Post Election - Chaos, Retrenchment, or Cooperation

[TGHusker]

http://theweek.com/articles/655708/after-trump-loses-ominous-american-future-imagined

 

This article paints a bleak picture of what the country will be like in 2019 after a Hillary election, a couple of impeachment tries (fails), and Trump TV

leading the opposition and poisoning the political pool.

 

 

We can use this thread to discuss pre-election what we think will happen after the election - wt a Hillary victory or with a Trump victory.

Post Election: discuss reaction after the election.

 

Here is my wild speculation post election Magic Ball future look:

After a Hillary victory, I don't see the Repubs being much of an opposition party after they loose seats in the House and Senate. While Paul Ryan and John McCain talked about

opposing Hillary SC nominees, they have a history of big talk and no action. I think the repubs will be going through a period of self evaluation and fighting within to gain control of

soul of the party. The election could be a big win for Hillary in the electoral college so the repubs won't have the courage to buck the vote of the people.

 

Trump will stir up strife for some time and many of his supporters will abandon the party. Someone worse than Trump, but endorsed by Trump, will rise up eventually to gain control of this disgruntled group and start a 3rd party movement. This will be the beginning of the Repub party fade and the rise of another replacement party. The Trump party will remain a fringe group while the Libertarian or Constitutional party gain members.

 

If in the unlikely chance that Trump wins, I think we will see riots spurned on by George Soros money from all sorts of groups - BLM, Environmental, GLBTG. etc Strife in our cities to make governance difficult in opposition to Trump's policies.

[NUance]

Remember George Bush vs. Al Gore? That election was every bit as contentious as this one is. People were threatening to move to Canada if Bush won. But then afterwards everyone took a deep breath and settled down. No riots. Nobody moved to Canada (that I'm aware of). It was business as usual.

 

That's what I think will happen after this election. Regardless of which way it goes, people will calm down and carry on. JMHO.

[knapplc]

If Hillary wins, and if she wins a majority in the Senate, we'll have a liberal Supreme Court and challenges to Citizens United until it's overturned. The Republicans will have less traction and will need new, stronger leadership, but won't mount as much of an opposition as they did under Obama. We'll become more of a police state and surveillance of citizens will become more the norm. The economy will sag and we'll fall back into recession in the next two or three years.

 

Unless the Democrats suddenly grow a spine and learn how to govern, not much will change in Washington. The voters will be even more disaffected, and the Republicans will have an excellent chance to retake control of Congress in the mid-terms.

 

I see Hillary as a one-term president, presuming a viable Republican shows up in 2020, maybe even a Clinton-over-Bush type thing.

 

 

 

If Trump is elected he'll embarrass America, kowtow to Russia and allow Putin to spread influence over the world, and generally he'll make a mess of everything.

[TGHusker]

If Hillary wins, and if she wins a majority in the Senate, we'll have a liberal Supreme Court and challenges to Citizens United until it's overturned. The Republicans will have less traction and will need new, stronger leadership, but won't mount as much of an opposition as they did under Obama. We'll become more of a police state and surveillance of citizens will become more the norm. The economy will sag and we'll fall back into recession in the next two or three years.

 

Unless the Democrats suddenly grow a spine and learn how to govern, not much will change in Washington. The voters will be even more disaffected, and the Republicans will have an excellent chance to retake control of Congress in the mid-terms.

 

I see Hillary as a one-term president, presuming a viable Republican shows up in 2020, maybe even a Clinton-over-Bush type thing.

 

 

 

If Trump is elected he'll embarrass America, kowtow to Russia and allow Putin to spread influence over the world, and generally he'll make a mess of everything.

I, too, see Hillary as a one term president - if she makes it that far - health issue I think would derail her term more that an impeachment or indictment. I saw Trump as a one termer also. Voted out or more likely him choosing not to run again because loosing "isn't him" and the voters would recognize their mistake in short time.

 

Overturning Citizen United is a good thing but it should be coupled wt some other campaign law reforms. CU was a reaction to large union donations to the dems. I don't think union dues should be allowed in a campaign whether it is Teamsters or NEA dues.

 

I think the risk of a recession is true under either Clinton or Trump - this 'recovery' has never been strong and the GDP #s have been very weak over the past year or so.

[knapplc]

CU was a reaction to large union donations to the dems. I don't think union dues should be allowed in a campaign whether it is Teamsters or NEA dues.

 

 

????

 

That's completely wrong. Citizens United actually allowed those donations. Prior to the ruling the Feds had strict regulations in place that prevented direct contributions from Unions and corporations, hence the proliferation of PACs. Citizens United said that money = speech, and such restrictions were an infringement on the 1st Amendment rights of those entities. Repealing Citizens United would remove those contributions.

[TGHusker]

 

CU was a reaction to large union donations to the dems. I don't think union dues should be allowed in a campaign whether it is Teamsters or NEA dues.

 

 

????

 

That's completely wrong. Citizens United actually allowed those donations. Prior to the ruling the Feds had strict regulations in place that prevented direct contributions from Unions and corporations, hence the proliferation of PACs. Citizens United said that money = speech, and such restrictions were an infringement on the 1st Amendment rights of those entities. Repealing Citizens United would remove those contributions.

 

Knapp, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought there was a difference in the law previously to CU - Union donations were allowed and had been for years - thus the outcry by republicans about NEA dues helping to elect Dems. They countered with campaigned laws that allowed PACs to exist (thus contributing to Repub causes and offset the Union advantage that the Dems had). Maybe my history is backwards.

[knapplc]

Feel free to research the origins of Citizens United (the PAC) and Citizens United vs. FEC, the case. The case stemmed from a PAC (Citizens United) funded by the Koch Brothers, ostensibly to support Republicans but whose apparent actual aim was to accomplish what Citizens United accomplished.

[Danny Bateman]

It appears Trump is going full-bore in his attempt to poison the well on this thing. In the last hour, I've heard the media "makes up phony polls", "refuses to admit I'm winning", and of course, voter fraud.

He's setting it up perfectly for his supporters to reject him legitimately getting steamrolled. The Reuters numbers on this truly disgust me: 50% of Republicans only trust the legitimacy of the election if he wins, and 70% think Clinton could only win through some type of fraud.

 

I really hope Trumpism gets snuffed out after this is over. I'd also like to see the far-left learn to be a bit more pragmatic in their approach to governance. And for the love of God, get anyone in the GOP who is less interested in legislating and more interested in obstruction or demagoguery out of Congress. I just want a functional legislature again.

 

Good idea for a thread, TGH.

[TGHusker]

It appears Trump is going full-bore in his attempt to poison the well on this thing. In the last hour, I've heard the media "makes up phony polls", "refuses to admit I'm winning", and of course, voter fraud.

 

He's setting it up perfectly for his supporters to reject him legitimately getting steamrolled. The Reuters numbers on this truly disgust me: 50% of Republicans only trust the legitimacy of the election if he wins, and 70% think Clinton could only win through some type of fraud.

 

I really hope Trumpism gets snuffed out after this is over. I'd also like to see the far-left learn to be a bit more pragmatic in their approach to governance. And for the love of God, get anyone in the GOP who is less interested in legislating and more interested in obstruction or demagoguery out of Congress. I just want a functional legislature again.

 

Good idea for a thread, TGH.

& Thanks I agree wt the bold 1000%

[BigRedBuster]

Feel free to research the origins of Citizens United (the PAC) and Citizens United vs. FEC, the case. The case stemmed from a PAC (Citizens United) funded by the Koch Brothers, ostensibly to support Republicans but whose apparent actual aim was to accomplish what Citizens United accomplished.

Correct me if I'm wrong but CU basically was a freedom of speech decision. They claimed that donations to campaigns were a form of speech and the government can not regulate that even if it is through various organizations like unions or corporations. This decision then also allowed Super Pacs...etc.

 

I am all for getting rid of the CU decision because the way things are right now, is totally unacceptable.

 

However, then the question remains, what donations or political expenditures are protected and which are not? Is a union donating money acceptable but a corporation isn't? Are those two not accepted but Super Pacs are allowed?

 

Let's say I'm not a Super Pac but I am George Soros and I want to spend a billion dollars on an ad campaign trashing the opponent of the politician I support.....am I prevented from doing so?

 

I think all of us don't like CU. But, it's not a simple answer as to how it is fixed.

[TGHusker]

I don't know, maybe p lace a total cap on spending or fund raising by a candidate & its advocacy group (PAC, Unions, Corporations, Individuals).. Maybe don't limit the source but the value. This would test the candidates ability to manage the campaign and its spending. Not sure how you monitor a spending / fund raising cap however. A problem wt this solution would be that the candidate would most likely quickly accept the money from the big donors to fill their coffers as quickly as possible leaving the little giver and his interest on the side line. Unless the cap has % restrictions on % from individuals, corp, unions, PAC, etc.

[VectorVictor]

Since we're talking election reform, I'd love to see the following:

• Shorten up primary and campaign seasons to 90-120 days total, instead of the 10-12 month process (officially) it is anymore.
• Restrict campaign donations to $X ($100?) per candidate per social security number (parents can claim minor children that the claim on tax returns--e.g. a family with three kids at a $100 restriction could donate $500 per candidate, a family with one kid could donate $300, when the kid isn't the age of minority any longer, this goes away).
• Restrict donations to PACs to $X ($1000?) total per social security number (same extension for minor children as before)
• Television and radio stations are required to give equal ad time to each ballot candidate...or candidates are only allowed X hours of television and radio advertisements during the primary election cycle, and then another allotment of X hours is given to each candidate during the general election cycle
• Restrictions on matching Federal funds based on performance in the previous elections are updated so more (viable) parties can enter the discourse.
• No foreign entity is allowed to donate
• Corporate donations are limited to $X ($5000?) per Tax ID to each candidate and $X ($10,000?) total for all PACs, provided their parent company primary tax residence is stateside (e.g. subsidiaries of larger multi-national conglomerates cannot donate unless their HQ is in the USA)

I know these are pie-in-the-sky, but damn if we don't need to do something to take all of the money and outside influence out of our political process. Because this garbage with Russia in bed with Trump and trying to undermine our election process is just the tip of the iceberg if we don't do something sooner rather than later to prevent this from happening again.

[TGHusker]

VV - I like your thinking on the campaign donations. Linking to SS and Tax ID #s . I assume you dump unions in wt PACs. Actually, since union money is from individuals, that might be a 'double dip' on the soc security #. I've never liked unions taking money and using it for clearly partisan candidate support. I think it is ok for unions spending money on issues that relate to their union/industry - for example NEA spending money in Okla to help pass the 1 cent sales tax for education is ok. But spending money to support one candidate over another seems to take money from a person to support a candidate that that union member may be very opposed to I think is an abuse of the union member's dues.

[knapplc]

VV - I like your thinking on the campaign donations. Linking to SS and Tax ID #s . I assume you dump unions in wt PACs. Actually, since union money is from individuals, that might be a 'double dip' on the soc security #. I've never liked unions taking money and using it for clearly partisan candidate support. I think it is ok for unions spending money on issues that relate to their union/industry - for example NEA spending money in Okla to help pass the 1 cent sales tax for education is ok. But spending money to support one candidate over another seems to take money from a person to support a candidate that that union member may be very opposed to I think is an abuse of the union member's dues.

 

Agreed, especially with the bold. Just because I join a union doesn't mean I support the candidate the union bosses choose.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Restrict campaign donations to $X ($100?) per candidate per social security number

 

This is already law. You are capped at $2700 in direct donations for any Federal Campaign.