@eoe

As ironic as it may be to say this, I think that the Republican Congress will be a strong bulwark against Trump's more nationalistic impulses if it turns out he actually wants to act on them and they weren't just part of demagogic campaigning.

If for no other reason that they know demographics are against them in the longer term. They may have won the election on the electoral college but lost the popular vote - even with all the attempts at voter suppression. In the longer term, winning with their party base becomes harder and harder.

They know if Trump enacts genuine deportation measures against Latinos then the frankly astounding 1/3 of voting Latinos that supported Trump will turn sharply against the Republican party. That group represents the fastest growing demographic in America and they can't afford to lose them for a generation.

In contrast, they will be also act a constraint against any of his ideas on infrastructure spending, congressional term limits or curbing trade. Since it's already clear he's filling his cabinet with establishment Republicans and he has little knowledge of policy, he will likely acquiesce to their suggestions for lack of any other policy advice.

Your video, The Young Turks - Who Will Be In Trump's Cabinet, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 13 Badge!

Who puts bananas in a cabinet??

It's happening hardcore over here. It seems like sometime in the last 5 years, all the stops came out and it's become utterly shameless. They will say or do anything, and if they are wrong or found to be acting improperly they print a very small retraction - but the damage is already done. And other media outlets report on the false report!

Recently the Labour leader here has been repeatedly smeared by anti Semitism. They say his supporters are anti-Semites, that he doesn't express enough outrage in condemning anti-Semitism. The guy is famed for his tolerance and acceptance, says in almost every speech he gives that he wants to challenge any and all xenophobia, is the biggest cheerleader for women and minorities, has appointed the most diverse shadow cabinet in history, issued a full independent investigation into racism and abuse....... He does all of this, but now the stories are "claims of anti-Semitism appears to follow the Labour leader around" -- they are now reporting that they have reported false claims of anti-Semitism!

He doesn't even defend himself - he asks people instead to stop instrumentalising minorities to score political points. So then they claim he's not taking their false claims seriously enough and therefore not taking anti-Semitism seriously and the smear cycle goes on.

The worst thing about all of this is how complicit his opponents are in the game.... fair enough if you don't like him, it's ok to rubbish his policies. But this media misrepresentation is destroying a democracy that was already on its knees. And politicians, guardians of our society, manipulate and utilise this poisonous shit to get their way!

This year has completely turned me off politics again. To see what these people will to do an honest man has broken my spirit, but to that 70 year old bloke's credit, it hasn't broken his.

Trump as president will be the same as Trump as presidential candidate. There won't be policies and solutions, he wants to be a demagogue, giving speeches and basking in the adulation. He will delegate the hard work of running the country to other people and stoke his ego presiding over ridiculous meetings where he gives directions and derides his cabinet for failing. "You're fired!"

President Trump will get nothing done and when he pushes the wrong buttons he'll be impeached. The Trump presidency will not be 4 years.

But this guy's video is full of shit. He blissfully ignores the fact that a president must compromise and sometimes even make the best choice from a list of undesireable options. No President can, or should be able to, get everything they want. You can never judge a politician based on every naive expectation you have, because you have the luxury of idealism while they're dealing with reality. The best you can do is support someone who's agenda best matches your own and applaud them when they succeed.

It's like pinball. You can use what control you have to push the ball where you want it but you cannot ultimately control where it goes.

This video starts out be denigrating the idea that game theory should influence our choices in politics. Well that's one of the stupidest things he could say. You cannot refuse to throw the dice in monopoly, claim all the properties and believe you're winning. You have to develop the best strategy you can for the best outcome you can manage with the rules that are in place. If you don't like the rules...change them before the next game begins. Of course, that would require you to make an effort in between games. You don't get YouTube views for that.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

The president also has the power to sink us if his party is in control of congress and goes along with any stupid thing he does, and so does the Supreme Court (which will essentially belong to whoever is the next president).
If Clinton only worked within a broken system, she might be forgiven, but she doesn't. This latest DNC collusion fiasco is just the latest shining example of how she and her team flagrantly disregards the rules if they aren't convenient for her. She just gave Shultz a nice position in her campaign and you can bet she'll have a cabinet position if Clinton wins for blatantly rigging the primary for her, which is not the action of someone who values ethics.
Yes, the system needs to be reformed, but by someone that believes that rules and laws apply to everyone including them, not someone who's an expert at slipping through loopholes and skirting the rules if not breaking them outright then lying about it....which is either major party candidate.
IMO, Clinton is the fairly competent but corrupt one, Trump is fairly incompetent and corrupt and pathological and racist and narcissistic and just a terrible human being. I'm not certain which is more dangerous, because I can't tell what either of them will actually do in any situation beyond whatever appears to benefit them most at the time.

I, for one, am glad we don't have a two party system and I have other choices. I will only vote for someone I want to be president, and refuse to cast a vote against someone. That's what has us in this mess.

As much as I am a Sander's supporter. I can't support the idea of him running as an independent. That would split the Democratic vote too much, and the idea of a Trump Presidency is far too dangerous. I think the fact that the polls show again and again that Sanders would do much better against Trump should show the DNC that Hillary needs Sanders and his supporters far more than Sanders needs her and her supporters.

If I were Hillary I'd offer Sanders the VP spot. Even if he doesn't accept, he gets the prime time keynote spot. Then you also promise the Congressional Progressive Caucus get's at least 60% of the rest of the prime time spots, with moderates getting 40% of the prime time spot. Off prime time the CPC still gets 40% (no less than 33%). Between Sanders and the CPC having the bulk of the prime time spots, it helps move the progressive message forward.

She then needs to have a known progressive on her ticket. If she can't secure Sanders, she'd probably consider Warren, but unfortunately, two women might make too many independent voters nervous. So I'd push for Dennis Kucinich. The advantage with Kucinich is that he's a known progressive, and he'd help give Clinton Ohio. If you can't get him, then find a rising member of the CPC. Again, the idea is to push the progressive agenda. Warren and Sanders have to have spots in the cabinet though if they want in.

There's enough hate of Trump in the Republican ranks that I think this year is the year to push for 3rd parties, especially the Libertarian party since that is the one most likely to pull votes from Republicans looking for an alternative to Trump... it won't pull the religious right who'll stick with Trump, but the more sane minded Republicans will probably consider it over absentee voting. The anti-Trump Republicans need to push the idea of the Libertarian party, and then push for Republicans for the Senate and House to avoid loosing the Senate, which is possible...

The Democrats meanwhile need to do something to get people out and vote. Democratic turnout keeps going down, beyond what one would expect purely from the Voter ID laws Republicans put in to lower Democratic votes. They need to rally the base into actually getting out and voting. To secure not only the Presidency from Trump, but to overtake the Senate and start making a push for the House. Of course one of the main way they do this is start appealing to Sanders supporters, and the party seems so intent on dissing his supporters.

The DNC is way too dismissive of the actions in Nevada. The Nevada people went out of their way to make sure Sanders didn't win, they knew people were still trying to get in when they made rule changes... people they were holding back on purpose so they could push those changes through, then when those people got in, they of course were upset. The DNC, a party that publicly tries to support those who have been disenfranchised from voting, is going out of their way to disenfranchise a large percentage of its base... all just because it's Clinton's turn or something. Fine, let it be her turn, but don't shut out the movement. She needs to step to the left, and add a large number of progressive voices to her team. She and the DNC needs to reach out to Sanders supporters and other progressives and unite the party... Trump seems to be pulling in the moderates to his side. As split as the Republicans were at the start, they are starting to pull together far better than the Democrats are... and it isn't up to Sanders to drop out and push his support to her, she needs to be the one to offer an olive branch and start wooing him and his supporters. Right now they seem to think it's Sander's job... no, it's the leader's job... It isn't the Republican moderates reaching out to Trump, it is Trump meeting with them and wooing them. Some to less success than others, true enough, but he's doing far better at starting an appeal to the moderates than Clinton is to Sanders, his supporters and the progressives.

I love Sarah but I can't jump on the Bernie bandwagon. I just don't feel he has the general electorate.

I think he has stirred the pot quite viciously and the democrats have to give him something, VP or Cabinet but I don't think he has the general electorate like Donald has.

Sorry I know the rule is don't talk politics and comment on videos together but I am a good old fashioned rulebreaker.

As I see it, there were only prosecutions from Abu Ghraib because the abuse became public knowledge.

While rape and murder have never been proven to be executive orders (although it's pretty clear that murder in the field has been ordered by many presidents, including the current one, but is called something different), they were certainly standard procedure. That's why the offenders felt safe publicly posting pictures of the crimes. Had they been a tiny bit smarter about it, there almost certainly would have never been a prosecution, because that would make the crimes public and keeping the abuse secret was far more important than addressing the crimes.
Most of what we saw from Abu Ghraib was clearly, and admittedly sanctioned by the president and his cabinet. as you said, there was.."sleep deprivation, hooding prisoners, playing loud music, removing all detainees' clothing, forcing them to stand in so-called "stress positions", and the use of dogs" and also waterboarding and other acts designed to inflict the feeling of being murdered. From there to actual 'rape and murder' is just a tiny step over that invisible line that the executive branch had taken them right up to and complained about being stymied by.
They may not have been directly directed to rape and murder, but they were presented with people they were told to treat as subhuman and directed to do more to get the information that 'legal' torture had not delivered. I'm not sure what else they might have done in that situation.

I found Colbert's question about "unknown knowns" the most interesting, but here's the thing:

Bush was the Commander in Chief. He didn't present their "intelligence evidence" of Iraq's WMDs to the American people because he *had* to. He tells the military what to do, they do it; the people don't get "veto rights". The only reason he presented it to the American people (I still remember watching Colin Powell show satellite photos etc.) was to shore up votes for his re-election. Which is exactly what any politician would do in that situation -- make a decision, and present that decision in the best possible light to the voters.

In other words, when Bush et al. were presenting that stuff to us, they weren't selling the actual invasion itself to us. They were selling us an image of their own legitimacy and competence. Viewed like that, of course they aren't going to inform us of those "unknown knowns"; it would shatter the image of them confidently and capably doing what they knew they had to do -- which was the actual point of it (selling that image to us, I mean).


I was sold, at the time. As were most (but not all) Americans, including many many people much older and wiser than I was (and am). I now agree that the invasion was a colossal mistake and that Bush's presidency in general was rather disastrous. BUT, that being said, I think it is problematic to hold these kinds of decisions against a president beyond a certain point.

FDR decided to drop two atom bombs on Japan rather than continuing with conventional warfare and risking many more American (and Japanese) lives with an invasion. Many people have questioned (and continue to question) that decision. But FDR was there. He was the Commander in Chief, he had some facts and plenty of unverifiable information and suggestions from his cabinet and intelligence sources of the time, and he made the decision.

I don't envy people in power who have to make weighty decisions like that based on incomplete information, only to have people question those decisions by citing information that they didn't have at the time. For the rest of their lives.