Revolt on the Right: Will Trump's actions erode his support?

[selmaborntidefan]

Selma-Tip O’Neill also owes his fame to being the leader of the opposition.

Yep.

Hardly anyone knew who he was until Reagan became President.

 

[lowend]

But there is a small kernel of truth in the rather large grain of Teflon theory. The truth is that the American people understood that he was “one of them,” as Reagan said on the eve of the 1980 election, and extended to him the forgiveness they expected for themselves.

***

When the nation edged into recession in midsummer, Reagan’s approval rating stood at 60 percent. It fell to 49 percent by year’s end and continued dropping. By the end of 1982, only 41 percent of Americans said they approved of Reagan’s governance, a substantially lower rating than his four elected predecessors had received after two years in the White House. When the economy went to hell in a handbasket, “Teflon” did not apply.

Regarding the first excerpt, there is a weird coalition of country, redneck, heartland, blue collar people AND conservative evangelical Christians when it comes to supporting Trump. Sometimes those groups overlap; sometimes they don't; but they love the blowhard nature of Trump. These are the same people that love the Rush Limbaughs, Paul Finebaums, Dave Ramseys, Rick Burgess, and Matt Driscolls of the world. The more he tweets, assigns pejorative names, and sabre rattles the more they love him.

Regarding the second excerpt, they MAGA base hasn't reached that point yet. Will it or is the sycophancy so ingrained that it never will?

In the meantime, we continue to see every safeguard and positive institution in our society attacked by the Sharpie pen of Trump.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Regarding the first excerpt, there is a weird coalition of country, redneck, heartland, blue collar people AND conservative evangelical Christians when it comes to supporting Trump. Sometimes those groups overlap; sometimes they don't; but they love the blowhard nature of Trump. These are the same people that love the Rush Limbaughs, Paul Finebaums, Dave Ramseys, Rick Burgess, and Matt Driscolls of the world. The more he tweets, assigns pejorative names, and sabre rattles the more they love him.

Thing is, the folks you listed were voting Republican when it was McCain and Romney and Dole, too.

Regarding the second excerpt, they MAGA base hasn't reached that point yet. Will it or is the sycophancy so ingrained that it never will?

I think what has happened is that as the system has played out, it rewards extremism, the edges, in both parties in the House, producing a more extremist left or a more extremist right, depending upon whom exactly holds the power. The Senate, being statewide, is not so easily to manipulate, so you don't hear about a SENATOR being an extremist very often. Yes, we get the usual hullabaloo, but every Senator, including those from Wyoming, have to be able to represent both cities and rural areas, and this tends to mostly dilute extremists from winning election as Senators - or if they do, they get dispatched pretty quickly.

As far as MAGA, the level of "Trump was right about everything" reaches the form of mental illness in some folks, so good luck getting a retraction from those folks.

In the meantime, we continue to see every safeguard and positive institution in our society attacked by the Sharpie pen of Trump.

Not good.

On the other hand, it wasn't Donald Trump who kept calling for the expansion of the Supreme Court or insisting it is a corrupt group (speaking of guardrails). And although Trump did advocate it (he didn't spend a whole lot of his political capital on it), it wasn't his party that wants the filibuster abolished - but only for themselves.

One thing that has kept the Democrats able to (eventually) mount a defense is the filibuster they wanted taken out of the game. Can you imagine this tantrum throwing child unencumbered by even the threat of one?

 

[lowend]

53% overall disapproval rating and 55% disapproval on the economy.
6 in 10 uneasy about personal financial situations.
58% disapproval on tarrifs.

Grim news for Trump’s approval rating as Americans fear for their finances, poll finds

Those numbers on the economy are Trump’s worst since Navigator began tracking his approval in 2018.

www.al.com

 

[selmaborntidefan]

53% overall disapproval rating and 55% disapproval on the economy.
6 in 10 uneasy about personal financial situations.
58% disapproval on tarrifs.

Grim news for Trump’s approval rating as Americans fear for their finances, poll finds

Those numbers on the economy are Trump’s worst since Navigator began tracking his approval in 2018.

www.al.com

Well, maybe.

Then I see this:

A majority of registered voters-- 53% -- disapprove of Trump’s job as president, according to the suvey by pollster Global Strategy Group on behalf of Navigator Research, a Democratic messaging and polling firm.

And then I see how badly they missed the mark last fall.....
Poll: Democratic Lawmakers Receive Positive Job Ratings While Republicans Are Underwater

Let me be clear: I loathe Trump more than any President we've ever had, and it isn't even because he's X or Y, it's the fact that what he pulled coming off the 2020 Election which HE LOST is so revolting that it requires historical revisionism ("it was Antifa/it was a field trip that got out of hand/there were agents there inciting the riot that wasn't a riot") and mental gymnastics to justify him ever being President again.

But the fallout from this trade war has yet to be baked into the cake these folks are trying to bake into the cake ALREADY. If Rasmussen had a poll today showing President Harris had these same numbers, I have a pretty good idea how the pollsters at Navigator Research would respond.

I'm not saying it's nothing; I'm saying it is not yet enough to constitute SOMETHING.

And what's funny is that one of the few things I can give Trump is that unlike, say, Clinton or Nixon or the perception of Gore, he's not taking a poll and then deciding to do what the poll says.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I think the vulnerability Trump has on tariffs is a court challenge that tries to define them as a tax.

They clearly are, and are therefore under the purview of Congress, not an Executive Order.

Whether that would carry the day in court is another question entirely.

I'm for trying it. What's to lose?

Welp....nice try, but looks like that won't work.

Apparently, Congress delegated its oversight of tariffs via the Trade Act of 1974. Which is interesting because that would have been a Democratic Senate and HoR (sort of --- at that time a lot of Democrats from southern states voted with Republicans despite maintaining the D by their names) delegating to a Republican President, Gerald Ford. Mildly interesting related stories aside, that's why we are where we are.

Of course, Congress could un-delegate that oversight. But it would be instantly vetoed, which means it would need 2/3 of both houses to override the veto, which is a pipe dream.

 

[Tidewater]

Welp....nice try, but looks like that won't work.

Apparently, Congress delegated its oversight of tariffs via the Trade Act of 1974. Which is interesting because that would have been a Democratic Senate and HoR (sort of --- at that time a lot of Democrats from southern states voted with Republicans despite maintaining the D by their names) delegating to a Republican President, Gerald Ford. Mildly interesting related stories aside, that's why we are where we are.

Of course, Congress could un-delegate that oversight. But it would be instantly vetoed, which means it would need 2/3 of both houses to override the veto, which is a pipe dream.

The executive branch has been aggrandized (and aggrandized itself) for over a century. (Whig John Tyler said he would not veto any bill of Congress. If they enacted it, it was his job to execute it).
Woodrow Wilson (D) said that the executive is the only elected official with a national mandate, so he gets to have his way.
Of course, there is no constitutional basis for this. It was just what he said.
Congress has cravenly rolled over when presidents demand it for more than a century.

As for the current incumbent, I think Democrats are saving up the precedents and will use them when their guy is in the White House and Republicans will howl with outrage.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Thing is, the folks you listed were voting Republican when it was McCain and Romney and Dole, too.




I think what has happened is that as the system has played out, it rewards extremism, the edges, in both parties in the House, producing a more extremist left or a more extremist right, depending upon whom exactly holds the power. The Senate, being statewide, is not so easily to manipulate, so you don't hear about a SENATOR being an extremist very often. Yes, we get the usual hullabaloo, but every Senator, including those from Wyoming, have to be able to represent both cities and rural areas, and this tends to mostly dilute extremists from winning election as Senators - or if they do, they get dispatched pretty quickly.

As far as MAGA, the level of "Trump was right about everything" reaches the form of mental illness in some folks, so good luck getting a retraction from those folks.




Not good.

On the other hand, it wasn't Donald Trump who kept calling for the expansion of the Supreme Court or insisting it is a corrupt group (speaking of guardrails). And although Trump did advocate it (he didn't spend a whole lot of his political capital on it), it wasn't his party that wants the filibuster abolished - but only for themselves.

One thing that has kept the Democrats able to (eventually) mount a defense is the filibuster they wanted taken out of the game. Can you imagine this tantrum throwing child unencumbered by even the threat of one?

The whole court-packing threat stemmed from the way Supreme Court justices were stolen by a conniving Republican leadership. History will not be nice to the likes of Mitch McConnell.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The executive branch has been aggrandized (and aggrandized itself) for over a century. [...]
Congress has cravenly rolled over when presidents demand it for more than a century.

As for the current incumbent, I think Democrats are saving up the precedents and will use them when their guy is in the White House and Republicans will howl with outrage.

I think you're probably right. In no way defending the actions of this President, are the Democrats better, or just the same only coming from a different direction with a different agenda?

If they are actually better, the tit-for-tat will stop, never mind what the orange buffoon did.

The existing Republican winner-take-all primaries with no runoffs make it easy for a demagogue with a minority of hard-core support to win the nomination with a deceivingly large majority of the delegates. So the best thing would be for the Republicans to have proportional allocation of delegate, similar to the Democrats.

Excuse me while I go discuss all this with my best friend Pollyanna.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The whole court-packing threat stemmed from the way Supreme Court justices were stolen by a conniving Republican leadership.

This is a laughable level of entitlement. Mitch McConnell did EXACTLY what Harry Reid would have done with President McCain or what Schumer would have done - and everybody here knows it.

Also, even if I grant the idea of the Scalia seat being 'stolen' (and I don't - because NOBODY is entitled to a Supreme Court seat), McConnell and Trump were in charge when the other two came open. Using the "stolen" logic, it's still a 5-4 Court and RvW is still overturned.

History will not be nice to the likes of Mitch McConnell.

It's going to be the exact opposite. Harry Reid is going to go down in history as one of the all-time experts of own goals. Right next to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose decision to not retire in 2013 is going to be an all-timer.

McConnell ain't the one who abolished the filibuster for judicial (non-SCOTUS) nominations and then gloated on Twitter about it. That Tweet of Reid's is going to published in "textbooks" (or whatever) for the next century under the "be careful what you wish for" category. The details always get lost over time, and all anyone is going to see is, "McConnell was effective enough with a narrow majority Senate to get three justices on the Court."

And I'll note: McConnell warned him BEFORE he pulled the pistol out exactly what was going to happen - and Reid did it anyway.

 

[jthomas666]

Welp....nice try, but looks like that won't work.

Apparently, Congress delegated its oversight of tariffs via the Trade Act of 1974. Which is interesting because that would have been a Democratic Senate and HoR (sort of --- at that time a lot of Democrats from southern states voted with Republicans despite maintaining the D by their names) delegating to a Republican President, Gerald Ford. Mildly interesting related stories aside, that's why we are where we are.

Of course, Congress could un-delegate that oversight. But it would be instantly vetoed, which means it would need 2/3 of both houses to override the veto, which is a pipe dream.

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not grant the president the line-item veto because the Constitution gave budget authority to Congress. Wouldn't the same hold true for tariffs?

 

[Its On A Slab]

This is a laughable level of entitlement. Mitch McConnell did EXACTLY what Harry Reid would have done with President McCain or what Schumer would have done - and everybody here knows it.

Also, even if I grant the idea of the Scalia seat being 'stolen' (and I don't - because NOBODY is entitled to a Supreme Court seat), McConnell and Trump were in charge when the other two came open. Using the "stolen" logic, it's still a 5-4 Court and RvW is still overturned.



It's going to be the exact opposite. Harry Reid is going to go down in history as one of the all-time experts of own goals. Right next to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose decision to not retire in 2013 is going to be an all-timer.

McConnell ain't the one who abolished the filibuster for judicial (non-SCOTUS) nominations and then gloated on Twitter about it. That Tweet of Reid's is going to published in "textbooks" (or whatever) for the next century under the "be careful what you wish for" category. The details always get lost over time, and all anyone is going to see is, "McConnell was effective enough with a narrow majority Senate to get three justices on the Court."

And I'll note: McConnell warned him BEFORE he pulled the pistol out exactly what was going to happen - and Reid did it anyway.


View attachment 50462

You are incorrect.

You never saw justice appointments treated this way until Republicans decided that it was ok.

Sure, you had contentious battles. Clarence Thomas for example. Robert Bork was eventually voted against. But you didn't have a party sit on a nominee appointment like this.

Quit playing the both-sides schtick.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not grant the president the line-item veto because the Constitution gave budget authority was to Congress. Wouldn't the same hold true for tariffs?

You're essentially saying that the portion of the Trade Act of 1974 that delegated ability to set tariffs is unconstitutional -- the Constitution assigns that duty to Congress; therefore it can't be delegated.

I don't know if that would work or not. Maybe. It's worth a try.

Looking for consistency from SCOTUS can sometimes be predictive. It can sometimes be a fool's errand.

Except for those rights that the Constitution specifically grants to the federal government, the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves all rights to the states. It's been trampled on so much that it might as well not be there at all.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Disagree until the devil's on ice skates.

Cite all the facts you can muster in support of your opinion.

Don't make the discussion personal.

 

[Huckleberry]

You're essentially saying that the portion of the Trade Act of 1974 that delegated ability to set tariffs is unconstitutional -- the Constitution assigns that duty to Congress; therefore it can't be delegated.

I don't know if that would work or not. Maybe. It's worth a try.

Looking for consistency from SCOTUS can sometimes be predictive. It can sometimes be a fool's errand.

Except for those rights that the Constitution specifically grants to the federal government, the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves all rights to the states. It's been trampled on so much that it might as well not be there at all.

Here’s an interesting article that addresses that idea:

MS NOW

MS NOW breaking news and the latest news for today. Get daily news from local news reporters and world news updates with live audio & video from our team.

www.msnbc.com

 

[jthomas666]

This is a laughable level of entitlement. Mitch McConnell did EXACTLY what Harry Reid would have done with President McCain or what Schumer would have done - and everybody here knows it.

The GOP did it, therefore the Democrats would have done it if given the chance? That's some pretty specious logic.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Here’s an interesting article that addresses that idea:

MS NOW

MS NOW breaking news and the latest news for today. Get daily news from local news reporters and world news updates with live audio & video from our team.

www.msnbc.com

Looks like there’s precedent both ways.

I hope the stationery supplier wins.

I also agree with the author in principle that Congress should claw back the authority it has delegated to the President. I disagree with her that that's a realistic possibility.

If Congress and the Presidency are controlled by the same party, Congress has no incentive to stir up the hornet's nest.

If Congress and the Presidency are controlled by different parties, the President will almost certainly veto such an attempt -- when's the last time you saw a President voluntarily give up an iota of power?

So Congress would need a 2/3 majority of both houses to override. Not realistic.

The best chance to get the power back in Congress (where it should be) is through the Judiciary. Especially given conflicting precedents, even that's far from a sure thing.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

You are incorrect.

Nope.

A political party that:
a) abolished the filibuster for the nonjudicial nominations
b) tried to abolish it for other things later (but won't dare propose it now)
c) removed the democratically elected President because they thought he would lose

is a political party that will also skirt the issue to make sure their guy is confirmed.

You never saw justice appointments treated this way until Republicans decided that it was ok.

That doesn't change the point at all, though.

Sure, you had contentious battles. Clarence Thomas for example. Robert Bork was eventually voted against. But you didn't have a party sit on a nominee appointment like this.

But that's not the point.
You know that's not the point.

You know EXACTLY how it would have played out had everything been reversed.

Quit playing the both-sides schtick.

You mean where it's accurate, I'm still not allowed to do it???