Tobleste wrote:His allies being caught obstructing an investigation isn't minor. It suggests they're hiding something or are undermining the rule of law.
Yes, but it does not suggest that they're necessarily hiding violations of the law that are relevant to the investigation that occurred. We'll know more when the Mueller Report is published in full, but, in the meantime, we're speculating based on indictments that don't prove anything concrete regarding collusion, financial irregularities, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. We should presume innocence of any criminal wrong-doing until it can be proven.
Tobleste wrote:I disagree on his chances of impeachment. Despite his widespread unpopularity, hes dominant among the base and Fox news. The party elite dislike him but they wouldn't act unless it was in their interest and considering that they need trumps base, they need him regardless of how much he disgusts the rest of the nation.
His popularity is arguably shakier than many would believe among his base. It's a somewhat perplexing statistical fact in light of how successful his presidency has been in concrete terms. Generally, presidents who maintain a strong economy, don't get embroiled in foreign misadventures, oversee low rates of unemployment, and don't actively attempt to rescind the civil rights of citizens or attack social institutions should be expected to enjoy robust support among their base, within their party, and across the broader electorate. With regard to Trump, negative press, polarization, and personal flaws seem to have created a new historical precedent. I believe it was CNN that reported that only fifty percent of Republicans said they'd vote for him in a primary.
Tobleste wrote:China should be confronted but his approach comes from a hatred for trade and a misunderstanding of it. He's picked trade conflicts with the rest of North America, China and Europe. If he was smart, he'd build a coalition against China and deal with the main threat.
His renegotiation of NAFTA could be advantageous to an extent, depending on how precisely that pans out. His confrontation of Europe's laxness on foreign policy was about as measured as they deserve given that Germany hasn't met its military obligations and seems intent on increasing its economic and energy reliance on an aggressive foreign power in Putin's Russia. My main criticism on Trump's trade policy is more related to his rejection of the TPP, which would have been advantageous for agriculture, fishing, and other American industries. Japan presently engages in some bad faith trading policies, such as letting American fish imports sit out on the docks as they're "assessed for safety", but the other markets would have been a boon for American beef producers.
Tobleste wrote:The deficit increased under Obama's first few years and then declined. The GOP isn't really a believer in fiscal conservatism. If anything, they appear to be trying to bankrupt the government to stop social programs. The Democrats generally pay for what they spend (mostly).
It increased dramatically in his first few years as president before declining with a Republican Congress to levels that still more often than not exceeded Bush's deficit spending. Neither party is fiscally conservative in any genuine respect and neither party has routinely paid for their spending in decades.
Tobleste wrote:I think if Iran collapses, it wouldn't be a positive. A country with some degree of nuclear technology fighting a civil war or being taken over in a coup isn't an ideal result.
We should have allowed the Israelis to bomb their facilities like they did to Syria. Or at least stepped out of the way as they assassinated scientists and engineers active in the nuclear program. We gave the Israelis assurance that our plan would prevent the Iranians from gaining nuclear capabilities and, if they have them now, it's largely the fault of an effete and weak-willed foreign policy with regard to Iran under Obama. That said, supporting Iran or giving them a pass doesn't really serve us any more than giving them a light shove, especially when it could bring the nationalists to power instead of the theocrats. We can work with the nationalists at least.
Tobleste wrote:If you identify as a nationalist and dislike every Democrat since Carter, then Democrats were never likely to get your vote in 2020. They should focus on the people who might vote for them and fight for their interests.
I actually wouldn't have minded Clinton so much aside from the whole serial rapist thing. I'm actually quite ambivalent to B. Clinton and Bush, viewing them as a degeneration but a tolerable one. I was mixed on Obama as well, but broke pretty hard against both H. Clinton and Trump. Put out a Blue Dog Democrat from the Midwest/Appalachia or a civic nationalist up who resembles Kennedy, and I might go with the blues over the reds. I'm not going to support Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or Kamala Harris though.
Tobleste wrote:I'll think trump will also disappoint you. His nationalism fights for a small segment of the US population. White, Christian and conservative are the 'real Americans'. Trump isn't a uniter. He's an opportunistic race baiter.
I have no real delusions about what Trump is, but nationalism being pertinent to the discussion again might be useful in punching back against the rootlessness and weak identitarianism that have taken hold across the political spectrum. We might actually begin to have a sincere conversation on what it means to be an American as opposed to what it means to be individuals or citizens of the world. Democrats aren't ready for that conversation yet - since it's not a conversation they've had since B. Clinton. Mind you, I don't see the problem as tied to specific Democratic leaders, but, rather, the philosophy and direction of the party as a whole.
