman tells me her friends are all planning on getting IUD's because birth control will be outlawed. Please. Some of them are saying that their lives are 'literally in danger.' No they literally are not. This literally happens every fours years and each time literally half the country is disappointed. College administrations are offering time off and grief counseling, even at the graduate level. I wish for these people that this is the hardest thing they face in life. There is chatter on social media that LGBT and minorities will be camped and gassed. Not making it up. Another told me that the markets will collapse because the rest of the world so dislikes him they will quit doing business with us. I won't predict the markets, but if they fail it won't be because the world defers profit to principle. I suppose on some level of this happens every election, but it seems to be getting exponentially worse.

I expect Trump will surprise both the left and the right. I am not remotely convinced he is a hard core conservative. With every respect to our fearless leader here, while I wouldn't be surprised to see funding changes, there is not a chance that Roe v Wade is overturned. He will bust the budget (and while Bush did Obama no favors, after eight years you own it - the debt doubled). I have to say, there is something very surreal about watching Trump sitting in the White House.

I am no fan of either the Dems or GOP as currently constructed, because to me they both represent the antithesis of what everyone here seems to be saying they want. Both are fiscally irresponsible as hell, just claiming my spending is better than your spending. Socially, neither is truly tolerant either. Again, it's just my coercion is better than yours.

[JimHow]

there is not a chance that Roe v Wade is overturned.

I'm curious why you say that Scott?
Almost from the day the case was decided, decisions on Roe have been closely divided along ideological grounds, usually by 5-4 votes.
Various states have been aggressive in passing laws against abortion rights, but have been overturned at the federal level by the narrowest of margins.
Trump has made it clear that he will only appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices who are anti-abortion.
It will still likely be a states rights issue, but as for a federal constitutional right to choose, why do you think Trump's election doesn't jeopardize that?

[Racer Chris]

I have to say, there is something very surreal about watching Trump sitting in the White House.

For sure.

He looked uncomfortable, while Obama looked relaxed in comparison.
He also looked a little dazed and confused by the amount of detail the outgoing president wanted to share in their first meeting.
And I'm sure he wasn't expecting such a warm welcome after the way he railed against Obama during his campaign.

[Racer Chris]

Today on Morning Joe, Michael Moore predicted that President Trump will not last 4 years.
Moore's expectation is that the narcissist fascist tendencies in him will cause him to make a serious mistake and violate a law which gets him impeached.

[AKR]

Definitely. Ted Cruz will be watching like a constitutional hawk waiting for revenge. Oh how I would love that. That way both HRC and DJT would have that on their permanent records, and Speaker Ryan could get into the White House somehow. Maybe Pence appoints him VP.

In the meantime maybe Peter Theil for the SCOTUS? Stanford Law Degree, pure genius, incorruptible, great libertarian. Also would check the box for another first: first gay justice.

[Chateau Vin]

Some of the reaction expressed to Trump's victory is simply overreaction. Like Scott mentioned, LGBT, lives in danger, etc. (Similar things happened when obama won. Like people rushing to buy guns and buying survival kits to join militia and fight the government). I am not saying, they didn't feel that way. But it's a bit over the top considering the roles of republican congress and even conservative court have. But for some people like illegal immigrants, the threat is real. We have seen families separated even in obama administration, so it can only get worse under Trump administration.

But I strongly worry about authoritarian government. He has been a my way or highway kinda guy right from his adulthood as much as we know. Why would he change now in his seventies? His rhetoric on the campaign is always about beating up, locking up, kicking out whoever he disagrees with. Oh BTW, those things are routine in banana republics run by dictators. Someone mentioned that during his photo op with Obama, he looked lost, uncomfortable and overwhelmed. But I see a person who is serious to rip everything off demeanor.

To bolster this, I would point out that he even surrounded hinself with such people. Rudolf Giuliani is known for that, and I still remember his mayoral days when he was called as not Rudolf, but Adolf.

We all know about Christie. He bashes everyone he disagree with him. Even in press conferences, when reporters ask uncomfortable questions, he yells at them, calls them stupid and tells them to get out. There are dozens of clips on YouTube. Oh, he is so revengeful. Ask the mayor of Fort Lee over an endorsement, that too from a rival party guy even though someone from your own party is not obligated to endorse.

Oh, that sherrif from Milwaukee. The guy who said the protesters are law breaking anarchists when few weeks ago, when Trump's chips are down in the polls, he said that it's time for people to come out with pitchforks and torches to protest the rigged system.

Never mind the sheriff from Arizona. How much more authoritarian can you be? Well looks like you can go all the way not only refusing the court order but also thumbing his nose against the court directive.

Surrounding yourself with Alt right. Should I say more about the Revenge of the Right? Heck, the revengeful attitude is so ingrained from top to bottom that even that girl from Apprentice is proud and gleeful about 'keeping a list' of people who did not endorse him.

As far I can see...

As Jim said, religious interjection at policy level is gonna happen. Defunding planned parenthood, restricting access to birth control, etc.

Very good chance Roe v Wade is done with

Deficit will balloon and he would care less about national debt

Gut epa, fcc and regulations

Redo healthcare after ripping obamacare. Ironically, I feel that he would introduce similar bill sans contraception related coverage

US will lose goodwill among its allies

Probably he will make a deal with Russians in certain areas where US will turn a blind eye. He will be fine with muslims fighting fellow muslims and would care less if scores of innocent civilians die.

All the above he can and will do and the republican congress would not object. Probably the issues related to trade, immigration, nato and things of that nature he would have to make deals with congress.

[JimHow]

The Jim How Top Ten Greatest Presidents, and their Bordeaux wine counterparts…..

#10. Dwight Eisenhower. It was tough, there are about 5 or 6 others who could easily be included in the top 10, I'll mention them in honorable mention at the end. But if I have to pick, I have to include Ike in my top ten. He gets in, of course, at least as much if not more for his leadership in WWII, managing the competing personalities involved. As president he presided over post-war growth and prosperity, the interstate highway system, appointed Earl Warren, provided moderation at a time the country welcomed it, warned against the military-industrial complex. He was strong and solid, nothing fancy, but great backbone, like a great St. Estephe, a Cos d'estournel of the 1980s or even a Montrose of the 2000s. B+.

#9: Woodrow Wilson: Despite his faults, he ushered in a new era. In his 8 years there was a paradigm shift in world power, as the United States emerged at the top. He was celebrated mightily in Europe at the end of World War I, enhancing American power and strength (for better and worse). Despite its ultimate failures, the League of Nations set a template and created a mechanism for the solution of world problems that was quite revolutionary at the time and that set in motion for the next century a new way of thinking about global relations that had never existed before in the history of the world. The population and immigration influx grew enormously during his administration. His racism will knock him down from a higher standing but, hey, there will be others higher on this list who owned hundreds of slaves. Presiding over victory in World War I tends to score high with most historians. He was an incredibly lusty, pornographic lover, writing literally thousands of unapologetically pornographic letters to his two wives. He suffered a serious stroke and the fruit did not survive the tannins. He was an intellectual, stern, with a surprising sultriness… like the 2002 left bank Bordeaux vintage. B+.

#8: Barack Obama: 1989-Lynch-Bages-like. As we have sunk to crazy depths in American politics in the past 20-30 years, Obama has shown class, steadiness, quiet strength. He can be infuriating at times when he "plays the game" of Democratic Party politics. I almost took him off the list this week for his continuing support of Debbie Wasserman alone. (James Polk sadly goes out of the top ten, I really wanted to get him in there.) But I think that, regardless of the outcome this November, the world is going to miss this guy. He scores very big points in my book for his class, intelligence, calm. He and his administration have been scandal free, no small task in this day and age. He has a beautiful family. Obamacare may not be everything people hoped for, but it is at least a beginning. And it is a FDR-like "big idea" that will go down in history as a success. He stalked and got Bin Laden. He has been steadfast for women's rights, which to me is one of the top three most important issues. He is witty. He has a lot of Hillary in him in that he is slow to come around on certain issues until the polls say it is okay, but for some reason it doesn't offend me as much. He has a charming geekiness about him. His life story is compelling, his election historic. Certain economic indicators like the stock market, unemployment, inflation, interest rates, etc., may seem strong but belie fundamental, structural weaknesses in the economy that he has not had much impact upon in his 8 years, keeping him from a higher grade. I guess, in the end, I just think he's a good man, a basically decent person. He inherited some awful messes. I guess we'll have to see how his foreign policies end up playing out, but in general I think if you answer the Reagan question: Politics aside, "are we better off today than we were 8 years ago?" I say, the answer is "Yes." B+.

#7: James Madison. As I've said several times, this country has been REALLY lucky to have some great stewards in the office of the presidency. With only a few notable exceptions (and one that I'm sure some will find very surprising on my list), even our less successful presidents have carried the torch well, certainly when you compare them up against what we see in other parts of the world. It was a completely different universe, of course, an age when the president used to just walk or ride his horse out among the public. But in many ways James Madison bears some similarities to Eisenhower, in the sense that perhaps his greatest accomplishments occurred BEFORe he became president, then went on to have a successful two term administration during a time of dramatic post-war growth. James Madison was "The Father of the Constitution," with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton one of the authors of The Federalist Papers, tasked with selling the Constitution to the skeptical states. As if that wasn't enough, he basically wrote the Bill of Rights -- something we take for granted today but by no means a given in his day. He was part of a group of men that come around once every thousand years or so. He was integral to the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the young country. His young wife Dolley expanded the role of the first lady, again, stuff we take for granted today. His leadership and writing had as much of an impact on the path of American jurisprudence that was to come for two centuries. What a man! A bit of a tannic streak with the mismanagement of the War of 1812, but a beast of a president! 1982 Gruaud Larose. A-minus.

#6: Theodore Roosevelt. Any president who is shot in the chest by a would-be assassin and, bleeding substantially, nonetheless went on to give a 90 minute speech because, hey, he wasn't coughing up blood, surely deserves top ten consideration. Teddy was a legendary hunter and outdoorsman before, during, and after his years as president. He served in the Spanish-American War as part of the "Rough Riders." After the war he was elected governor of New York. President William McKinley selected him as vice-president and when McKinley was assassinated, he took office as the youngest president ever (still to this day). He was an incredibly activist president, bringing the emerging United States into the new post-Victorian century. He took on trust busting and government corruption, and brought in heavy regulation of food and drugs. You read the ingredients on your food labels today because of Teddy Roosevelt. He was the greatest conservationist, protecting thousands of acres of pristine land and creating our national park system. In foreign affairs, he promised that America would "speak softly but carry a big stick." He was garrulous, loud, sometimes obnoxious, proud, but committed to helping those most in need in the growing country… perhaps the quintessential American, at least of the time. His expeditions to Africa and South America are stories of legend. He was a universal man. Richard Nixon pitifully hearkened to "TR" in his farewell speech to the White House staff before he resigned:

"Now, however, we look to the future. I had a little quote in the speech last night from T.R. [Theodore Roosevelt]. As you know, I kind of like to read books. I am not educated, but I do read books -- and the T.R. quote was a pretty good one. Here is another one I found as I was reading, my last night in the White House, and this quote is about a young man. He was a young lawyer in New York. He had married a beautiful girl, and they had a lovely daughter, and then suddenly she died, and this is what he wrote. This was in his diary.

He said, "She was beautiful in face and form and lovelier still in spirit. As a flower she grew and as a fair young flower she died. Her life had been always in the sunshine. There had never come to her a single great sorrow. None ever knew her who did not love and revere her for her bright and sunny temper and her saintly unselfishness. Fair, pure and joyous as a maiden, loving, tender and happy as a young wife. When she had just become a mother, when her life seemed to be just begun and when the years seemed so bright before her, then by a strange and terrible fate death came to her. And when my heart's dearest died, the light went from my life forever."

That was T.R. in his twenties. He thought the light had gone from his life forever -- but he went on. And he not only became President but, as an ex-President, he served his country, always in the arena, tempestuous, strong, sometimes wrong, sometimes right, but he was a man."

"TR" came back to run for the presidency in 1912 after having been away for four years, as head of he "Bull Moose Party." He got 27% of the vote, compared to President Taft's 23%. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won in an electoral college landslide with 42%. It was a nasty campaign, with times having passed him and his message.

Theodore Roosevelt: A bruising, lusty Pauillac, Mouton at its best. The 6th greatest president from a country with many outstanding leaders. Grade: A.

#5: Thomas Jefferson. The original American Bordeaux Wine Enthusiast! Oh, and he wrote the Declaration of Independence, too, that was pretty good. The ultimate universal man: enlightened; a poet; a mathematician; a politician; a philosopher; a prolific writer; a wine enthusiast. He spoke French and Greek and played the violin. His education and early career were influenced enormously by the Enlightenment and concepts of freedom and human rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." His advocacy for religious freedoms has defined the nation for more than two centuries. His residence at Monticello is a national landmark. He served as minister to France (hanging out with Ben Franklin and John Adams in Paris, those must have been some parties) and then as George Washington's Secretary of State. He battled Alexander Hamilton on the issues of the day. He became the third U.S. president in 1800, and oversaw exponential national growth and influence. In retirement he founded the University of Virginia. An amazing human being, he died on July 4, 1825, just hours before John Adams. A Mount Rushmore of a man. His favorite wines: Haut Brion, d'Yquem, Lafite. Grade: A+.

#4. George Washington. George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was a Founding Father. He was the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. Crossing the Delaware River in the winter of 1776, he defeated the British in key battles at Princeton and Trenton. He presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He was a military man. But he had a prescient awareness of the dangers of dictatorship and monarchy. He rejected much greater powers that would have surely been afforded to him. He established precedents that exist today, more than two centuries later. A very legitimate argument can be made that he was the "greatest" president ever; indeed, many scholars have made that argument. He established the very important precedent of maximum two four-year presidential terms. He brought a decade of peace in the critical first years of the new republic. He was forever non-partisan, beloved by almost all. At his death, Henry Lee summarized it all: "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." Arguably the greatest ever, like a legendary, regal Margaux. The type of guy that makes you proud to be an American. George Washington to Donald Trump…. Sigh. Grade: A+++

#3. Franklin D. Roosevelt. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKMbma6_dc
Elected to four terms, Franklin Roosevelt changed American and world government as much as any president. His "New Deal" initiated radical programs of welfare, social security, and banking reforms, many of which are still taken for granted today. He inspired a country out of the Great Depression, and, on December 7, 1941, "a date which will live in infamy," entered the United States into the fight against fascism. He lost the use of his legs upon contracting polio at the age of 39 while swimming on Campobello Island at the family cottage on the Maine-canadian border, but it did not stop his unbounded optimism and positive spirit. He repealed Prohibition in 1933. He swiftly enacted laws that aided the poor, elderly, farmers, and workers. His wife Eleanor was an enormous advocate and political force for the poor, often prodding her somewhat more politically practical husband into action. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with additional members in an effort to advance his liberal legislative initiatives. In addition to Social Security, his creation of the FDIC, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the way the country does business to this day. Joining forces with Churchill, Stalin, and others, he truly helped to save the world. One of my favorite parts of Westminster Abbey is the small memorial there to FDR: "To the honoured memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1882 1945 a faithful friend of freedom and of Britain. Four times President of the United States. Erected by the Government of the United Kingdom". http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-hi ... -roosevelt
My father, 19 years old at the time, saw FDR in Virginia before he was shipped off to Casablanca for his service in North Africa and italy.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: A 1945 Mouton. Grade: A+++.

#2. John F. Kennedy.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
Most historians, of course, do not place John Kennedy in the top ten. Largely because of the mere "thousand days" of his presidency. But I disagree. The Kennedy presidency, brief as it was, has haunted this country for more than a half century. The images of the young family in the White House are ingrained forever in the American psyche. John Kennedy was no angel. Like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, he was a sex addict. He was arrogant. He could be a total dink. But the promise of Kennedy was his ability to challenge the country, especially the young: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…." He created the Peace Corps. He took on Soviet aggression in the Cuban Missile Crisis… many will argue that he brought the world unnecessarily close to the brink, but anyone who has studied the 13 days in October will understand that, having learned hard lessons from a year before during the Bay of Pigs invasion, he and his brother Bobby managed the crisis brilliantly, stood up to the generals, and enabled Khrushchev to save face.
http://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct17/
His beautiful, stylish wife and picture-perfect children captured the hearts of many in the U.S. and around the globe, particularly a post-World War II generation that was reproducing exponentially and adjusting to a still relatively new role as the world's leading power. There are those who wonder whether he would have remained in Vietnam. I'm on the side of those who say he would have exited Vietnam. The Cuban Missile Crisis sobered him. By June of 1963, just a few months before his death, he was calling for world peace at American University in what many historians consider his greatest speech. I occasionally watch his "Peace" speech for inspiration, especially during times like what we have been going through in this awful campaign. I always urge people to watch it if you have a chance, it is Kennedy at his absolute height:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fkKnfk4k40
He utilized the powers of the U.S. Justice Department, led by his brother, to enforce civil rights, taking on George Wallace at the University of Alabama. He was proceeding cautiously on civil rights, but proceeding forward nonetheless. Watching MLK's "I Have a Dream," he called it the greatest speech he had ever heard.
He brought culture and the arts into the White House. He was actually quite conservative fiscally. He hung out with astronauts, philosophers, and poets. As Roman Catholic New Englanders, he was "one of us": Young, handsome, a navy World War II veteran, Harvard-educated, Boston-born with a thick, unique Boston accent, not quite Brahmin, but distinctively Bah-ston.
It all came to an end in a few short seconds in November 1963, violently, grotesquely, in a murder following which the country has never been quite the same. The assassination was followed by others, including those of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy, and the country emerged from the decade of the 1960s into the era of Nixon, Watergate, materialism, crime, poverty, weakness, inflation, greed, Reaganism, and war, war, war, and more war.
By the end of the 1960s, though, despite all the pain, man landed on the moon -- in my view, the greatest achievement in the history of mankind -- and possible only because of the challenge of young John Kennedy in the early years of the decade.
John Kennedy had an affinity for the French, and the French reciprocated, largely because of Jacqueline Bouvier. John Kennedy drank alcohol moderately, but his favorite wines were Bordeaux… in particular, Chateau Latour.
Though most historians disagree, I believe John Kennedy was one of our greatest presidents -- I rate him second -- because of the influence that he had in particular upon young people, both during and following his "thousand days" in office.
Grade: A+++.

#1. Abraham Lincoln. The "country lawyer" who went on to save the union. We think politics is awful today, but it was existential by the mid-1800s. Lincoln cheated his way into the presidency… thank goodness. He was NOT "Honest Abe." He was a ruthless, master politician. Because he had to be. There were no other alternatives. Either he did what he did, or the country did not survive. What he did was participate in the annihilation of 750,000 of his own citizens. And then he displayed mercy. He suspended habeas corpus and interrupted democracy to free the slaves and forcefully reunite the country. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation and forced through the Thirteenth Amendment. His 272 word, three minute speech in November 1863 will live on for millennia. And the words from his second inaugural seem just as relevant today: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Not long thereafter he was shot at Ford's Theater and lingered in a coma for nine hours in a nearby boarding house, until his succumbed: "And now he belongs to the ages," Secretary of War Stanton said at the moment. His memorial in Washington stands as a mecca to freedom, the heart of a constantly changing and constantly challenged nation. He is the true, ultimate Robert Parker 100-pointer. Grade: A+++.

[JimHow]

…and brace yourself, CV, for a Sarah Palin cabinet appointment (EPA?).
There's no sugar coating this.
It is an epic disaster.
Again, at least from my perspective, because there will be no one there to restrain the Tea Party Republicans in Congress.
That's my biggest concern.

[Chateau Vin]

…and brace yourself, CV, for a Sarah Palin cabinet appointment (EPA?).
There's no sugar coating this.
It is an epic disaster.
Again, at least from my perspective, because there will be no one there to restrain the Tea Party Republicans in Congress.
That's my biggest concern.

That's my true concern. He is also picking Washington outsiders, but they are also outliers....

[Chateau Vin]

…and brace yourself, CV, for a Sarah Palin cabinet appointment (EPA?).
There's no sugar coating this.
It is an epic disaster.
Again, at least from my perspective, because there will be no one there to restrain the Tea Party Republicans in Congress.
That's my biggest concern.

Like I said, authoritarians and dictators reward loyalty. That's what keeps them going...No surprise there. I think Sean Hannity will also be offered something...

[JimHow]

Yeah, all the usual suspects: In addition to the Newt-Rudy-Chris triumvirate, we have John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Ed Meese, yada, yada, yada…

So much for draining the swamp.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/ ... index.html