Trump On Lex Fridman... Just Dropped

[WyattEarp]

The one thing to always remember. Without the crazy county draws (gerrymandering) the republicans would never have one a single election in the last 30 years…

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Republicans have received more votes for the House of Representatives in many recent elections. In the 2022 elections, Republicans received 2.7% more votes. Our House is the closest thing to Canada's Parliament. Of course, the House doesn't decide who is President.

In any event, gerrymandering has always encouraged sour grapes from the two major parties as long as I can remember. The sour grapes hasn't been confined to one party. It just depends which party has fallen behind in state legislatures during a period of time.

It's a complicated system for a Republic. It also doesn't lend itself to simple analysis that routinely appears in media.

 

[WyattEarp]

The issue here is that Trump's position changes with the wind. He says one thing that makes it look like he's a moderate on abortion, then gets some pushback and he changes his opinion. Anecdotally, we heard frequently that he changed his mind on big decisions while president based on who talked to him last. He is very malleable and can be easily influenced by flattery or (apparently) shit talk. Because of this....who really knows what he would do when faced with a challenge like a national abortion ban bill. For something that will have a massive impact on people's lives, that isn't good.

As for Harris, she is doing more media. But, without doing anything, she's neck and neck. Which says two things: How unpopular Trump is with the average American, and how she is growing in popularity.

Now, I won't pretend to predict who will win in November. It will likely be very close, and there will be the usual GOP-state led bullshit (like purging the voter list with a focus on areas with large democrat support), understaffed polling stations (so there are massive lines to vote) or allowing intimidate outside of them. I think we all know Harris will probably clobber Trump on the popular vote, but the electoral college is, at this point, any body's guess.

As some other members have stated, why should Kamala do more interviews if she is doing well with her current accessibility? That's fair. I just see a couple issues going forward.

If she wins, I think she will likely knock heads with a Republican Senate (perhaps also a Republican House). Hopefully she would moderate, but I suspect we will have annual budget fights, executive actions and overzealous regulatory bodies. The latter two routinely winding up in the courts.

If the Democrats win all three branches in November, there will likely be governing excesses and control of Congress would reverse in 2026.

If your sole desire is defeating Trump, this would all be acceptable. Realistically, I think Trump hatred is connected closely to progressive ideals for many TERB members. Perhaps they also fear some conservative success spilling over the border into the 2025 Parliamentary elections.

Last but not least, if she loses I can write the excuses for the Democrats. There will certainly be the usual whining complaints of misogyny, racism and ignorance. There would now be the excuse that she only had 100 days and she didn't get out there enough to explain how great her agenda would be for the country.

Just curious, if the battleground state polling shows Kamala with a slight advantage in the first days of November, do you think that will hold on election day? In other words, will Trump's performance exceed the polls as it did in 2016 and 2020.

 

[jalimon]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Republicans have received more votes for the House of Representatives in many recent elections. In the 2022 elections, Republicans received 2.7% more votes. Our House is the closest thing to Canada's Parliament. Of course, the House doesn't decide who is President.

In any event, gerrymandering has always encouraged sour grapes from the two major parties as long as I can remember. The sour grapes hasn't been confined to one party. It just depends which party has fallen behind in state legislatures during a period of time.

It's a complicated system for a Republic. It also doesn't lend itself to simple analysis that routinely appears in media.

Well, I agree with you on one thing. It's definitely not simplistic.

Why was gerrymandering installed in the first place?

My I see it as a way to pack opposite voters into a geographical boundaries that the party will win anyhow. Wasting extra votes. And if you look at those geographical boundaries they do not make any sense.

 

[WyattEarp]

Because of this....who really knows what he would do when faced with a challenge like a national abortion ban bill. For something that will have a massive impact on people's lives, that isn't good.

I just want to take a second to point out the hyperbole. A national abortion bill would never make it to Trump's desk if he were President. First, there would likely be enough Republican votes from moderate House districts to tank a legislative initiative. It doesn't take many.

More importantly, the Senate Republicans will honor the filibuster which would require a 60 vote margin to pass a ban. There wouldn't even be a vote. The Senate would table it. This unique feature called the filibuster helps prevent dramatic swings in legislative action and the law with every change of control in Washington.

Lastly, Trump might not sign a ban in the very improbable event it were passed by both the Senate and House. He would be ineligible to run again and thus would be free to make his own decision without too much concern for his base.

 

[Frankfooter]

I just want to take a second to point out the hyperbole. A national abortion bill would never make it to Trump's desk if he were President. First, there would likely be enough Republican votes from moderate House districts to tank a legislative initiative. It doesn't take many.

More importantly, the Senate Republicans will honor the filibuster which would require a 60 vote margin to pass a ban. There wouldn't even be a vote. The Senate would table it. This unique feature called the filibuster helps prevent dramatic swings in legislative action and the law with every change of control in Washington.

Lastly, Trump might not sign a ban in the very improbable event it were passed by both the Senate and House. He would be ineligible to run again and thus would be free to make his own decision without too much concern for his base.

Do you also believe rump wouldn't commit rape, wouldn't commit a felony or attempt a coup?

 

[silentkisser]

As some other members have stated, why should Kamala do more interviews if she is doing well with her current accessibility? That's fair. I just see a couple issues going forward.

If she wins, I think she will likely knock heads with a Republican Senate (perhaps also a Republican House). Hopefully she would moderate, but I suspect we will have annual budget fights, executive actions and overzealous regulatory bodies. The latter two routinely winding up in the courts.

Do you, honestly, think for a second that the GOP wouldn't try to impede her mandate in any way possible? Historically (well, for the past 25 or so years), they have not tried to be bipartisan for many important things. So, if you think her speaking to the media now would change that....I would LOVE to know what you're smoking....lol

And, on that note, why do you think she would moderate? She isn't exactly proposing anything radical. And, would you expect Trump, if he wins but loses both houses, to moderate?

If the Democrats win all three branches in November, there will likely be governing excesses and control of Congress would reverse in 2026.

Define what you think is excess? Historically, most presidents tend to see tough sledding in the next mid-term election. And, I will say, considering the clown show from the GOP led house, where the passed a historically low number of bills, I cannot even begin to understand why or how they could win... But, you never know...

If your sole desire is defeating Trump, this would all be acceptable. Realistically, I think Trump hatred is connected closely to progressive ideals for many TERB members. Perhaps they also fear some conservative success spilling over the border into the 2025 Parliamentary elections.

I don't think one leads to the other. I disliked Trump back in the 1990s, before anyone knew he was a racist fraud or had political aspirations. But, besides him being totally unfit to lead, his policies tend to hurt the middle class. Tariffs are going to hurt consumers, his tax cuts actually raised them on the middle class, while the yachting class thrived. And I'm not even going to talk about the social stuff, like stripping away reproductive rights from people (like abortion, IVF, potentially birth control). As for this stuff spilling over into Canada, some of it already has. PP is sort of playing that dangerous game where he spews a bunch of bullshit and sort of pumps the tires on extremist groups like Diagalon (sp?). Look, to be perfectly honest, I am not a fan, but I think if he can do the job. Will he be as capable as Harper in keeping the more extreme members of his party in line? Hard to say.

Last but not least, if she loses I can write the excuses for the Democrats. There will certainly be the usual whining complaints of misogyny, racism and ignorance. There would now be the excuse that she only had 100 days and she didn't get out there enough to explain how great her agenda would be for the country.

Just curious, if the battleground state polling shows Kamala with a slight advantage in the first days of November, do you think that will hold on election day? In other words, will Trump's performance exceed the polls as it did in 2016 and 2020.

I don't think those would be good excuses. I'll say that the racists or misogynists would probably never vote Democrat anyways, so that's a moot point. Nor would the timing she had, since all new presidential candidates technically only seriously start running after the convention. And the difference between 2016 and now is pretty stark. Hillary Clinton, while qualified for the job, was not liked. She faced sever unfair challenges (like the FBI fucking her over weeks before the election with a sudden reopening of the server investigation), which is something that Harris wouldn't have to contend with. So, if she loses, it will be for a number of factors that could include her not speaking enough to the American people through the media.

Now, a better question is how will Trump respond if he loses? He's already started to play the game about rigged elections (just like he's saying the ABC debate will be rigged, so that if he shits the bed he can blame it on that). Will he or his followers try another January 6th type scheme with fake electorates (and we know some states have appointed/elected MAGA supporters to key positions over seeing elections), or will he attempt to drag it out with countless lawsuits. The bottom line here is that there is a lot of room for some MAGA led shenanigans that could cause another constitutional crisis.

 

[silentkisser]

I just want to take a second to point out the hyperbole. A national abortion bill would never make it to Trump's desk if he were President. First, there would likely be enough Republican votes from moderate House districts to tank a legislative initiative. It doesn't take many.

More importantly, the Senate Republicans will honor the filibuster which would require a 60 vote margin to pass a ban. There wouldn't even be a vote. The Senate would table it. This unique feature called the filibuster helps prevent dramatic swings in legislative action and the law with every change of control in Washington.

Lastly, Trump might not sign a ban in the very improbable event it were passed by both the Senate and House. He would be ineligible to run again and thus would be free to make his own decision without too much concern for his base.

Look, I considering how the GOP led senate has broken traditional norms in the past (like denying Obama a Supreme Court nomination), I wouldn't be shocked if they ended the filibuster to pass shit. Especially if they put more MAGA types there, like Tommy Tuberville who is arguably the dumbest member in the upper house. So, while it might be unlikely this ever happens, I think many people thought the same thing about Roe v Wade being overturned, yet here we are.

 

[WyattEarp]

Look, I considering how the GOP led senate has broken traditional norms in the past (like denying Obama a Supreme Court nomination).......

 

[WyattEarp]

Do you, honestly, think for a second that the GOP wouldn't try to impede her mandate in any way possible? Historically (well, for the past 25 or so years), they have not tried to be bipartisan for many important things.

I think Canadians here seem to confuse their system of government with the unique American system. You have a bias that a U.S. President (particularly a Democrat) has a mandate to govern. It's not only too simplistic, it's just wrong.

The Congress has an equally important mandate. The architects of our Constitution didn't want to have a powerful President. The power of the American Presidency has grown through expansion of the administrative state and the military over the last two and half centuries.

The Canadian system features unified governance by virtue of Parliament selecting the Prime Minister. There's no inherent conflict. If any conflict is not acceptable to Parliament, they can replace the Prime Minister.

As far as the Republicans not being bipartisan for 25 or so years, this incidentally coincides with Republicans routinely winning the House. Between 1955-1994, the Democrats controlled the House uninterrupted. During those years, the Democrats chairing the House Ways & Mean committee which controls budgets were considered the second most important politician in Washington. I haven't heard that position described that way in decades.

Our Constitution actually grants appropriations authority to Congress with the President only having approval. You wouldn't know that by watching some Presidential administrations.

So, if you think her speaking to the media now would change that....I would LOVE to know what you're smoking....lol

Generally, I like to think the more details you offer to the public the more of a "mandate" you have. Of course, being true to that agenda is important. There is nothing wrong with running on "values" but this tends to come at the detriment of policy discussions.

And, on that note, why do you think she would moderate? She isn't exactly proposing anything radical. And, would you expect Trump, if he wins but loses both houses, to moderate?

Bernie Sanders is routinely the most progressive Senator. Based on her votes, Kamala Harris was ranked a close second in the Senate by even progressive organizations.

Define what you think is excess? Historically, most presidents tend to see tough sledding in the next mid-term election. And, I will say, considering the clown show from the GOP led house, where the passed a historically low number of bills, I cannot even begin to understand why or how they could win...

Liberals define legislative success based on the number of bills with typically a corresponding increase in the role of the government. Conservatives have a different perspective. To just put this in context, I'm guessing the government in Beijing passes a lot of bills.

But, besides him being totally unfit to lead, his policies tend to hurt the middle class. Tariffs are going to hurt consumers, his tax cuts actually raised them on the middle class, while the yachting class thrived.

I think we can all see how the government can help poor people but I don't believe the middle class automatically thrives under progressive governance. The answer to that might lie within why Canada has fallen far behind the U.S. in the last twenty years.

By the way, I agree tariffs hurt consumers but it is also overly-simplistic headline commentary driven by the media. The tariffs likely won't help the trade deficit. However, they can protect industries like electric vehicles from unfair competition. It will also accelerate companies moving production out of China to other friendlier countries.

I don't think tariffs on China are a big, negative deal in the scheme of things. No offense, but you like a lot of other posters seem to fall sway to the power of a headline.

 

[Valcazar]

Kamala can’t take any type of questions. She wouldn’t be able to do a town hall or a podcast interview. Only stating what we all see. If you don’t agree with that, then you are lying to yourself.

"Agree with my interpretation or you are clearly lying to yourself."

Classic. LOL

 

[Valcazar]

What's your take on the "hardball" interview of Kamala on that 18 minute segment on CNN? Be honest.

That wasn't a "hardball" interview.
The political press is a joke.
That was mostly gossip questions and re-framed GOP talking points.

Wyatt keeps asking for a "probing" interview about policy but no one from the Press wants to do that.

Policy interviews are hard and require you doing homework.
They also mean you don't get a viral moment that will generate clicks and eyeballs.
The press just has no incentive to do that kind of interview these days. (Sadly.)

Harris did perfectly well in the Bash interview, but it isn't like there was anything newsworthy in there.

 

[Frankfooter]

I think Canadians here seem to confuse their system of government with the unique American system. You have a bias that a U.S. President (particularly a Democrat) has a mandate to govern. It's not only too simplistic, it's just wrong.

The Congress has an equally important mandate. The architects of our Constitution didn't want to have a powerful President. The power of the American Presidency has grown through expansion of the administrative state and the military over the last two and half centuries.

The Canadian system features unified governance by virtue of Parliament selecting the Prime Minister. There's no inherent conflict. If any conflict is not acceptable to Parliament, they can replace the Prime Minister.

As far as the Republicans not being bipartisan for 25 or so years, this incidentally coincides with Republicans routinely winning the House. Between 1955-1994, the Democrats controlled the House uninterrupted. During those years, the Democrats chairing the House Ways & Mean committee which controls budgets were considered the second most important politician in Washington. I haven't heard that position described that way in decades.

Our Constitution actually grants appropriations authority to Congress with the President only having approval. You wouldn't know that by watching some Presidential administrations.



Generally, I like to think the more details you offer to the public the more of a "mandate" you have. Of course, being true to that agenda is important. There is nothing wrong with running on "values" but this tends to come at the detriment of policy discussions.



Bernie Sanders is routinely the most progressive Senator. Based on her votes, Kamala Harris was ranked a close second in the Senate by even progressive organizations.



Liberals define legislative success based on the number of bills with typically a corresponding increase in the role of the government. Conservatives have a different perspective. To just put this in context, I'm guessing the government in Beijing passes a lot of bills.



I think we can all see how the government can help poor people but I don't believe the middle class automatically thrives under progressive governance. The answer to that might lie within why Canada has fallen far behind the U.S. in the last twenty years.

By the way, I agree tariffs hurt consumers but it is also overly-simplistic headline commentary driven by the media. The tariffs likely won't help the trade deficit. However, they can protect industries like electric vehicles from unfair competition. It will also accelerate companies moving production out of China to other friendlier countries.

I don't think tariffs on China are a big, negative deal in the scheme of things. No offense, but you like a lot of other posters seem to fall sway to the power of a headline.

You seem to be confusing rump with politicians who would actually obey laws and rules.
Clearly a rapist, felon, fraud artist doesn't worry about rules and laws.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832504561602351540

 

[Valcazar]

The one thing to always remember. Without the crazy county draws (gerrymandering) the republicans would never have one a single election in the last 30 years…

Not true.
Gerrymandering is an issue somewhat in congressional districts and VERY much in local state elections.
It doesn't affect the Presidency and it doesn't affect the Senate.

Those have OTHER issues of malapportionment, but not gerrymandering.

 

[Valcazar]

Just curious, if the battleground state polling shows Kamala with a slight advantage in the first days of November, do you think that will hold on election day? In other words, will Trump's performance exceed the polls as it did in 2016 and 2020.

It's unknown.
No one knows what adjustments have been made in public polling to address the issues from 2016 and 2020.
We also know that various approaches to making it more difficult to vote introduce error into the polling as well, since the polling can be accurate but if the people can't get their votes in that doesn't matter.

My suspicion is that Trump will overperform the polls by a bit as he did in 2016 and 2020 ~2-3%
If that's true, and since Trump already has a built in electoral college advantage, I would say you have to consider Harris losing if she's not up by 5 points or more.

 

[Valcazar]

I just want to take a second to point out the hyperbole. A national abortion bill would never make it to Trump's desk if he were President. First, there would likely be enough Republican votes from moderate House districts to tank a legislative initiative. It doesn't take many. More importantly, the Senate Republicans will honor the filibuster which would require a 60 vote margin to pass a ban. There wouldn't even be a vote. The Senate would table it. This unique feature called the filibuster helps prevent dramatic swings in legislative action and the law with every change of control in Washington.

That sounds a lot like "The Republicans would never overturn Roe v Wade because [insert reason now]".

The current house GOP seems more than likely to pass one than not, IMO.
Would the Senate override the filibuster?
That's a more interesting question.
The GOP senate has used the filibuster as a reason not to pass culture war things the House comes up with for a while.
But power has been shifting out of those Senator's hands. McConnell wouldn't try and get this through, but who is up next after McConnell?
Hard to say.

Lastly, Trump might not sign a ban in the very improbable event it were passed by both the Senate and House. He would be ineligible to run again and thus would be free to make his own decision without too much concern for his base.

That logic makes it just as likely for him to pass one.
He doesn't have to care about the fallout politically and he gets adoration from his base.
The man loves his adoration.

 

[Valcazar]

Do you, honestly, think for a second that the GOP wouldn't try to impede her mandate in any way possible? Historically (well, for the past 25 or so years), they have not tried to be bipartisan for many important things. So, if you think her speaking to the media now would change that....I would LOVE to know what you're smoking....lol

And, on that note, why do you think she would moderate? She isn't exactly proposing anything radical. And, would you expect Trump, if he wins but loses both houses, to moderate?

"Moderation" and "bi-partisanship" means "The Democrats do what the Republicans want".
That's been the basic way it has been reported this century.

Hillary Clinton, while qualified for the job, was not liked. She faced sever unfair challenges (like the FBI fucking her over weeks before the election with a sudden reopening of the server investigation), which is something that Harris wouldn't have to contend with.

We don't know that.
Yes, the unfair challenges will be different (and they haven't had 20+ years to work on Harris like they did with Clinton) but there is absolutely the ability to open up some kind of "investigation" or "scandalous report" in the last month of the campaign.
The question is how well constructed it is and whether or not the press goes along with it. (They didn't in 2020, for instance.)

Now, a better question is how will Trump respond if he loses?

Badly.

He's already started to play the game about rigged elections (just like he's saying the ABC debate will be rigged, so that if he shits the bed he can blame it on that). Will he or his followers try another January 6th type scheme with fake electorates (and we know some states have appointed/elected MAGA supporters to key positions over seeing elections), or will he attempt to drag it out with countless lawsuits. The bottom line here is that there is a lot of room for some MAGA led shenanigans that could cause another constitutional crisis.

It depends how close it is.
There will be MAGA shenanigans. They've already made it clear they will do that and try to fuck with the vote. (They may even do it if they appear to win, since undermining the concept of elections is important to them.)
If it is close, then it is very likely it gets quite bad and is pushed hard. People who didn't go along last time will go along this time, since Trump survived the fallout. There are clearly people who didn't join in last time because they thought it wouldn't work who would see it differently this time.
If Harris's win looks very solid, Trump will have less success getting people to join in because there isn't much point in doing it and losing.

Look, I considering how the GOP led senate has broken traditional norms in the past (like denying Obama a Supreme Court nomination), I wouldn't be shocked if they ended the filibuster to pass shit. Especially if they put more MAGA types there, like Tommy Tuberville who is arguably the dumbest member in the upper house. So, while it might be unlikely this ever happens, I think many people thought the same thing about Roe v Wade being overturned, yet here we are.

The Republicans are perfectly happy to get rid of the filibuster on whatever they want.
For the last several years it has been a way to avoid having to pass things the Senate thought was too crazy by the House.
But that generation is passing and the Tubervilles and so on are much more aligned with the bullshit and crazy now.

 

[Frankfooter]

My suspicion is that Trump will overperform the polls by a bit as he did in 2016 and 2020 ~2-3%
If that's true, and since Trump already has a built in electoral college advantage, I would say you have to consider Harris losing if she's not up by 5 points or more.

If it is close, then it is very likely it gets quite bad and is pushed hard. People who didn't go along last time will go along this time, since Trump survived the fallout. There are clearly people who didn't join in last time because they thought it wouldn't work who would see it differently this time.

Then you need this vote.

If Vice-President Harris were to demand an immediate ceasefire that would allow unimpeded aid into Gaza, such a move would be strongly supported by her voters while being opposed by only a scant number. A detailed view of the cross-tabulations shows significant gain and very little risk for Harris by taking this stand - including very positive outcomes and few negatives among most key groups, including a plurality of Jewish voters. It would also win her the support of a plurality of those voters who are currently supporting third party candidates or who remain undecided.

Overall, if Harris where to take this stand, her vote tally would increase from 44% to 50%.

 

[Valcazar]

Overall, if Harris where to take this stand, her vote tally would increase from 44% to 50%.

It's curious they never polled on that question.

 

[Frankfooter]

It's curious they never polled on that question.

Its curious that you didn't read the poll to check.

8. If Vice-President Harris were to demand an immediate ceasefire and allow unimpeded humanitarian aid into Gaza would it make you more or less likely to vote for her?





https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...ter+the+Unfolding+Genocide+in+Gaza+9-5-24.pdf

 

[Valcazar]

Its curious that you didn't read the poll to check.

8. If Vice-President Harris were to demand an immediate ceasefire and allow unimpeded humanitarian aid into Gaza would it make you more or less likely to vote for her?





https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...ter+the+Unfolding+Genocide+in+Gaza+9-5-24.pdf

I did read it.
That's not the question I said they didn't poll.

They said it would result in a 6% increase in votes.
But they didn't ask that.
They asked if it would make you "more or less likely to vote for her".

Not, "would you vote for her".

It's a very interesting omission.

I can't see why they wouldn't straight up ask the question instead.
Either as a follow up question with undecideds or just as a general question for everyone to see if a policy change would make them switch their vote.

If that was the information they wanted, they should have asked for it.
It's just bad poll design, especially since the poll is clearly partially intended to prove that a policy switch would have a measurable effect.