So now the Democrats have taking back the House of Representatives, the question is, what will they do? They can’t pass any legislation but they can use their subpoena power to hold a lot of hearings and yell a lot. And of course, try to get Donald Trump’s taxes released. Is this really why people lined up on election day?
What Americans Want More Than Anything Else is Donald Trump’s Tax Return
26 Comments. Leave new
+1, Ted….
Henri
+1, as Henri already said.
With just the House, the Dems are limited in what they can do. Again, I think the big impact of the election results is that Trump’s brand has alienated so many people that the collective outrage made voting against him and his party the noncorporeal candidate in every election.
By extension, it is a rebuke of party politics in general. As I recall, the political party system began because regionally popular candidates couldn’t get enough of the vote to win the general election. And they couldn’t get enough votes because of the limitations in communication technology (hence the whistlestop campaigns of the 19th and TV/radio debates of the 20th centuries).
Anti-Trump backlash putting the Republicans in a position where only HRC announcing a run in 2020 could regenerate them? I suspect a Pelosi speakership (more of the “bipartisan” ineffectualism that can no longer be glossed over by corporate media) will trigger a similar collapse among the democrats in that it will chase off Progressives. The clintonians still don’t get that they don’t represent enough of a force to win elections without a Progressive wing backing them. The Progressives won’t swallow the clintonian game plan due to politico-moral reasons. Like it or not, the people who say $12 an hour is enough will not be voted for by the ones who think $15 is the bare minimum acceptable.
Imagine that. Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils all those times finally allowed a candidate to emerge who was so loathsome that he broke the system. And his opponent was similarly so unlikeable that neither of her faces was acceptable either. There was a bottom.
My big question now? Assuming someone can actually get through to the cadaver animated by Nancy Pelosi’s selfish ambition, and assuming that at least one person in the Sanders campaign is watching the dNC, what happens to the U.S. when we finally get a president, House and Senate with Progressive leadership? How will USP, a more advanced wage system, and all the rest of it affect the country? Will Canadians start sneaking over the border for medications?
«more of the “bipartisan” ineffectualism that can no longer be glossed over by corporate media» I’m not sure, Alex, that «ineffectualism» is the proper term ; after all, the Trump administration and the 115th US Congress together have been able to deilver a major tax cut to the wealthy, more money to the military-industrial complex, and carry out the wars – seven, if I’m counting aright – inherited from the preceding administration (not to speak of separating families or sending troops to the country’s border with Mexico to defend it from invasion). What’s so ineffectual about that ? Moreover, the god-given right to pollute the atmosphere, the land, and the waters has been defended by rolling back the few measures (talk about «ineffectualism» !) that the previous administration had managed to put into place….
The US political system can be accused of many sins, but hardly ineffectualism ; in terms of ROI, it’s about the best thing going….
Henri
I thank you for pointing out my omission of sins. It’s the 21st century equivalent of the seven dwarves. There’s Iraq and Afghanistan and um Syria and Bashful? Dang it. Is there a mnemonic?
The major thing Democrats have in their favor is that they are not Republicans, the party that Dems have so successfully demonized for their support of the very same policies as their own, albeit while using a more civil tone than Republicans seem capable of demonstrating without alienating their overtly misogynistic and racist electorate.
No … “not more than anything else” but yeah, I’d sure like to see ’em.
“Where does his money come from?” and “How much does he really have?”
The former is important so we can see to whom he is really beholdin’ – and the latter just mean-spirited curiosity. Many financial folks have speculated that he isn’t really as rich as he claims, and it would be joyful happy fun to see him embarrassed like that. Always assuming he’s capable of embarrassment.
“Always assuming he’s capable of embarrassment”
Trump demonstrates that he is incapable of embarrassment when he regularly embarrasses himself without any seeming recognition that he’s done it again.
Trump is like the man who goes to the doctor complaining of silent flatulence, never suspecting that he would be prescribed a hearing aid.
+1
… but then he’s fired every other ‘aid’ which has told him something he didn’t want to hear …
😀
Oh! Lookit dat! Trump has admitted he put Whittaker in place to fuck with DastardlyRussiansGate investigation:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-installed-matthew-whitaker-to-kill-russia-probe-obstruction-of-justice-2018-11
(not that it wasn’t obvious in the first place, but evidently some folks didn’t get it.)
If the House of Representatives manages to impeach Trump there’s no way in the Senate trial that the 53 Republican Senators will be able to deny that justice demands the removal of Trump from office should they ever read this Business Insider article.
To do otherwise would seem as inappropriate as denying Obama the opportunity to have his choice of which right-wing judge to be installed in the Supreme Court.
I can see the dastardly 53 melting before the incriminating heat of the burning truth revealed therein—NOT.
And if they decide they want a president Pence instead, could one really call that a victory?
> If the House of Representatives manages to impeach Trump
So … are you conceding that there might maybe possibly, conceivably, hypothetically be grounds to impeach Komrade Trumpinovski?
I mean – seriously – ‘Obstruction of Justice’ is a done deal at this point. Whether or not Justice Is Served remains to be seen.
I reserve judgment as a practice.
I never eliminate possibilities from consideration until conclusive evidence is presented.
One can never prove a negative, because one fact can disprove a negative proposition.
My doubt is taken by the True Believers in the dogma of the Democratic Party, as heresy.
The word heretic comes from the Greek, meaning “one who chooses for himself”.
“Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of”… [in the present case, the Democratic Party and its affiliates].
If it weren’t for heretics, those who doubted that the earth is the center of God’s universe would be (and may still possibly be [because one can’t prove a negative]) burned at the stake.
“I mean – seriously – ‘Obstruction of Justice’ is a done deal at this point. Whether or not Justice Is Served remains to be seen.”
I take from the above that you would consider the presidency of Pence a victory, whereas I would consider it a Pyrrhic victory.
“A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.”
And your complete faith in a Constitution that either causes such a travesty, or cannot prevent it from happening, is a faith I cannot share.
And for this I am considered a heretic by Democrats.
See the meaning of heresy elsewhere in the comments.
> I reserve judgment as a practice.
Funny, I was under the impression that you had concluded that DastardlyRussiansGate was a hoax based on zero evidence whatsoever. Given the vitriol contained in your posts on the subject, I was likewise under the impression that you had quite a lot of faith in that conclusion.
> one can’t prove a negative
That’s a common misconception, but it simply isn’t true.
Negative statement: There are no elephants in my office.
Proof: Enumerate all the places an elephant could be, and examine each to determine whether an elephant is present.
Upon examination, my negative statement is merely the negation of the statement “there is an elephant in my office” which could also be falsified or proven, thereby proving or disproving the negation.
The concept of a negative proof is a very powerful tool in math and physics. Sometimes you can’t directly prove that x equals two, but maybe you can prove that it can’t be anything other than two.
> I take from the above that you would consider the presidency of Pence a victory,
A conclusion at which you have arrived with no proof whatsoever.. Interesting, that. (FWIW: it’s a ‘False Dichotomy” – no different than assuming I love Hillary because I hate Trump. It is perfectly possible to hate all of the above.)
I would consider taking down Trump to be a victory, yes. A Pence presidency, not so much.
> And your complete faith in a Constitution that either causes such a travesty, or cannot prevent it from happening, is a faith I cannot share.
Not to belabor the point: but this is another conclusion at which you have arrived with zero proof.
I’ve never said such a thing, and for the record I don’t think the Constitution has magical powers to override human nature.
“I would consider taking down Trump to be a victory, yes. A Pence presidency, not so much.”
And you think that its possible and within the realm of possibility that the former can somehow occur without the latter?
And if so, to what end?
Perhaps the simple reference (which applies in this case) needs to be made more explicitly with every comment.
I expect that you already know this to be true but you need to act as if it weren’t true in order to avoid deflating your case for this most important issue for Democrats: “What Americans Want More Than Anything Else is Donald Trump’s Tax Return”.
For this proverb, “you can’t prove a negative”, “a negative” means a very specific type of statement. It has to be existential, like “X doesn’t exist”. More than that, it has to require checking an infinite number of cases. Some examples will clarify.
This statement qualifies as “a negative” in this context: “There are no flying elephants anywhere in the universe.” Since we can’t look everywhere in the universe for flying elephants, the statement can’t be proven.
> you need to act as if it weren’t true in order to avoid deflating you
Yet another conclusion reached without proof. In fact, I’m a little vague on exactly what it is that you’ve concluded here. I already addressed the ‘most important thing’ in my first post on this thread. (i.e. I don’t believe it’s the most important thing.)
> : “There are no flying elephants anywhere in the universe.” Since we can’t look everywhere in the universe for flying elephants, the statement can’t be proven.
Oh, that is true – but consider that neither can you prove that they DO exist. BOTH statements are equally un/provable, but if you could prove either you would automatically disprove its opposite.
We could stipulate that it is hypothetically provable by examining every point in the universe to determine whether it contains a flying elephant.
QED.
“If the House of Representatives manages to impeach Trump there’s no way in the Senate trial that the 53 Republican Senators will be able to deny that justice demands the removal of Trump from office should they ever read this Business Insider article.”
Please, CH.
I was yanking your chain, but perhaps too subtly.
I meant to convey that the 53 Republican Senators will be no more likely to remove Trump from office than they were likely to allow Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court a hearing to “advise and consent”.
You and the many fail to understand the serious condition we citizens of empire now find ourselves in.
And still the feckless Democrats want to find “common ground” with the ReTrumplicans, as if all was still normal.
but … but … those 53 Republican Senators have been perpetrating the DastardlyRussiansGate hoax for the last two years. Why would they go to all that trouble if they didn’t intend to follow through?
> And you think that its possible and within the realm of possibility that the former can somehow occur without the latter?
I consider it to be irrelevant to the question of whether Komrade Trumpinov is guilty.
“I consider it to be irrelevant to the question of whether Komrade Trumpinov is guilty.”
You want to catch a whale and it’s irrelevant what you are going to do with it, and how you are going to load it into your rowboat.
So you will be satisfied if you can prove Trump guilty even if it results in no practical, or even a negative consequence, such as a Pence presidency?
“What Americans Want More Than Anything Else is Donald Trump’s Tax Return”
Democrats will not stir up their electorate the way Trump stirs up his electorate.
Maybe it’s because appealing to the needs of the people might hurt the Democrats’ standing with their oligarchic financiers.
Trumps hate mongering costs the Republicans’ oligarchic financiers nothing.
Hate is cheap for Republicans and costly for Democrats.
> “I consider it to be irrelevant to the question of whether Komrade Trumpinov is guilty.”
It neither serves to prove nor disprove the proposition that he is guilty. It is therefore “irrelevant to the question of whether Komrade Trumpinov is guilty”
What happens after is, of course, interesting. I never said it wasn’t – but you have evidently reached another conclusion … (do I really have to say it again?)
Allow me to here point out that, contrary to what is often asserted, negative propositions can indeed be demonstrated to be true ; one of the earliest and most well-known examples is the proof that the square root of two is not a rational number. The method used in such cases is a reductio ad absurdum. Perhaps we should all do better to refrain from repeating assertions of this type….
Henri
One can’t prove that no evidence of a Trump-Putin conspiracy exists, because all that is needed is to find evidence in the form of one fact that’s beyond dispute.
For example the negative statement that “There are no black swans” was considered to be true until they were found in Australia.
I know that following this logic can be difficult for many, but I will continue to use it when it fits the situation so perfectly, despite the howls of protest.
I will refer to the statements where the negative can’t be proved with the shorthand of a “Black Swan Event” or a “potential Black Swan Event” for those who can’t quite grasp the symbolic language equivalent.
For another example: That “There is no evidence of a Trump-Putin conspiracy to steal the election from Hillary,” is a potential Black Swan statement. All that is needed to disprove it is for one irrefutable fact to be brought into evidence to disprove the example statement.
(In my opinion, however it beggars belief to think that this evidence would not have been released by the Democrats prior to the recent elections if they actually had it.)
The black swan theory or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight. The term is based on an ancient saying that presumed black swans did not exist – a saying that became reinterpreted to teach a different lesson after black swans were discovered in the wild.
For this proverb, “you can’t prove a negative”, “a negative” means a very specific type of statement. It has to be existential, like “X doesn’t exist”. More than that, it has to require checking an infinite number of cases. Some examples will clarify.
This statement qualifies as “a negative” in this context: “There are no flying elephants anywhere in the universe.” Since we can’t look everywhere in the universe for flying elephants, the statement can’t be proven.
Okay, Glenn – you assert that one statement which cannot be dis/proven demonstrates that it is impossible to prove all negative statements.
Here’s a positive statement: “Flying elephants exist” since that statement cannot be proven we must conclude that all positive statements cannot be proven.
Either that, or there is some flaw in your reasoning.
& btw, “… means a very specific type of statement. ” is a classic example of No True Scotsman.