BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
Also, the mods have an incredible bias toward certain viewpoints. From conversations with others I has become abundantly clear that liberals are suspended for being "rude" and conservatives are not. Personally, I'd rather see that addressed.
This thread is not the place to debate forum policy, but as someone who has been banned by the mods for being rude I can say I totally deserved it each and every time, and I know they have banned conservative members for doing the same.
Agreed... as someone who's been baned (if you're here long enough, you'd know what I spelt it like that), I deserved it.
Also, the mods aren't SJW-nazi-ish... they have a tough job and it's simple courtesyto abide by the forum's tenets and rules.
Btw, can anyone help me out with what Snowden let out?
Snowden in 2013 released classified files to The Guardian and The Washington Post pertaining to the NSA's PRISM program.
...
“Due to the Snowden leaks and other disclosures, terrorists also have a great understanding of how we seek to conduct surveillance including our methods, our tactics and the scope and scale of our efforts. They’ve altered the ways in which they communicate and this has led to a decrease in collection,” Mr. Rasmussen said at a February 12 hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“We have specific examples which I believe we have shared with the committee and the committee staff in classified session — specific examples of terrorists who have adopted greater security measures such as using various new types of encryption, terrorists who have dropped or changed email addresses, and terrorists who have simply stopped communicating in ways they had before, in part because they understand how we collected,” he said.
...
Vulnerability is the price of a free and open society. If we are more vulnerable to terrorists because of our constitutional rights, I'm ok with that. The option is trading rights for security...and we all know that old yarn.
ender502 wrote: Though, when Manning dis give info to WikiLeaks at least they seemed to actual audit the material rather than just a straight dump.
Actually the reason Snowden didn't give information to WikiLeaks is because WikiLeaks is incredibly reckless with information. For those who do not know Julian Assange has a very radical view of government transparency (namely that there shouldn't be any such thing as a "secret" at all, government or otherwise). WikiLeaks has been blasted many times by mainstream news and officials for their habit of dumping information onto web with no editing, no verification, and no consideration for the consequences. It's why the Panama Papers weren't given to WikiLeaks, and it's why WikiLeaks basically doesn't get information of real worth from anyone but Russians XD
Just as a basic example, when releasing the diplomatic cables given to them by Manning, WikiLeaks allowed into the public sphere the names of informants who were informing on things that could get them killed should the people they were informing on know they were informing us of important information (I'll be honest I just wanted to see how many times I could squeeze "inform" into that sentence). In another instance they published files that contained the names, social security numbers, and credit card numbers of Federal employees. There was literally no point to releasing that information. It was not a substantial contribution to the "issue" WikiLeaks was leaking on. WikiLeaks has publicly released the names of homosexuals who live in Saudi Arabia (one guess what happens to homosexuals there).
If she had any interest in whistle-blowing over a specific case or instances of what she viewed as misconduct in Iraq... there were ample channels available for her to take that up the chain or reached out to the IG for whistle-blower status. If, however, she received no satisfaction there... she could of pulled out the specific videos, instances and communications and then went to press, asking for anonymity from the reporter. She'd still be breaking the law, but at least she'd have a case...
Her superiors discouraged her from bringing up the videos she had seen and there was too much material for it to be reasonable that she covertly review everything. I don't care that laws were broken because laws aren't inherently just. A state that tries to cover up killings of civilians does not deserve secrecy. Secrecy requires trust and the US does not deserve that trust.
Her superiors discouraged her from bringing up the videos she had seen and there was too much material for it to be reasonable that she covertly review everything. I don't care that laws were broken because laws aren't inherently just. A state that tries to cover up killings of civilians does not deserve secrecy. Secrecy requires trust and the US does not deserve that trust.
Except the military hadn't covered up the deaths of civilians. The cases Manning released information on (and the WikiLeaks bragged about "breaking") were already public knowledge. There were court cases in progress for them, official investigations, and news reports, all already in the public sphere (I'm assuming you're referring to the 2007 Baghdad Airstrike). The issue wasn't that the government was covering them up, it was that the American public didn't care until the story became a drama laden mess. The only thing WikiLeaks changed about that incident was that the video itself became public, but the incident was already known and had been for years.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Depends on if the Trump peeps want the Senate to nuke the filibuster on SCoTUS picks...
If he picks ANYONE on his published list, then expect that's what's going to happen... especially if it's William Pryor or Diane Sykes.
The *only* person on this list that MAY have a chance is Senator Mike Lee... and that's because the 'Senate Club' don't usually block their own members from moving on...
If it's not on this list, then expect someone like John Roberts.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
It's about the only thing he could do outside of simply outright selling it...
The only thing I think that could make it 'better', is for Trump to hire someone like Mitt Romney, and give him COMPLETE control of any/all decisions over his companies. But, then again, he wouldn't want to shut out his kids from running the company.
If she had any interest in whistle-blowing over a specific case or instances of what she viewed as misconduct in Iraq... there were ample channels available for her to take that up the chain or reached out to the IG for whistle-blower status. If, however, she received no satisfaction there... she could of pulled out the specific videos, instances and communications and then went to press, asking for anonymity from the reporter. She'd still be breaking the law, but at least she'd have a case...
Her superiors discouraged her from bringing up the videos she had seen and there was too much material for it to be reasonable that she covertly review everything. I don't care that laws were broken because laws aren't inherently just. A state that tries to cover up killings of civilians does not deserve secrecy. Secrecy requires trust and the US does not deserve that trust.
That's because the footage that Manning saw wasn't nearly as egregious as it was made out to be. Insurgents engaged US troops in a gunfight in an area full of civilians and consequently some civilians died I the fighting, it's inevitable and even desirable for the insurgency side that there are civilian casualties in urban guerilla warfare.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
I would like to believe that such would be the case, but I think your faith in the political institutions, given the events and characters of the last couple of years, is far stronger than mine, particularly the faith that anyone will act in an appropriately timely manner if issues do arise.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
BigWaaagh wrote: Point of order as some comments on the matter are getting sloppy with the terminology. Manning received clemency, not a pardon. Big difference.
Yep. Refusing to use correct gender pronouns and not noticing the difference between clemency and a pardon shows this topic is about feelings, not facts.
Is the US really going forward with Trump "divesting" control of his companies to his kids? That seems an insufficient level of insulation between the PotUS and his conflicts of interest.
One would think...but ah...who's gonna do something about it? He's head of the executive branch and as president he gets to ostensibly be in charge of the Republican party as well, which happens to control both houses of congress, and he's got an open supreme court spot to fill that will break the current makeup with a court split 50/50 down ideological lines in his favor.
Yay!
Filling Scalia's vacant seat with a "conservative" justice would simply retain the same "conservative":"liberal" ratio the court had under Obama.
Right, but under Obama that ratio was mostly in opposition and was there beforehand. Not that the court has some sort of duty to be in opposition to the executive branch, but ultimately the point was that if Trump's actions aren't considered sufficient, he's got leverage on all the other branches of government to make doing something about it rather difficult.
Isn't divesting himself from his companies' operations and investment the same thing every president does? It's always been explained to me as every POTUS has their investments hidden out of their reach while they're in office.
Aye, but most don't have a gigantic private business empire going into it, and just handing that off to the kids or other close immediate family members isn't really "divesting" as most people would see it.
I don't think you'll see an ardently politically biased justice get confirmed by the senate. The Republicans don't have a large majority in the Senate and if they want to do well in the midterms they can't afford to push any extreme candidates. I think we're most likely to get a nominee like Roberts, who's been more of a mixed bag than a consistent "conservative."
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
I would like to believe that such would be the case, but I think your faith in the political institutions, given the events and characters of the last couple of years, is far stronger than mine, particularly the faith that anyone will act in an appropriately timely manner if issues do arise.
I don't have much faith in our political institutions behaving in an ethical, professional and timely manner at all, I just have more faith in the ability of the Feds to enforce existing procedures that they've been enforcing for every POTUS than I do I their ability to create new and better restrictions for Trump in the next 2 weeks.
That's because the footage that Manning saw wasn't nearly as egregious as it was made out to be. Insurgents engaged US troops in a gunfight in an area full of civilians and consequently some civilians died I the fighting, it's inevitable and even desirable for the insurgency side that there are civilian casualties in urban guerilla warfare.
In fact, the footage showed the two journalist helping insurgents. For example, one clearly peeks around the corner and takes pictures, then shows the pictures to the insurgents. And the captured camera verified the pictures were of a hardtop hummer and US troops.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
The political parties abandoning districts has been an issue longer than the extreme gerrymandering of the past two decades. The parties started bailing with the advent of modern political science and electoral analysis in the 50s and 60s, and the current plague of very bad Gerrymandering didn't really kick in until the 80s. It seems more likely to me the former contributed to the later than vice versa. A safe district has to already exist for you to gerrymander it to make ti safer. I'd argue that by abandoning districts both parties allowed the other to have safe districts, and opened the door for them to be gerrymandered for political advantage. Doesn't make gerrymandering right, but that could be the case as easily as what you posit. I don't think we have the data to know which is true.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
For rural areas across the US to become single party districts for Republicans you would need state legislators across the country to uniformly agree to gerrymander rural areas to favor Republicans. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of such collusion? Have all the rural districts been redrawn since 1988 in a way that gerrymanders them into noncompetitive districts? Districts don't change for every election, state legislators are controlled by difference parties at different times, governors belong to different parties at different times yet we still see a steady increase in the rural/urban political divide. You can't chalk all of that up to gerrymandering being done in every state in the same manner to get the same results just by happenstance. Local parties don't have much money, its the RNC and DNC that controls the big purse strings and the state chairs to a lesser degree. The RNC and DNC set national policy for resource allocation and strategy and it trickles down to states and then from states to local districts. It's not like the local Democrats in rural Wisconsin can just decide to stop being a competitive party, they stop being competitive when the DNC decides to commit to a national strategy that starves the local district of money. The voters in those rural districts that used to support Democrats didn't just disappear and there is still rural support for Democrats just less of it. You can't say that gerrymandering swung Obama states to Trump because rural districts are noncompetitive unless all those states had the rural districts redrawn in a gerrymandered way between 2008 and 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
It also really hurts the ability to actually solve problems. There are plenty of issues that actually need attention but safe districts take away the impetus to do anything about them. Republicans aren't going to gain much from trying to fix problems in Democrat areas and Democrats aren't going to lose support in those same areas if they maintain the status quo. There's no threat of losing support to the other party so there's no competition to spur politicians into putting forth ideas and trying to find policies with enough common support to be enacted and make things better. Instead we get the same old blame game of Republicans don't care about the plight of the urban poor and urban blight is the fault of the Democrats because they've been in charge of the city for decades, nothing changes and generations of people grow up in the same poverty stricken ghettos with high crime, bad schools and dependent on govt assistance. The plight of the rural poor gets ignored too. People struggling in Appalachia and the Ozarks are poor, dependent on govt assistance, don't have great public schools or job opportunities etc. and those problems have also been around for generations/decades. They don't get fixed because the only thing the Parties really need are votes/support and if they already have that locked up then its in their own self interest to keep the status quo and not fix anything. If people get angry about the status quo then a populist candidate can come along with some good rhetoric win over the electorate and then be co opted by one of the Parties so that nothing really changes after all.
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
For rural areas across the US to become single party districts for Republicans you would need state legislators across the country to uniformly agree to gerrymander rural areas to favor Republicans. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of such collusion? Have all the rural districts been redrawn since 1988 in a way that gerrymanders them into noncompetitive districts? Districts don't change for every election, state legislators are controlled by difference parties at different times, governors belong to different parties at different times yet we still see a steady increase in the rural/urban political divide. You can't chalk all of that up to gerrymandering being done in every state in the same manner to get the same results just by happenstance. Local parties don't have much money, its the RNC and DNC that controls the big purse strings and the state chairs to a lesser degree. The RNC and DNC set national policy for resource allocation and strategy and it trickles down to states and then from states to local districts. It's not like the local Democrats in rural Wisconsin can just decide to stop being a competitive party, they stop being competitive when the DNC decides to commit to a national strategy that starves the local district of money. The voters in those rural districts that used to support Democrats didn't just disappear and there is still rural support for Democrats just less of it. You can't say that gerrymandering swung Obama states to Trump because rural districts are noncompetitive unless all those states had the rural districts redrawn in a gerrymandered way between 2008 and 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
It also really hurts the ability to actually solve problems. There are plenty of issues that actually need attention but safe districts take away the impetus to do anything about them. Republicans aren't going to gain much from trying to fix problems in Democrat areas and Democrats aren't going to lose support in those same areas if they maintain the status quo. There's no threat of losing support to the other party so there's no competition to spur politicians into putting forth ideas and trying to find policies with enough common support to be enacted and make things better. Instead we get the same old blame game of Republicans don't care about the plight of the urban poor and urban blight is the fault of the Democrats because they've been in charge of the city for decades, nothing changes and generations of people grow up in the same poverty stricken ghettos with high crime, bad schools and dependent on govt assistance. The plight of the rural poor gets ignored too. People struggling in Appalachia and the Ozarks are poor, dependent on govt assistance, don't have great public schools or job opportunities etc. and those problems have also been around for generations/decades. They don't get fixed because the only thing the Parties really need are votes/support and if they already have that locked up then its in their own self interest to keep the status quo and not fix anything. If people get angry about the status quo then a populist candidate can come along with some good rhetoric win over the electorate and then be co opted by one of the Parties so that nothing really changes after all.
Nonsense. You dont need to show collusion. Nor is that the point of the article. All you have to see is the effect over time. Also, you dont need to show gerrymandering between the two elections. The point of the study is effects over time. If you are demanding to see changes over a short time then I am not sure why you reference the study at all.
This is, ill admit, sort of a chicken and egg argument. What happened first? Did dems take mine away and the area become non-competitive as a result or did they remove money because the areas become non-competitive?
Since politicians never cease trying to wrangle more money for reelections I am going to say the money didnt leave first. Unless, you think they all decided together to lose the jobs?
LordofHats wrote: Actually the reason Snowden didn't give information to WikiLeaks is because WikiLeaks is incredibly reckless with information.
This is one of the things that makes Snowden's claim of whistleblowing stronger than Manning's will ever be. Snowden disclosed the files he stole to supposedly responsible news organizations instead of just airing the USAs dirty laundry for all to see. Still, Snowden doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, legally speaking, and his flight to Russia certainly won't help him get a sympathetic jury if/when he's back on American soil.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The counter argument is that he should have consulted the proper channels, but when the Obama administration is actively pursuing whistleblowers on a scale never before seen, who can blame Snowden for getting out? Not I.
If I remember correctly he tried multiple time to go through the correct channels but it never led to anything being done so he chose the illegal route.
Breotan wrote:
Still, Snowden doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, legally speaking, and his flight to Russia certainly won't help him get a sympathetic jury if/when he's back on American soil.
Again, if I remember correctly, he initially wanted to go somewhere else (I think some South American country?) but those routes became too dangerous and the Russia route allowed for safe passage (but he's stuck there). When he arrived there it wasn't even clear if he would stay there.
Something's been stuck in my mind the last day or so, something very important somebody said, and you all seem to have passed over it like it was nothing:
LordofHats wrote: Actually the reason Snowden didn't give information to WikiLeaks is because WikiLeaks is incredibly reckless with information.
This is one of the things that makes Snowden's claim of whistleblowing stronger than Manning's will ever be. Snowden disclosed the files he stole to supposedly responsible news organizations instead of just airing the USAs dirty laundry for all to see. Still, Snowden doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, legally speaking, and his flight to Russia certainly won't help him get a sympathetic jury if/when he's back on American soil.
Eh, after the Branch Dildonians got off (heh, "got off", get it?) even with all that wonderful visual evidence of them having guns in a federal building, who the hell knows anymore?
LordofHats wrote: The political parties abandoning districts has been an issue longer than the extreme gerrymandering of the past two decades. The parties started bailing with the advent of modern political science and electoral analysis in the 50s and 60s, and the current plague of very bad Gerrymandering didn't really kick in until the 80s. It seems more likely to me the former contributed to the later than vice versa. A safe district has to already exist for you to gerrymander it to make ti safer. I'd argue that by abandoning districts both parties allowed the other to have safe districts, and opened the door for them to be gerrymandered for political advantage. Doesn't make gerrymandering right, but that could be the case as easily as what you posit. I don't think we have the data to know which is true.
There is definitely some correlation between the two, I would think. There's also the simple fact that if you're Party X living in a district gerrymandered to hell to keep Party Y in power, so that year after year your vote means diddly, you could even get discouraged to vote in a presidential election. One could even argue that the presidential election is gerrymandered to an extent, due to the winner-takes-all approach most states use for the EC,
There's also issues with people self-selecting their districts, people are seeking to live and move to places that conform to their political ideologies in numbers not necessarily seen before, and occupations are becoming increasingly politicized as well. This reinforces the echo chamber, the "safeness" of districts and states, and drains opposition. Political polarization is being taken to levels not seen in many decades. People and industries that may be labelled "liberal" aren't exactly flocking to places like Oklahoma or Alabama, while people and industries that would probably fall under the label of "conservative" are actively moving out of places like California and aren't exactly looking to move to states like Massachusetts. Tech companies aren't seeking to expand or startup in places like Kansas or Mississippi, while stuff like firearms manufacturers are increasingly moving out of places like Connecticut and New York (which once the firearms production capitals of the US) for states like Tennessee.
Not sure where or how that fits into things, whether it's a chicken or an egg, but it's absolutely a real thing.
That's because the footage that Manning saw wasn't nearly as egregious as it was made out to be. Insurgents engaged US troops in a gunfight in an area full of civilians and consequently some civilians died I the fighting, it's inevitable and even desirable for the insurgency side that there are civilian casualties in urban guerilla warfare.
In fact, the footage showed the two journalist helping insurgents. For example, one clearly peeks around the corner and takes pictures, then shows the pictures to the insurgents. And the captured camera verified the pictures were of a hardtop hummer and US troops.
RPGs, AKs and other weapons were with the bodies.
The funny thing is that most people weren't over there seeing this stuff firsthand. Firing over the shoulder of a female in front of a mosque door and ducking inside before you could target them, lobbing explosives into a crowded market in the hope of blowing up a vehicle or soldier. Or, my personal favorite as far as insanely bad things done which put people in danger, cramming explosives up a dog's ass and having a CHILD walk it into the crowded street where the soldiers had a check point set up. The fact that civillian casualties were as low as they were is nothing short of a miracle. Also, no surprise about the media helping out the insurgents.
I strongly disagree mate.... The reason Manning was tried and convicted in the first place was because of the massive stack of paperwork showing behavioral issues. Manning's actions are very clearly a childish lashing out at her leadership and military service.
She was tried and convicted because she embarrassed the US armed forces by for example revealing videos of helicopters strafing vans full of civilians. That Obama chose now to commute her sentence proves that throwing her into solitary was only ever done out of political expediency.
Someone already addressed this above, and I added my two cents in except for this part:
Manning committed an act during wartime that would have led straight to the firing line, had it not been a highly publicized case with LGBT ties to make it more political. Had a cis het male soldier done that? His life would have lasted hours tops after the trial.
That's because the footage that Manning saw wasn't nearly as egregious as it was made out to be. Insurgents engaged US troops in a gunfight in an area full of civilians and consequently some civilians died I the fighting, it's inevitable and even desirable for the insurgency side that there are civilian casualties in urban guerilla warfare.
In fact, the footage showed the two journalist helping insurgents. For example, one clearly peeks around the corner and takes pictures, then shows the pictures to the insurgents. And the captured camera verified the pictures were of a hardtop hummer and US troops.
RPGs, AKs and other weapons were with the bodies.
The funny thing is that most people weren't over there seeing this stuff firsthand. Firing over the shoulder of a female in front of a mosque door and ducking inside before you could target them, lobbing explosives into a crowded market in the hope of blowing up a vehicle or soldier. Or, my personal favorite as far as insanely bad things done which put people in danger, cramming explosives up a dog's ass and having a CHILD walk it into the crowded street where the soldiers had a check point set up. The fact that civillian casualties were as low as they were is nothing short of a miracle. Also, no surprise about the media helping out the insurgents.
I strongly disagree mate.... The reason Manning was tried and convicted in the first place was because of the massive stack of paperwork showing behavioral issues. Manning's actions are very clearly a childish lashing out at her leadership and military service.
She was tried and convicted because she embarrassed the US armed forces by for example revealing videos of helicopters strafing vans full of civilians. That Obama chose now to commute her sentence proves that throwing her into solitary was only ever done out of political expediency.
Someone already addressed this above, and I added my two cents in except for this part:
Manning committed an act during wartime that would have led straight to the firing line, had it not been a highly publicized case with LGBT ties to make it more political. Had a cis het male soldier done that? His life would have lasted hours tops after the trial.
Previous sentences for leaks have been generally 1-3 years in most cases, and Manning has spent as much or more behind bars already.
We're also not in a declared war, and even then it's highly unlikely that a death sentence would have been handed down. the US military hasn't executed someone in going on 60 years, and hasn't executed anyone for anything but first degree murder or rape with attempted first degree murder since the second world war (where most of those were for, you guessed it, murder). Of those on death row for crimes in the military, they're all for, again, first degree (premeditated) murder, and the oldest case has been waiting almost 30 years since sentencing.
Manning, nor any "cis het males", would have been put to death over this. On paper, sure it's a possibility, but not something that would have been on the table in practice.
That said, yes, people did try to make a social justice cause out of Manning's issues, probably in ways that weren't really appropriate.
No, the us military doesn't use firing squads. Lethal injection is the only method legally recognized, though even that is questionable considering the last one was over 60 years ago and that was by hanging.
So Trump, through Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, is outlining his plan for expanding infrastructure. The idea is to give up $137b in tax credits in the belief that this will create $1t in new infrastructure from the private sector.
This is unbelievably stupid nonsense. The model used assumes that no tax credits will be going to projects that would have happened anyway. For instance, if enacted pile of this money will go to the Keystone pipeline. That’s a project that was seen as commercially viable and undertaken already, but now a bunch of tax credits will be handed over to a project already underway.
Meanwhile any project that doesn’t generate some kind of return on equity, so any road without a toll, or any project that loses money like a passenger train line will not happen under this deal. What you will see is tax credits given to projects that were already profitable and going to happen anyway – ie energy infrastructure.
And that’s before we get to addressing the reality that more than new infrastructure, what the US needs most is to maintain the infrastructure it already has. Repair the roads and bridges. But maintenance can’t be encourage d through this tax credit system – the most critical issue in US infrastructure will go completely unaddressed by the Trump plan.
It is just the most extraordinarily wrong headed approach to dealing with US infrastructure. And most tellingly, it isn’t something unique to Trump, it is straight out the playbook of the Republican party as a whole. Start with government giving money to large companies and very rich people, and then work backwards to figure out a way to justify that.
I think this is really my one observation and my one prediction for the Trump presidency. My observation is that while people have been fixated on all the ways in which Trump is different from other politicians, very few have noticed that in terms of the policies Trump appears to be really serious about Trump is actually a run of the mill Republican. And that leads to my one prediction for the next four years – Trump’s popularity will only get worse, and it will happen as he enacts the basic policies of the modern Republican party.
I think Democrats can absolutely take for granted that Trump will be sunk. What is important is to make sure that policies like the tax handout above are linked not just to Trump, but to the Republicans as a whole.
After reading about how President Bush, Sr. and his wife were admitted to the hospital, I decided to do some trivia searching. It seems that Presidents Ford and Reagan are currently the record holders for longest lived former Presidents at 93 years each (President Ford is first by 45 days). Presidents Bush, Sr. and Carter are both alive and 92 (President Bush, Sr. is around 3 1/2 months older). That's right, four of our five longest lived Presidents held the office after 1970. I guess that says a lot about modern medicine.
With his health issues, I'm not confident President Bush, Sr. will beat out Presidents Ford and Reagan but President Carter will live to be 104 easy. He's like George Burns that way.
Just Tony wrote: Manning committed an act during wartime that would have led straight to the firing line, had it not been a highly publicized case with LGBT ties to make it more political. Had a cis het male soldier done that? His life would have lasted hours tops after the trial.
Uh, no. For one thing she didn't come out and reveal those LGBT ties until after the trial. And regardless of her identity there's no way executing someone immediately after a trial, with no appeals permitted, for publishing classified information was going to be anything other than a political disaster.
Vaktathi wrote: Previous sentences for leaks have been generally 1-3 years in most cases, and Manning has spent as much or more behind bars already.
Exactly. One noted development since the turn of the century is the drive in the US to increase punishment for information leaks. This reached its peak with Obama using the Espionage Act to prosecute government officials who leaked to the media (this had happened before, but nothing like how it happened under Obama).
Manning committed a crime, no argument there. But what led to the original 35 year sentence is that he committed his crime at a time the US was really freaking out about information security. With the commuting of his sentence his time will be reduced to a much more sensible 7 years, something that is still much harsher than previous leakers have received.
The sooner Art Laffer's ideas can fade from the collective consciousness, the better.
One of the important things to remember about Laffer is that outside of his famously terrible idea about tax and revenue, he's also a completely terrible economist in lots of other ways.
But this is why Laffer's idea won't fade. For people like Laffer giving a fig leaf justification to something that rich and powerful people are lobbying for is a sweet, high paying gig, much better paying than being an obscure, failed economist. And for the rich and powerful and the politicians who work for them, it doesn't matter that Laffer's idea doesn't work and is really obviously stupid - what matters is finding some kind of justification for a thing they wanted to do anyway.
Another example is the right's attempt to discredit stimulus spending - the idea that a sudden influx of government spending can stimulate an economy suffering a shortage of demand. Despite stimulus spending working to end the Great Depression, the idea was politically unpopular. Eventually Milton Friedman came up with a very imaginative but very stupid argument that because consumers are rational they will know that any one off bit of government spending can't be counted on and so any money they receive from it will be assessed across the whole of their lives, and so won't be spent straight away, and therefore won't create stimulus. This was wrong based on empirical observations (on micro and macro levels we had seen money spread through the economy), and it was wrong in its expectation of human behaviour (when you are considering whether you can afford to go out, do you look at your bank balance, or do you form an estimate of all future expected income for the rest of your life?). Despite this, it became as essential part of most economic models and directly led to the rejection of Keynesian stimulus spending by many economists. Now, finally, decades later, behavioural economists have actually tested the theory by looking at the spending habits of people on unemployment benefits - and they show the big reduction spending only happens when benefits are finally lost - showing it is immediate cashflow, not future income that dictates spending.
But it really doesn't matter. Friedman's idea didn't catch on because it sounded right (it was always at odds with our understanding of people and with our economic observations), it caught on because it provided an argument for something a lot of people wanted to believe. Now that its proven completely wrong... well those same people still want to believe the same things so they'll keep using Friedman's idea.
sebster wrote: I think Democrats can absolutely take for granted that Trump will be sunk. What is important is to make sure that policies like the tax handout above are linked not just to Trump, but to the Republicans as a whole.
I think we can assume this is Obama's thinking when he told his party to make the Republicans "own" the repeal of the ACA. It seems the most viable strategy for them right now. Sit back. Don't do the things the Republicans spent all 8 of Obama's years in office doing, and let the Republicans sink their own boat.
sebster wrote: I think Democrats can absolutely take for granted that Trump will be sunk. What is important is to make sure that policies like the tax handout above are linked not just to Trump, but to the Republicans as a whole.
I think we can assume this is Obama's thinking when he told his party to make the Republicans "own" the repeal of the ACA. It seems the most viable strategy for them right now. Sit back. Don't do the things the Republicans spent all 8 of Obama's years in office doing, and let the Republicans sink their own boat.
I don't think they can... they should, for sure.
There are 8 (I think) redstate Democrats who's looking at an uphill battle, particularly over the ACA.
Furthermore, Trump is the worst GOP candidate to call for "unity" and "cross the aisle" as he's been so combative.
You'll know this when he nominates William Pryor.... just watch the Dems go ape gak.
LordofHats wrote: I think we can assume this is Obama's thinking when he told his party to make the Republicans "own" the repeal of the ACA. It seems the most viable strategy for them right now. Sit back. Don't do the things the Republicans spent all 8 of Obama's years in office doing, and let the Republicans sink their own boat.
Yep. Make Republicans own every single thing that they are looking to push through. In 2008 Republicans somehow escaped by making Bush's policies seem like they were just Bush things. Bush put through two tax cuts, with most of the benefit going to the very rich. He tried to argue the tax cuts would provide economic stimulus, in denial of the most basic studies on the subject. Reality worked as predicted and the tax cuts did nothing but increase debt and make rich people richer. Somehow this got buried in among the Iraq debacle and the GFC, so it was either forgotten or simply assigned to Bush alone. Democrats failed to make that kind of failure a key example of what Republicans do and why they suck.
Hopefully this time around the new tax cut, the plan to cut ACA with no replacement, and the infrastructure bill, and all the rest will stick the Republicans as a whole, not just to Trump. But given Trump already has a reputation as a maverick, I suspect his failure will end up being carried by him alone.
The proverbial Eye of Sauron is upon our soon-to-be POTUS. As Flounder states in Animal House, "Boy is this great!" I'm not trying to be overly partisan, but I'm betting the potential skeletons that are in this guy's closet are going to be something to behold.
The confirmation hearings have been fairly interesting so far, as examples of how to give 'yes' sounding answers while absolutely not saying yes.
Get a load of this nonsense from Betsy DeVos;
Tim Kaine: Do you think k-12 schools that receive federal funding should meet the same accountability standards, outcome standards? DeVos: All schools that receive public funding should be accountable, yes. Kaine: Should meet the same accountability standards? DeVos: Yes, although you have different accountability standards between traditional public schools and charter schools. Kaine: But I'm really interested in this, should everybody be on a level playing field? So public, charter, or private K-12 schools, if they receive taxpayer funding, they should meet the same accountability standards? DeVos: Yes, they should be very transparent with the information. And parents should have that information first and foremost. Kaine: And, if confirmed, will you insist upon that equal accountability in any K-12 school or educational program that receives federal funding whether public charter or private? DeVos: I support accountability. Kaine: Equal accountability for all schools that receive federal funding? DeVos: I support accountability. Kaine: Okay, is that a yes or a no? DeVos: That's a "I support accountability" Kaine: Do you want to answer my question? DeVos: I support accountability.
The laughs from DeVos' political blather side, the pattern here is pretty clear - she wants to give funding to private entities, which is fine in some contexts, but then she doesn't seem too fussed about ensuring that the organisations that money goes to are providing decent returns, which is disastrous, especially given the issues with private colleges in the US that just started to be pulled back in Obama's second term. It is amazing that DeVos is so indifferent on the issue, unless, like with the tax handout called an infrastructure program, we start to see the pattern emerging - this whole thing has Berlusconi Mk II written all over it. If that sounds a little dramatic, remember the president elect ran this exact same scam himself.
Anyway, here's the exchange on making colleges that receive federal money accountable.
Elizabeth Warren: So what I want to know is, will you commit to enforcing these rules to ensure that no career college receives federal funds unless they can prove that they are actually preparing their students for gainful employment and not cheating them? DeVos: Senator, I will commit to ensuring that institutions which receive federal funds are actually serving their students well. Warren: And so you will enforce the gainful employment rule to ensure that these career colleges are not cheating students? DeVos: We will certainly review that rule. Warren: You'll review it? You won't actually commit to enforce it? DeVos: And see that it is actually achieving what the intentions are.
I for one look very forward to the education policy of a man who scammed thousands of people out of millions of dollars through a university that amounted to little more than a pep speech from glorious leader on DVD
And by look very forward to I mean "am terrified of."
sebster wrote: This is unbelievably stupid nonsense. The model used assumes that no tax credits will be going to projects that would have happened anyway. For instance, if enacted pile of this money will go to the Keystone pipeline. That’s a project that was seen as commercially viable and undertaken already, but now a bunch of tax credits will be handed over to a project already underway.
And people surprised by this are...Who?-)
There's never been any shadow of doubt that Trump would be disaster as a president. Best you can hope is that he doesn't start a war with all his sabre rattling. Either way USA president for the next 4 years will be a laughing stock.
During the recent presidential campaign, a strangely disparate group of Republicans set themselves apart from the conservative-populist majority to establish what became known by its social media handle as #NeverTrump.
Some questioned Donald Trump's fitness for the highest office in the land from a strict application of their own standards of public decorum and personal rectitude and just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a candidate that did not live by their personal moral code.
Others looked at the evolution of Donald Trump's positions on various issues, such as the right-to-life and the Second Amendment and decided, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that Trump could not be trusted to pursue a conservative agenda—even when the alternative was the election of Hillary Clinton.
And more than a few revealed that their brand of "conservatism" looked a whole lot more like Hillary Clinton's view of the world and the failed Big Government Republicanism and neo-con policies of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush than they did the conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly, Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley Jr.
Among the most prominent and outspoken of the #NeverTrump crowd were neo-con and Bush-era Republicans who had worked in the national security field.
They set themselves outside the conservative-populist wave that swept Trump into office by signing one or both of two public "Never Trump" letters during the campaign, declaring they would not vote for Trump and calling his candidacy a danger to the nation.
One letter, with 122 names, was published by War on the Rocks, a website devoted to national security commentary, during the primary season in March. The other, with 50 names, including some repeat signatories, was published by the New York Times during the general-election campaign in August.
Among those who signed at least one of the letters are Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, the first two secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security; two former U.S. trade ambassadors, Carla Hills and Robert Zoellick; two former heads of U.S. intelligence agencies, John Negroponte and retired Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden.
In other words, the people who perpetrated the disastrous Bush policies on trade and national security against which Trump campaigned.
And let's be clear, the letters were personal, attacking Trump's character and temperament, asserting that he "lacks self-control and acts impetuously," and had demonstrated "erratic behavior" and is "fundamentally dishonest."
And most importantly, they attacked the policies that won Trump the Republican nomination for President and defeated Hillary Clinton: denouncing Trump's pledge to build a wall along the border with Mexico, his plans to stop the importation of jihad and Muslim terrorism and his professed desire for better relations with Russia.
And now these people want jobs or advisory positions in Donald Trump's administration?
We weren't for Trump during the primaries, and said so. But when the choice was between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, that was no choice at all—we were for Trump and did everything we could to help secure his victory.
However, yesterday, the Washington Post's David Nakamura detailed the complaints of some of the "Never Trump" letters signers who fear they are at the bottom of the pecking order in the new D.C. order Donald Trump and his outsider administration are creating.
The hardest question facing the broader conservative movement in the aftermath of Trump's victory is what place do those individuals who spoke and worked and acted in ways that advanced the election of Hillary Clinton have in the new conservative world that is slowly evolving from Donald Trump's victory.
That the millions of voters who elected Donald Trump would want their advice or want them in positions of influence in the government seems unlikely—at least without some acknowledgement that they missed the validity of the reasons for the great tidal wave that swept Trump into office.
What's more, in some case their conduct was so egregious—for example openly supporting Hillary Clinton by signing the New York Times letter—that it put the future of constitutional liberty in such jeopardy that grass-roots conservatives won't want them back, no matter how distinguished is their past government service.
Those individuals showed themselves to be political opportunists and elitists, not committed limited-government, constitutional conservatives, and if the Trump team has a blacklist, as far as millions of grass-roots conservatives are concerned, that's OK, because their exile should be permanent.
Ret. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who now serves as the executive vice president of the Family Research Council, repeatedly predicted that Obama planned to “establish a constabulary force” through the Affordable Care Act that would “control the population in America” much in the same way that Adolf Hitler used the Brownshirts to consolidate power, basing his accusation on a debunked myth about the health care law.
Boykin wasn’t alone in predicting that Obama would create such an army.
Another former military official, Ret. Army Major General Jerry Curry, warned that the Obama administration might “arm illegal immigrants” to begin killing Americans, with a focus on assassinating members of the armed forces.
Then-Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia similarly warned in 2008 that Obama’s proposed expansion of national service programs was “exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany” and “exactly what the Soviet Union did.” Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, claimed in 2013 that Obama’s “secret security force” was already in existence.
Lawrence C. Mackin, a conservative writer, warned that Obama was bent on creating a “private internal army” including “illegal aliens” and Middle Eastern terrorists, and William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC said Obama would give immigrants “a badge and a gun” in order to target the “Christian, heterosexual male” population. Far-right activist Jim Garrow thought Obama would fake contact with aliens in order to justify the creation of his own army.
Convinced that President Obama was set to wage an anti-white race war, radio host Michael Savage said that Obama intended to arm and “deputize” members of the Crips and Bloods gangs and turn them into his “shock troops.” He also claimed that Black Lives Matter supporters would be “Obama’s shock troops” and “secret private army” much like “the Brownshirts that Hitler had.”
presumably the gun that goes with the badge would from the ones he confiscated -- just after the invasion of Texas.
I think we can assume this is Obama's thinking when he told his party to make the Republicans "own" the repeal of the ACA. It seems the most viable strategy for them right now. Sit back. Don't do the things the Republicans spent all 8 of Obama's years in office doing, and let the Republicans sink their own boat.
I don't think that the Democrats hanging back and letting the Republicans do whatever they want instead of fighting them tooth and nail will build much loyalty from the voters. I wouldn't want to vote for a bunch of smug feths who expected people to come crawling back despite not doing anything.
WASHINGTON — When President-elect Donald J. Trump offered Rick Perry the job of energy secretary five weeks ago, Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state.
In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal.
Two-thirds of the agency’s annual $30 billion budget is devoted to maintaining, refurbishing and keeping safe the nation’s nuclear stockpile; thwarting nuclear proliferation; cleaning up and rebuilding an aging constellation of nuclear production facilities; and overseeing national laboratories that are considered the crown jewels of government science.
“If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy,’” said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who advised Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and worked on the Trump transition’s Energy Department team in its early days. “If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
Mr. Perry, who once called for the elimination of the Energy Department, will begin the confirmation process Thursday with a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee. If approved by the Senate, he will take over from a secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, who was chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics department and directed the linear accelerator at M.I.T.’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science. Before Mr. Moniz, the job belonged to Steven Chu, a physicist who won a Nobel Prize.
For Mr. Moniz, the future of nuclear science has been a lifelong obsession; he spent his early years working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Mr. Perry studied animal husbandry and led cheers at Texas A&M University.
Color me shocked that Perry didn't know what the department he wanted to abolish actually does.
Meanwhile I'm sitting at the dealership to get 2 separate recalls addressed on my American made car, and FoxNews is playing on the TV. In 7 minutes they already covered "Hamilton cast cheered Terrorist", "Obama hates America", "Celebrities
Hate America", "Celebrities Disrespect Our Flag", and at least 20 variations of the word "patriot/patriotic".
d-usa wrote: Color me shocked that Perry didn't know what the department he wanted to abolish actually does.
Meanwhile I'm sitting at the dealership to get 2 separate recalls addressed on my American made car, and FoxNews is playing on the TV. In 7 minutes they already covered "Hamilton cast cheered Terrorist", "Obama hates America", "Celebrities
Hate America", "Celebrities Disrespect Our Flag", and at least 20 variations of the word "patriot/patriotic".
8 years of that gak network, broadcasting that gak non-stop and some wonder how America got Trump...
If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Trump is a direct chain reaction response to the 2008 downturn, just as Obama was a hope and change candidate and Sanders received such support. People have been voting for change for almost two decades and have not been heard-at least to their satisfaction,which accelerated with the downturn. With each election the electorate decides to choose a more extreme version. Its a logical reaction. they will continue to elect stronger and stronger candidates to kick over all the ant piles until they get what they want.
Unless there are real changes, expect the new slew of candidates to be even more extreme.
WASHINGTON — When President-elect Donald J. Trump offered Rick Perry the job of energy secretary five weeks ago, Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state.
In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal.
Two-thirds of the agency’s annual $30 billion budget is devoted to maintaining, refurbishing and keeping safe the nation’s nuclear stockpile; thwarting nuclear proliferation; cleaning up and rebuilding an aging constellation of nuclear production facilities; and overseeing national laboratories that are considered the crown jewels of government science.
“If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy,’” said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who advised Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and worked on the Trump transition’s Energy Department team in its early days. “If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
Mr. Perry, who once called for the elimination of the Energy Department, will begin the confirmation process Thursday with a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee. If approved by the Senate, he will take over from a secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, who was chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics department and directed the linear accelerator at M.I.T.’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science. Before Mr. Moniz, the job belonged to Steven Chu, a physicist who won a Nobel Prize.
For Mr. Moniz, the future of nuclear science has been a lifelong obsession; he spent his early years working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Mr. Perry studied animal husbandry and led cheers at Texas A&M University.
...ohh.. America
That's a hacktastic article where the author provides ZERO evidence in supporting the author's thesis...
WASHINGTON — When President-elect Donald J. Trump offered Rick Perry the job of energy secretary five weeks ago, Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state.
In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal.
Two-thirds of the agency’s annual $30 billion budget is devoted to maintaining, refurbishing and keeping safe the nation’s nuclear stockpile; thwarting nuclear proliferation; cleaning up and rebuilding an aging constellation of nuclear production facilities; and overseeing national laboratories that are considered the crown jewels of government science.
“If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy,’” said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who advised Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and worked on the Trump transition’s Energy Department team in its early days. “If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
Mr. Perry, who once called for the elimination of the Energy Department, will begin the confirmation process Thursday with a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee. If approved by the Senate, he will take over from a secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, who was chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics department and directed the linear accelerator at M.I.T.’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science. Before Mr. Moniz, the job belonged to Steven Chu, a physicist who won a Nobel Prize.
For Mr. Moniz, the future of nuclear science has been a lifelong obsession; he spent his early years working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Mr. Perry studied animal husbandry and led cheers at Texas A&M University.
...ohh.. America
Jesus Christ. Draining the swamp huh? Getting the best people?
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Really?
You have a "news" network that perpetuated around the clock coverage of crap like "Obama's not actually an American citizen" or "Black Lives Matter advocates for the death of police officers"...and you want to say that it's not a big factor?
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Really?
You have a "news" network that perpetuated around the clock coverage of crap like "Obama's not actually an American citizen" or "Black Lives Matter advocates for the death of police officers"...and you want to say that it's not a big factor?
That's a hacktastic article where the author provides ZERO evidence in supporting the author's thesis...
It's a hit job.
#FakeNews indeed.
Remember, facts don't matter anymore. What you feel matters.
yes of course really.
*Over the past twenty years moderates have been driven from both parties.
*Obama was elected as a change candidate, right as the downturn was hitting.
*Sanders gained strong support as a true change candidate -and somone WHO IS NOT A DEMOCRAT-against the most establishment candidate since Eisenhower.
*On the other side, there were two change candidates: "Grandpa Drac" Cruz, and "Tweetmachine" Trump. The most extreme change candidate-and someone who has no relationship at all with the Republican Party-won.
Sure Fox is out there. So is MSNBC. Plus Salon. Plus Breitbart. Plus Slate. Plus Huffington Post. Plus Townhall. Plus Mother Jones. Plus NewsMax. Plus a whole host of even more extreme sites.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Trump is a direct chain reaction response to the 2008 downturn, just as Obama was a hope and change candidate and Sanders received such support. People have been voting for change for almost two decades and have not been heard-at least to their satisfaction,which accelerated with the downturn. With each election the electorate decides to choose a more extreme version. Its a logical reaction. they will continue to elect stronger and stronger candidates to kick over all the ant piles until they get what they want.
Unless there are real changes, expect the new slew of candidates to be even more extreme.
Did I say it was the "only" reason? No I didn't. Not even remotely, you just chose to go there.
But if you think that kind of non-stop, overly biased reporting...and Fox is mainstream compared to some of the right-wing nonsense sites out there...didn't have a material effect on the outcome of this election then you're the one in the bubble. The simple fact is that the desire for change is natural, when things aren't going well. However, the state of the nation, i.e. economy, employment, security, healthcare coverage, etc. has improved dramatically in the 8 years since Obama took the reigns from Dubya. So what dramatic change do we need? What is so horribly broken with our country that change must be mandated at any cost, even if it comes in the form of the unqualified dumbass about to take office? But to hear the incessant "The sky is falling." theme that just permeates Fox, you would think things are just cataclysmic and nothing is going right. That could not help but to have had a material effect on the mindsets of those who only tune in to it for their news...*see inauguration for proof. I've tried listening to their news and it's just skewed to the point of paranoia.
The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does. His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
This week, President-elect Donald Trump named former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as his nominee for secretary of energy in Trump's forthcoming administration.
The Department of Energy, which requested a $32.5 billion budget in fiscal year 2017 and employed 13,814 staff members and numerous contractors in 2013, is primarily concerned with federal energy research. In particular, the DOE is responsible for the design, manufacturing and safe handling of the U.S. military nuclear arsenal. Current Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is an accomplished nuclear and theoretical physicist, and his predecessors included Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu and Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemical engineer Samuel Bodman.
As the Daily Beast's Jeffrey Lewis noted Tuesday, while an undergraduate veterinary student at Texas A&M in the 1970s, Perry scored a D in a class simply titled "Meats."
The online syllabus for Texas A&M University's contemporary "Meats" course, ANSC 307 Meats, describes it as the integrated study of "the production of meat-type animals and the science and technology of their conversion to human food." Topics include "Meat inspection," "Kosher and halal," "Meat tenderness," "Meat color," while laboratories include "Pork evaluation" and "Ham manufacturing."
In an email to Mic, course instructor Dr. Jeffrey Savell explained ANSC 307 Meats is an advanced science class requiring students to demonstrate understanding of animal biology as well as regulatory and safety requirements in meat production.
"Animal Science 307 is a rigorous upper level science course that covers growth and development of food animals; antemortem and postmortem factors affecting meat quality; USDA inspection and regulatory requirements for the harvest and processing of livestock and muscle tissue; and the chemistry of meat color and preservation," Dr. Savell wrote.
According to a 2011 New York Times profile citing a version of Perry's transcript, Perry received two C's, a D, and an F in organic chemistry courses, and D's in economics, Shakespeare, veterinary anatomy and a class titled "Feeds & Feeding." Other grades included one A, a B, and two C's in "World Military Systems," two C's in "The Professional Officer," a C in a class appearing to deal with aeronautics, and a D in "Writing for Professional Men."
Perry eventually graduated with a degree in animal science before joining the U.S. Air Force, rising to the rank of captain, returning to farming and entering politics as a Democrat in 1984 in the Texas House of Representatives.
While as a former Air Force pilot Perry is likely familiar with some military technology, Perry has no graduate degrees and has presumably received no subsequent academic-level training in energy research or nuclear physics.
However, Perry did forget the name of the Department of Energy while listing it as one of three Cabinet-level federal agencies he would eliminate during a Republican presidential primary debate in 2011.
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does
Are you talking about his "flub" in the 2012 primary?
His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
I beg to differ. The man was a very successful governor and you do NOT need a PhD to run the DoE. (in fact, only 2 of the previous 13 DoE dept head had PhD).
Neverthanless... that article has been proven to be a hit job.
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does. His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
DoE should have nothing to do with climate change. Thats an NOAA thing.
In contrast to the stupidity of the article, DoE also deals with domestic energy production, which is indeed an issue he would be familiar with, especially as the growth in "domestic energy production" is coming from his state.
Texas, we make energy here (and methane! oh the methane!)
"Remember, before hippies there were yippies" -From the Ballad of Frazzled.
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
Frazzled wrote: I would disagree. If the conservatives don't get a strict constructionist (as this replaces a strict construct6ikonist) there may be hell to pay. A LOT of people voted for Trump only because SCOTUS was in danger and they needed to deny a majority of liberal justices.
I agree with this analysis. Though scalia was a constructionist in name only.
Trump's divesting may not be enough to make everyone happy but I'm sure there's some sort of oversight, whether its the GAO or Congressional in nature and there's more than enough opposition to Trump in Congress to ensure that any demonstrable instance of an outright conflict of interest or using the office for personal gain will be exposed and acted upon.
'I'm sure there's some sort of oversight somewhere' really isn't good enough for this, especially given Trump's demonstrated levels of honesty and transparency. He's going to get away with some extremely shady bullcrap, just like he has for decades.
You mean like the Clintons and the Whitewater scandal? People can always find ways to bend and break rules with a small chance of getting caught but since Trump certainly isn't the first POTUS to have investments and business dealings either the system has been working well enough so far or past presidents have been breaking it with impunity anyway. I don't see how we get any new and better Federal law governing this passed by a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress prior to or during Trump's presidency so it's a moot point.
It's not a moot point. This is something we should move toward because it hopefully disentangles our elected officials.
Though I agree the Republican congress wont pass anything.
Remember the good old days when carter was investigated over a single peanut farm? We were so young and naive.
If you agree that the Republican controlled Congress won't pass more restrictions on Trump's divestment then how is discussing the need for more stringent divestiture laws for POTUS not a moot point? We won't get new laws so discussing what new laws regarding it we'd like to get for it is a moot point.
...
In summary: In 2009, we identified the outlines of what would become a Democratic problem: weakness among traditionally Democratic voters in rural areas and towns. In 2016, this weakness became significant enough that it overwhelmed Democratic strength in urban areas in two states that President Obama had won. As we saw above, this is significant, because while urban areas are growing, they are growing at a slower rate than many analysts seem to appreciate.
The article, and continuing series, on RCP makes some excellent points. The fact that Democrats abandoned rural areas because they didn't think they'd be competitive in them now and that trending demographics would make them irrelevant in the near future explains where the angry Trump supporters came from a lot more easily and believably than the idea that a huge portion of Americans are white nationalists. Once a demographic is left with being a single party constituency then that party can safely take them for granted. Just as the urban poor express frustration with a lack of effective helpful policy from Democrats that they keep supporting with their votes, the rural poor feel abandoned by the Republican party that they keep voting for anyway. Hence plenty of anger for a populist in Republican clothing like Trump to tap into. Combine that with the fact that demographics aren't shifting quickly enough for rural voters to lose the ability to swing elections and you get Trump's surprise victory.
The other key point that is supported by the evidence in the article is that this also explains why the Republican party is more extreme. When you have regions and demographics that are securely represented by a single party since the opposition party is often uncompetitive in elections then you get the dominant party competing with itself. Republicans in rural areas like Oklahoma and South Carolina and Idaho aren't competing against Democrats they're competing against challengers from their own party, challengers that therefore have to be even further right than the incumbents. This then skews the whole political debate in that swathe of the country by eliminating competitive opposing viewpoints. The same thing happens in urban areas but with the Parties reversed. We no longer have opposing ideas and the ability to compromise, instead we have opposing echo chambers to whom any kind of compromise is an anathema.
Because if we don't make I an issue it will nit be an issue. Though we like to pretend we are powerless, that isn't te case. Enough people scream and elected officials will listen. Though grudgingly.
It's called gerrymandering. It's not rocket science. With only x dollars to spend parties have to be selective in where they attempt to compete. Want to solve the problem? Tell state legislatures to stop making safe districts.
The data in the linked article, and series of articles of which it is part, is from presidential elections. The lack of Democratic support and resource allocation to rural districts in presidential elections can't be attributed to gerrymandering because there are no districts in presidential elections, everyone registered voter in the state gets to vote. The premise that Democratic candidates have been losing support in rural areas over the past 8 presidential elections because of gerrymandering is nonsensical.
Completely incorrect. Gerrymandering at the local level creates safe districts. Those districts have political resources moved from them. Single party messaging then dominates and eventually effects national voting patterns.
Thebstudy's info is correct but their analysis is wrong. Easy to do when you are trying to prove a thesis and ignore the way simpler answers. But then again...if there was a new theory what would be the point of another study!
For rural areas across the US to become single party districts for Republicans you would need state legislators across the country to uniformly agree to gerrymander rural areas to favor Republicans. Do you have any evidence to support your claim of such collusion? Have all the rural districts been redrawn since 1988 in a way that gerrymanders them into noncompetitive districts? Districts don't change for every election, state legislators are controlled by difference parties at different times, governors belong to different parties at different times yet we still see a steady increase in the rural/urban political divide. You can't chalk all of that up to gerrymandering being done in every state in the same manner to get the same results just by happenstance. Local parties don't have much money, its the RNC and DNC that controls the big purse strings and the state chairs to a lesser degree. The RNC and DNC set national policy for resource allocation and strategy and it trickles down to states and then from states to local districts. It's not like the local Democrats in rural Wisconsin can just decide to stop being a competitive party, they stop being competitive when the DNC decides to commit to a national strategy that starves the local district of money. The voters in those rural districts that used to support Democrats didn't just disappear and there is still rural support for Democrats just less of it. You can't say that gerrymandering swung Obama states to Trump because rural districts are noncompetitive unless all those states had the rural districts redrawn in a gerrymandered way between 2008 and 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: There was a very good article earlier this year from Politico talking about how partisanship in politics should be blamed on the Democratic and Republican parties "bailing out" of districts they "couldn't win." The author argued that by doing this, large numbers of Americans have been left with only one party to represent them, and that this has contributed to the echo chamber effect of party politics at the local and state level. By turning the entry level of politics into an echo chamber, we've bred a political landscape where a large number of our electoral options only know how to operate in an echo chamber. A Republican from Mississippi, or a Democrat from New York do not know how to cooperate because their entire political career has been spent debating the other as nothing more than a cardboard cut out.
It also really hurts the ability to actually solve problems. There are plenty of issues that actually need attention but safe districts take away the impetus to do anything about them. Republicans aren't going to gain much from trying to fix problems in Democrat areas and Democrats aren't going to lose support in those same areas if they maintain the status quo. There's no threat of losing support to the other party so there's no competition to spur politicians into putting forth ideas and trying to find policies with enough common support to be enacted and make things better. Instead we get the same old blame game of Republicans don't care about the plight of the urban poor and urban blight is the fault of the Democrats because they've been in charge of the city for decades, nothing changes and generations of people grow up in the same poverty stricken ghettos with high crime, bad schools and dependent on govt assistance. The plight of the rural poor gets ignored too. People struggling in Appalachia and the Ozarks are poor, dependent on govt assistance, don't have great public schools or job opportunities etc. and those problems have also been around for generations/decades. They don't get fixed because the only thing the Parties really need are votes/support and if they already have that locked up then its in their own self interest to keep the status quo and not fix anything. If people get angry about the status quo then a populist candidate can come along with some good rhetoric win over the electorate and then be co opted by one of the Parties so that nothing really changes after all.
Nonsense. You dont need to show collusion. Nor is that the point of the article. All you have to see is the effect over time. Also, you dont need to show gerrymandering between the two elections. The point of the study is effects over time. If you are demanding to see changes over a short time then I am not sure why you reference the study at all.
This is, ill admit, sort of a chicken and egg argument. What happened first? Did dems take mine away and the area become non-competitive as a result or did they remove money because the areas become non-competitive?
Since politicians never cease trying to wrangle more money for reelections I am going to say the money didnt leave first. Unless, you think they all decided together to lose the jobs?
It's not a chicken or egg argument. Gerrymandering is an effect not a cause. Gerrymandering is when the state govt passes legislation to redraw the geographical boundaries of State and/or Federal legislative districts in a manner designed to favor a political party in the redrawn district.
Take my state of NC for example. In 2010 the Republicans won a majority both houses of the state legislature, it was the first time the Party controlled both in over 100 years. Once the Republicans had control over the state legislature they passed legislation to redraw districts to give Republicans an advantage, in this instance using race as a marker for Democrat support they redistricted to confine black majority neighborhoods into only a few districts in order to preserve a Republican voter advantage in other districts. That was passed in 2011 and then in 2012 Republicans won the governor's race as well as maintaining their control of the legislature so the gerrymandering was kept, but it was challenged in court and eventually the gerrymandering was overturned this year which is why some districts have to revote in special elections in 2017 because those districts are reverting back to their pre gerrymandered areas. In order for gerrymandering to happen one Party has to gain enough control to redistrict in a favorable manner. It's easy to check and see if such one party dominance occurred in a state and if redistricting legislation was passed.
Data shows Democrat support in rural areas declining over the last half dozen presidential elections. That declining support in those areas was key in Trump winning states that Obama had previously won twice like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan etc. If you want to argue that gerrymandering was a factor in the decline of Democrat support in rural areas in those states then you should be able to find legislation that was passed in those states prior to the 2016 election that redistricted the state to favor Republicans. If no redistricting legislation was passed prior to 2016 then no gerrymandering happened and therefore gerrymandering was NOT a factor in the decline of Democrat support in rural areas.
I'm dismissing gerrymandering as a big factor in noncompetitive districts and the growing political polarization and extremism in our country but we can easily see where and when gerrymandering is done because it's a matter of public record so we know when it becomes a contributing factor to a given state and when it doesn't.
Here are some links to articles about the Republicans winning their majority in NC (and the fears that it would lead to more extreme right wing legislation) and regarding the gerrymandering legislation and lawsuit.
Fraz the DoE has a huge role in climate change. They pick the winners and losers in energy production. So if this guy doesn't believe in it that means the winners will be coal, oil, etc and not the winners we need. Clean renewables.
You can call me a hippie if you want but I don't want my nephew growing up to inherit a world where he has to strangle someone for a drink of water.
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
"Make America Greater" was not what Trump's fancy hats said, though.
lonestarr777 wrote: Fraz the DoE has a huge role in climate change. They pick the winners and losers in energy production. So if this guy doesn't believe in it that means the winners will be coal, oil, etc and not the winners we need. Clean renewables.
You can call me a hippie if you want but I don't want my nephew growing up to inherit a world where he has to strangle someone for a drink of water.
I don't call you a hippy. A hippy, like a libertarian would not want the government in charge of "picking winners and losers."
As an aside, show me a clean renewable that will take care of US energy needs and I will show you a snow blizzard in Southern Texas.
lonestarr777 wrote: Fraz the DoE has a huge role in climate change. They pick the winners and losers in energy production. So if this guy doesn't believe in it that means the winners will be coal, oil, etc and not the winners we need. Clean renewables.
You can call me a hippie if you want but I don't want my nephew growing up to inherit a world where he has to strangle someone for a drink of water.
There is no way for energy producers like the coal industry to become "winners." Coal use has steadily dwindled and that will only continue. Nobody is building coal powered power plants in the US anymore. The biggest obstacle to getting rid of existing coal plants is the NIMBY legislation that prevents us from building new cleaner power plants. Coal may not be the cleanest way to generate power but as long as people want electricity we can't just stop using the coal plants we have until we build replacement plants. It is difficult to clear all the procedural hurdles to get permits to build new power plants and nobody wants them built near them so we don't get many new power plants so we keep using our old ones. Same thing with oil refineries.
Switch around a name, here or there and there's some very interesting parallels in this article to another thin-skinned, inexperienced public figure...
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
We've always been great but we can always be greater. That's why the Founders held a constitutional convention to make us a "more perfect" union and we've been on a quest to perfect our perfection ever since. We're probably at least 67% more perfect than we were originally so there's plenty of room to keep perfecting.
"Make America Greater" was not what Trump's fancy hats said, though.
Sadly, proper and accurate grammar has never been a strong suit for either Trump or the nation.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does
Are you talking about his "flub" in the 2012 primary?
His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
I beg to differ. The man was a very successful governor and you do NOT need a PhD to run the DoE. (in fact, only 2 of the previous 13 DoE dept head had PhD).
Neverthanless... that article has been proven to be a hit job.
Actually, the last 3 heads of the DoE have had doctorates in the physical sciences. Moniz had a PhD in Theoretical Physics, Chu a PhD in Physics and Bodman had a Doctor of Science (exact same requirements as a PhD) in Chemical Engineering.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
IMO, mountains are being made out of this molehill...
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
Indeed.
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
d-usa wrote: The fact that he wanted to abolish it, aside from not even knowing it well enough to remember the name, shows that he doesn't know what it does
Are you talking about his "flub" in the 2012 primary?
His denial of climate change shows his lack of scientific understanding to run it.
I beg to differ. The man was a very successful governor and you do NOT need a PhD to run the DoE. (in fact, only 2 of the previous 13 DoE dept head had PhD).
Neverthanless... that article has been proven to be a hit job.
Actually, the last 3 heads of the DoE have had doctorates in the physical sciences. Moniz had a PhD in Theoretical Physics, Chu a PhD in Physics and Bodman had a Doctor of Science (exact same requirements as a PhD) in Chemical Engineering.
While those degrees may have been of some use they're really not directly related to a job that is primarily maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile. If all Perry does is leave the DoE to keep running as it currently is while taking every opportunity to say nice things as a spokesperson for the US Oil and Natural Gas Industry we'll be fine. Perry will probably focus primarily on helping US companies increase domestic energy exploration and production and let the bulk of the DoE run on autopilot.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
You did notice the sarcastic, laughing Orkmoticon attached to my comment, right?
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Since it probably wasn't answered the first time.... and it was perhaps in the previous politics thread, but answer a few questions, if you will?
Is America not great now?
If America is not great now, at what point were we great?
Who was America great for, during this period in the past in which it was great?
It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming and there was less class/cultural division.
See above^.
The working middle class
Here is just one articles similar take/opinion on it, if you are truly interested in my opinion/stance and not just arguing the choice of wordage in my explanation like the majority of the experiences I've had with online discussions.
While those degrees may have been of some use they're really not directly related to a job that is primarily maintaining a nuclear weapons stockpile. If all Perry does is leave the DoE to keep running as it currently is while taking every opportunity to say nice things as a spokesperson for the US Oil and Natural Gas Industry we'll be fine. Perry will probably focus primarily on helping US companies increase domestic energy exploration and production and let the bulk of the DoE run on autopilot.
The pick wouldn't have been controversial if a cornerstone of Perry's presidential run hadn't been the shutting down of certain federal departments, Energy among them.
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Really?
You have a "news" network that perpetuated around the clock coverage of crap like "Obama's not actually an American citizen" or "Black Lives Matter advocates for the death of police officers"...and you want to say that it's [b]not a big factor?
That's a hacktastic article where the author provides ZERO evidence in supporting the author's thesis...
It's a hit job.
#FakeNews indeed.
Remember, facts don't matter anymore. What you feel matters.
"What do we want?" "Dead pigs!" "When do we want 'em?" "Now!" "Fry 'em like bacon!" were some of the gems being shouted at several BLM rallies. Of course they weren't advocating the death of police officers, and I'm sure it had no correlation with the officers ambushed and slain after the rallies started.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
I'm pretty sure the laughing orc emoji was meant to show that BW didn't mean his comment in a serious manner.
While I didn't support or vote for Trump I'll try to give you a real answer this time around.
Trump is a populist, he ran a populist campaign based on tapping into the anger, fear and angst of a large portion of the electorate. Trump's MAGA slogan is all about reassurance, conveying to people that he acknowledges their concerns about their livlihoods, their earning potential, their social structure in world that is changing more rapidly than ever. What is the future going to look like? Will you still have a job, will you and/or your children have job opportunities? What kind of society will we have, what values will be important? What role will the govt play in our lives? What kind of education do you and/or your children need, what will it cost, how will you/they get it?
It's human nature to romanticize the past as we get further from it. It's easy to look back a few decades and think that we used to have a well ordered society where everyone grew up going to good schools, went to college, graduated, got a job, got married, had kids, had a single income nuclear family living in a nice neighborhood, sent your kids to college, retired to Florida and learned to play shuffleboard and then died peacefully in bed surrounded by your loving descendants. The past really wasn't that idyllic but people reminisce that it was because our struggles seem greater because they're happening to us now so they're a primary concern. The past wasn't really better than the present we just tend to remember the good more than the bad and we were either younger then so we had fewer responsibilities weighing on us or it happened before we were around so we don't realize all of the problems and struggles that were occurring back then too. MAGA is really just an empty promise that an empowered Donald Trump will take on the burden of your problems and solve them. He will fix what is broken, bring order to confusing world, provide you with financial security so that you will be content with your lot in life and have peace of mind. It's total bunk but thirsty people in the desert always get fooled by the mirage.
naxium wrote: It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming
When was that, specifically?
and there was less class/cultural division.
Yes, everything was fine as long as you were a white straight Christian (at least on the exterior) man.
The working middle class
That is filled with people that vote against their own self interest because the "the queers shouldn't get married" and "the liberals want to take all of my guns!"
I've noticed over the years that on their final day, the President always seems to have extra bodyguards.
Is this to stop him blowing the lid on Area 51 or pardoning everybody, or releasing millions of classified documents in one final act of defiance?
The extra bodyguards being there to wrestle him to the ground?
I often wonder.
No... it's due to the inauguration.
SS, popo, and other federal officers are "all hands on deck" mode.
Yeah pretty much every high profile federal official is there. The outgoing PotUS and VP are there, the incoming PotUS and VP are there, the SCotUS is there to do the swearing in, members of Congress are there to witness it, cabinet members might be there. All the VIPs are there so there is a big ramp up in security. The family and friends I have that work in DC pretty much all get the day off from work and stay away from that part of DC because security shuts everything down for the ceremony.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
I'm pretty sure the laughing orc emoji was meant to show that BW didn't mean his comment in a serious manner.
While I didn't support or vote for Trump I'll try to give you a real answer this time around.
Trump is a populist, he ran a populist campaign based on tapping into the anger, fear and angst of a large portion of the electorate. Trump's MAGA slogan is all about reassurance, conveying to people that he acknowledges their concerns about their livlihoods, their earning potential, their social structure in world that is changing more rapidly than ever. What is the future going to look like? Will you still have a job, will you and/or your children have job opportunities? What kind of society will we have, what values will be important? What role will the govt play in our lives? What kind of education do you and/or your children need, what will it cost, how will you/they get it?
It's human nature to romanticize the past as we get further from it. It's easy to look back a few decades and think that we used to have a well ordered society where everyone grew up going to good schools, went to college, graduated, got a job, got married, had kids, had a single income nuclear family living in a nice neighborhood, sent your kids to college, retired to Florida and learned to play shuffleboard and then died peacefully in bed surrounded by your loving descendants. The past really wasn't that idyllic but people reminisce that it was because our struggles seem greater because they're happening to us now so they're a primary concern. The past wasn't really better than the present we just tend to remember the good more than the bad and we were either younger then so we had fewer responsibilities weighing on us or it happened before we were around so we don't realize all of the problems and struggles that were occurring back then too. MAGA is really just an empty promise that an empowered Donald Trump will take on the burden of your problems and solve them. He will fix what is broken, bring order to confusing world, provide you with financial security so that you will be content with your lot in life and have peace of mind. It's total bunk but thirsty people in the desert always get fooled by the mirage.
I've banged this message on the drums several times on these boards, but that was quite eloquently and accurately put.
Close examination and critique shows that MAGA is bullgak, but it was absolute precision in the form of a message and imagery that resonated at the right time, with the right demographic, to give Trump the win.
Yes, everything was fine as long as you were a white straight Christian (at least on the exterior) man.
The working middle class
That is filled with people that vote against their own self interest because the "the queers shouldn't get married" and "the liberals want to take all of my guns!"
I guess that the Irish weren't white, straight or of similar religion when they were the minority group.... nor when the Italians held that position in society? It's never been perfect but lets not be so snarky about it ok? I'm not going to take the bait of that last line.
Yes, everything was fine as long as you were a white straight Christian (at least on the exterior) man.
The working middle class
That is filled with people that vote against their own self interest because the "the queers shouldn't get married" and "the liberals want to take all of my guns!"
I guess that the Irish weren't white, straight or of similar religion when they were the minority group.... nor when the Italians held that position in society?
Uhm, you're kind of getting your time periods mixed up there. Back in the nineteenth century, when discrimination against Irish/Italians was highest, they weren't considered white (or at least of the same anglo-saxon/german makeup), and they weren't trusted by Protestants (you know, being Catholics and all.)
And the time period most people are referring to when talking about the affluent middle class is the 1950s. Not the 1850s.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
IMO, mountains are being made out of this molehill...
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
Indeed.
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
Uh, Whembly, YOU were the one with the "outrage" over an article that you claimed had no evidence that Perry didn't know what the DoE does. I merely pointed out that Perry's own prepared statement admits he had to be told everything the DoE does in order for him to realize that it actually is an important agency.
There's no "outrage" from me over this. I do simply have a concern over the idea of appointing agency heads who have historically opposed those very agencies. It didn't work for Reagan, I doubt it'll work today.
It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming and there was less class/cultural division.
See above^.
The working middle class
Here is just one articles similar take/opinion on it, if you are truly interested in my opinion/stance and not just arguing the choice of wordage in my explanation like the majority of the experiences I've had with online discussions.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
IMO, mountains are being made out of this molehill...
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
Indeed.
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
Uh, Whembly, YOU were the one with the "outrage" over an article that you claimed had no evidence that Perry didn't know what the DoE does. I merely pointed out that Perry's own prepared statement admits he had to be told everything the DoE does in order for him to realize that it actually is an important agency.
I'm not getting that from the prepared statements I've read... care to point it out?
When he accepted the nomination, he said this on Dec 14th after accepting the nomination:
"I look forward to engaging in a conversation about the development, stewardship and regulation of our energy resources, safeguarding our nuclear arsenal and promoting an American energy policy that creates jobs and puts America first."
There's no "outrage" from me over this. I do simply have a concern over the idea of appointing agency heads who have historically opposed those very agencies. It didn't work for Reagan, I doubt it'll work today.
And that's a fair criticism... however, I'd point to Perry's Governor legacy how he adeptly handled it in the state of Texas. There's something to be said there...
naxium wrote: So I just want to put out there, one more day until we make America great again!!!
Rather before laughing stock of the world begins to damage america.
Nah, they have until monday. Trump is taking the weekend off, remember?
Nah that's first part of being laughing stock. Inauguration must be exhausting when it requires instant holiday. And didn't he boast of his stamina over Clinton?
infinite_array wrote: Uhm, you're kind of getting your time periods mixed up there. Back in the nineteenth century, when discrimination against Irish/Italians was highest, they weren't considered white (or at least of the same anglo-saxon/german makeup), and they weren't trusted by Protestants (you know, being Catholics and all.)
And the time period most people are referring to when talking about the affluent middle class is the 1950s. Not the 1850s.
Going back to my original response to answer Ensis Ferrae, was to help him understand my perspective. My stance has nothing to do with racial makeup, sexual or religious orientations. I was trying to (ineffectively) to convey that discrimination has always been, in Every country since man has existed. during the world wars Germans and Japanese were the target, then Koreans and Vietnamese (granted the immigration percentages are much lower). I don't think it's right and I don't agree with it regardless of the target demographic but the argument being made has been one that's existed forever with the demographics being the only change. I don't think this generations going to be able to change that aspect of human nature, so it's not something I consider heavily in my stance. Rather my class, the working class (which is the most diverse ethnically etc I believe?) Is what I was making my post about and the current state of the country and its outlook on said class.
d-usa wrote: Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
They've had that for decades. Product placement is done by the show itself to secure financing. On PBS, every time a show ends there's always some blurb about how it was funded by so-and-so car corporation or such-and-such foundation or whatever. Sometimes there's even visuals similar to a normal commercial. Fortunately the shows haven't been interrupted for commercials the way network television does and I hope it stays that way.
Besides, I thought PBS didn't get that much money from the Federal government anyway, it's corporate sponsors and private donations that fund almost all of PBS services and shows.
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Wouldn't it be more likely an authoritarian would want to GROW gov't and therefore their power, rather than shrink it?
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Wouldn't it be more likely an authoritarian would want to GROW gov't and therefore their power, rather than shrink it?
Depends on the segment of government. I'd expect a pro-business authoritarian to go after regulatory and ethical agencies - oh, dear...
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Wouldn't it be more likely an authoritarian would want to GROW gov't and therefore their power, rather than shrink it?
Depends on the segment of government. I'd expect a pro-business authoritarian to go after regulatory and ethical agencies - oh, dear...
And I would expect a good POTUS to shrink the overgrown Fed gov't, and reduce the regulatory burdens to the economy. And by doing so he/she would be lessening the power of the Federal gov't, which is a good thing, as opposed to a POTUS declaring "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them" or "Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
Go to Washington DC. Hand out pink slips to half of everyone employed there. Then hand out pinks slips to half the remaining ones.
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
Go to Washington DC. Hand out pink slips to half of everyone employed there. Then hand out pinks slips to half the remaining ones.
So you don't have any specific horrific bureaucracy you want to get rid of but would rather turn Washington DC into a new Detroit.
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
The "17 intelligence agencies" statement that is constantly parroted is complete fantasy designed to prey upon the ignorant. Does anyone truly believe that the DEA, Coast Guard Intelligence, U.S. Army ISC, Marine Corps Intelligence, etc. all independently investigated the DNC hacks and came to the same conclusions?
Clapper, the USIC DNI, issued a statement. That's what happened - the "17 intelligence agencies" narrative is, and always has been, completely ridiculous. Now, when you understand what those intelligence agencies actually do, it's not unreasonable to have 17 of them.
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
The "17 intelligence agencies" statement that is constantly parroted is complete fantasy designed to prey upon the ignorant. Does anyone truly believe that the DEA, Coast Guard Intelligence, U.S. Army ISC, Marine Corps Intelligence, etc. all independently investigated the DNC hacks and came to the same conclusions?
Clapper, the USIC DNI, issued a statement. That's what happened - the "17 intelligence agencies" narrative is, and always has been, completely ridiculous. Now, when you understand what those intelligence agencies actually do, it's not unreasonable to have 17 of them.
Furthermore, the DNI is inherently a political entity... so any announcement from that entity should be met with healthy skepticism.
Can't wait to have commercials and product placement on PBS.
I don't see most of that happening. There's a reason it hasn't happened before. Having said that, reduction in the horrific bureaucracy of the federal government would be a good thing.
All the kerfluffle about Trump and the Russians and 17 agencies saying this or that, very few seemed to ask WHY DO WE HAVE SEVENTEEN AGENCIES?
What specific horrific bureaucracy do you want to see gone?
Go to Washington DC. Hand out pink slips to half of everyone employed there. Then hand out pinks slips to half the remaining ones.
So you don't have any specific horrific bureaucracy you want to get rid of but would rather turn Washington DC into a new Detroit.
Oh I am very specific. I just haven't seen any bureaucracies worthy of not getting a meat cleaver to them. But then again, one of my first jobs was as a hatchetman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
what those intelligence agencies actually do, it's not unreasonable to have 17 of them.
Sure it is.
Further if there are 17 agencies, then that means sharing of information is...limited in the real world. it violates every organizational management concept known.
There's a theme amongst all of Trump's picks (Perry, Kennedy, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, Puzder, Price, etc.). They're all diametrically opposed to the organizations they're supposed to be leading. If I wanted to go full-on loony, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist here: how does a proto-authoritarian government further convince citizens that certain segments of the government need to be done away with? By placing people who will run those departments into the ground into power.
Wouldn't it be more likely an authoritarian would want to GROW gov't and therefore their power, rather than shrink it?
No, actually. An authoritarian would want to CONCENTRATE power. You know, through the elimination of dissention...like asking for a list of employees working on climate change projects from the DOE. I'm sure it was to tweet them a "Well done!".
All the ones preventing companies from running business with dirt cheap workers with zero safety precautions obviously. Glorious leader must get more money after all!
All the ones preventing companies from running business with dirt cheap workers with zero safety precautions obviously. Glorious leader must get more money after all!
Quiet you or Trump will make a call and rebels mysteriously dressed like Russian soldiers speaking Russian will appear in your country and take over. Unlike Britain you do not have access to weaponized haggis to protect yourselves, and America can't help because we don't really know where Finland is.
"I'm an AmeriCAN not an AmeriCan't" -Genghis Connie now contemplating the correct color blue for her hair.
Further if there are 17 agencies, then that means sharing of information is...limited in the real world. it violates every organizational management concept known.
If the DEA has no intelligence branch, then who at the DEA is managing intelligence sharing?
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
Doubt it fraz...
Rex T'man and Mad Dawg Mattis will at least, encourage Trumpo to make a show of solidarity with NATO countries.
Further if there are 17 agencies, then that means sharing of information is...limited in the real world. it violates every organizational management concept known.
If the DEA has no intelligence branch, then who at the DEA is managing intelligence sharing?
Why does the Drug Enforcement Agency need an intelligence branch? I know during the Cold War we would have gone commie if it weren't for them but that usefulness has passed.
The positive of Trump is that he's kicking over many sacred ant heaps.
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
I doubt that. Russia will be too busy meddling with our mid-terms...
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
Doubt it fraz...
Rex T'man and Mad Dawg Mattis will at least, encourage Trumpo to make a show of solidarity with NATO countries.
NATO is solid? Remember, they don't necessarily want control, just influence.
Frazzled wrote: Why does the Drug Enforcement Agency need an intelligence branch?
Because we insist that cocaine is bad, and that if we can't have it no one else can.
But that's beside the point. The point of the question was to point out the silliness of suggesting that all these organizations had limited intelligence sharing because there were a lot of them, when the entire point of having so many would be to improve information sharing and analysis. It is in fact the most basic representation of every organizational management concept known. The FBI has to deal with counter-intelligence? Well someone better loop them in on the intelligence networks of national defense so they can actually do that. Need to ensure the secure exchange of information? Well unless you want literally every defense agency bumping into and stumbling over each other constantly, they're going to need a network of agencies to ensure that at least at an upper management level, everyone knows the basics of what everyone else is doing.
The actual problem with US intelligence to me would be that some of these organizations like hiding information anyway, regardless of what they're organizationally supposed to be doing *glares at the CIA*
feeder wrote: I expect the CIA is still suffering from the institutional dysfunction created by decades of paranoid rule under Hoover.
Hey man. Someone has to spy on Congress to make sure there's no plans to cut the secret budget. I mean honestly. Damn elected officials thinking they can do what what they please.
Paranoidly spying on Americans for unAmerican activity, the real American past time
feeder wrote: I expect the CIA is still suffering from the institutional dysfunction created by decades of paranoid rule under Hoover.
Hey man. Someone has to spy on Congress to make sure there's no plans to cut the secret budget. I mean honestly. Damn elected officials thinking they can do what what they please.
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
IMO, mountains are being made out of this molehill...
Then, please show me the evidence/justification that the author reached that Perry didn't know about DoE....
I'll wait...
You don't have to wait, just pay attention to Perry's confirmation hearing. His prepared statements (copies of which already leaked) have him admitting he had to be briefed on all the responsibilities of the department to understand how important it is.
Perry could very well end up doing a brilliant job, but it is a warning sign that he didn't know what the job truly entailed to begin with.
Thats a nonsensical argument. Few department heads at this level know what the job truly entails.
Indeed.
Guys... save your outrage. Perry is one of those 'uncontroversial' cabinet picks.
Uh, Whembly, YOU were the one with the "outrage" over an article that you claimed had no evidence that Perry didn't know what the DoE does. I merely pointed out that Perry's own prepared statement admits he had to be told everything the DoE does in order for him to realize that it actually is an important agency.
I'm not getting that from the prepared statements I've read... care to point it out?
When he accepted the nomination, he said this on Dec 14th after accepting the nomination:
Don't have time at the moment to search and link on my phone, sorry, but it should be in every article covering his confirmation hearing today, because that's where he said he changed his mind after being told everything the agency does. Logically, if he already knew everything the agency does, he wouldn't have to change his mind after being told everything the agency does.
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
Well that depends on does Trump manage to start a war with Russia. Which albeit wouldn't surprise me. He seems hellbent on sabre ratling.
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
Well that depends on does Trump manage to start a war with Russia. Which albeit wouldn't surprise me. He seems hellbent on sabre ratling.
So...Trump is basically Schrodinger's President? One moment he's being attacked in this thread for being too close and willing to cooperate with Putin, and the next minute he's being attacked for sabre rattling and the possibility that he'll provoke war with Russia.
Make up your minds guys, this thread is difficult enough to follow as it is.
Further if there are 17 agencies, then that means sharing of information is...limited in the real world. it violates every organizational management concept known.
Which ones would you cut? Under what justification?
All of these agencies have drastically different missions and methods.
To address your other post, the DEA's mission statement:
The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal members of organizations, involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States; and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets.
That has nothing to do with The Commies (tm). There is some convergence in the missions among agencies. For example, Narcoterrorism is a thing, and is an area where the DEA cooperates with other intelligence agencies. That said, fighting foreign wars is not the DEA's mission, nor does it make sense for the CIA to maintain personnel with expertise in DEA-specific missions.
I think you're a bit far out of your lane Frazz - understanding why we need these things requires knowing what they bring to the table in terms of specific capabilities for their particular missions. I don't particularly care about the DEA's mission, but if the War On Drugs (tm) is a thing, they need an intelligence agency.
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
Well that depends on does Trump manage to start a war with Russia. Which albeit wouldn't surprise me. He seems hellbent on sabre ratling.
So...Trump is basically Schrodinger's President? One moment he's being attacked in this thread for being too close and willing to cooperate with Putin, and the next minute he's being attacked for sabre rattling and the possibility that he'll provoke war with Russia.
Make up your minds guys, this thread is difficult enough to follow as it is.
We've seen Trump go from amiable to vitriolic when it seems like someone or some group isn't willing to bend the knee. And we've see him go the other way when someone decides to kiss the ring. So what happens when the lovey-dovey relationship between Trump and Putin cools, especially if Russia continues to push their influence abroad?
Then again, I happen to think Trump trying to sabre-rattle with Russia would be a very big pisstake.
Frazzled wrote: Why does the Drug Enforcement Agency need an intelligence branch?
Because we insist that cocaine is bad, and that if we can't have it no one else can.
Thats not an answer. Thats a crime. There's no need for an intelligence unit for that. There's no need for the DEA to be involved whatsoever.
Try again.
All the ones preventing companies from running business with dirt cheap workers with zero safety precautions obviously. Glorious leader must get more money after all!
feeder wrote: Finland has a remarkably good track record when it comes to telling Russia where to stick it.
Of course. But they may have problems with those rebels who mysteriously drive Russian equipment and have the latest antiair defense grids. But they're not Russian.
*Frazzled actually thinks there's about a 50/50 chance this will happen in the Baltics within 2 years. Poland, less so, they are hard core about that Russian involvement thing.
Well that depends on does Trump manage to start a war with Russia. Which albeit wouldn't surprise me. He seems hellbent on sabre ratling.
So...Trump is basically Schrodinger's President? One moment he's being attacked in this thread for being too close and willing to cooperate with Putin, and the next minute he's being attacked for sabre rattling and the possibility that he'll provoke war with Russia.
Make up your minds guys, this thread is difficult enough to follow as it is.
nah... the best thing you can say about Trump is that he's a doofus... and he praises anyone who kisses his ass.
Frazzled wrote: Why does the Drug Enforcement Agency need an intelligence branch?
Because we insist that cocaine is bad, and that if we can't have it no one else can.
Thats not an answer. Thats a crime. There's no need for an intelligence unit for that. There's no need for the DEA to be involved whatsoever.
Try again.
You're saying there is no need for the Drug Enforcement Agency to have any intelligence gathering abilities in its attempts to counter drugs? So no need of informants, or surveillance or information gathering and analysis?
Further if there are 17 agencies, then that means sharing of information is...limited in the real world. it violates every organizational management concept known.
Which ones would you cut? Under what justification?
All of these agencies have drastically different missions and methods.
To address your other post, the DEA's mission statement:
The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal members of organizations, involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States; and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets.
That has nothing to do with The Commies (tm). There is some convergence in the missions among agencies. For example, Narcoterrorism is a thing, and is an area where the DEA cooperates with other intelligence agencies. That said, fighting foreign wars is not the DEA's mission, nor does it make sense for the CIA to maintain personnel with expertise in DEA-specific missions.
Less cut, more amalgamate. GIve me the list and I will tell you. Based on conversations so far: *Coast Guard: cut the intelligence. Cut the Coast Guard as separate from the Navy. HERESY!!! *DEA: cut the intelligence unit. Eliminate the DEA. Any legal drug issues remit to the FDA. HERESY!!! *ATF: Kill it entirely. Alcohol by Con Amendment is a state issue. Tobacco-seriously? Gone. Firearms? You suck at it. Give enforcement to the FBI. HERESY!!!
Personal nitpick: Post Service-gone. ENLIGHTENMENT!
Frazzled wrote: Why does the Drug Enforcement Agency need an intelligence branch?
Because we insist that cocaine is bad, and that if we can't have it no one else can.
Thats not an answer. Thats a crime. There's no need for an intelligence unit for that. There's no need for the DEA to be involved whatsoever.
Try again.
You're saying there is no need for the Drug Enforcement Agency to have any intelligence gathering abilities in its attempts to counter drugs? So no need of informants, or surveillance or information gathering and analysis?
Even more then that-I'm saying the entire DEA should go. Its overduplication of existing entities plus its a prime mover in the militarization of the US police mentality (same with the ATF).
Everything everywhere needs to be examined.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nah... the best thing you can say about Trump is that he's a doofus... and he praises anyone who kisses his ass.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
You did notice the sarcastic, laughing Orkmoticon attached to my comment, right?
Yes, I noticed your Orkmoticon.... I deleted much of the rest of the text to avoid creating a wall of quote blocks
Less cut, more amalgamate. GIve me the list and I will tell you. Based on conversations so far:
*Coast Guard: cut the intelligence. Cut the Coast Guard as separate from the Navy. HERESY!!!
*DEA: cut the intelligence unit. Eliminate the DEA. Any legal drug issues remit to the FDA. HERESY!!!
*ATF: Kill it entirely. Alcohol by Con Amendment is a state issue. Tobacco-seriously? Gone. Firearms? You suck at it. Give enforcement to the FBI. HERESY!!!
Personal nitpick: Post Service-gone. ENLIGHTENMENT!
The Coast Guard is a DHS law enforcement organization and the Navy is DoD. The Coast Guard *can* function under the DoD given Presidential or Congressional direction during a time of war. Your justification for merging them is that both have boats? If we're going to talk about recommended changes, we should at least be reasonably well-informed.
Less cut, more amalgamate. GIve me the list and I will tell you. Based on conversations so far:
*Coast Guard: cut the intelligence. Cut the Coast Guard as separate from the Navy. HERESY!!!
*DEA: cut the intelligence unit. Eliminate the DEA. Any legal drug issues remit to the FDA. HERESY!!!
*ATF: Kill it entirely. Alcohol by Con Amendment is a state issue. Tobacco-seriously? Gone. Firearms? You suck at it. Give enforcement to the FBI. HERESY!!!
Personal nitpick: Post Service-gone. ENLIGHTENMENT!
A counter-argument/proposal: Leave the Coasties as is... all branches of military have their own specialized intel units with mission sets/equipment geared toward the mission of the branch.
Cut DEA entirely... I agree. But the duties carried out currently by this branch would be split between the FDA and FBI.
BATFE: I also agree... they helped in a lot of tom-foolery including Ruby Ridge, Waco and whatnot. They've lost millions worth of guns across the border in their "investigations" and generally been a very big black mark on federal law enforcement for years.
Postal Service, I would probably make a fully fledged federal agency, rather than the weird, private-governmental hybrid that we have now.
Some agencies I'd roll up, or delete:
DIA
NGA (National Geospatial-Intel Agency)
Office of Intelligence and Counter-intelligence
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Office of Terrorism and Finance Agency (seriously... WTF!?)
National Reconaissance Office
There are far too many Intel agencies in the country, and quite a few look rather redundant.
Less cut, more amalgamate. GIve me the list and I will tell you. Based on conversations so far:
*Coast Guard: cut the intelligence. Cut the Coast Guard as separate from the Navy. HERESY!!!
*DEA: cut the intelligence unit. Eliminate the DEA. Any legal drug issues remit to the FDA. HERESY!!!
*ATF: Kill it entirely. Alcohol by Con Amendment is a state issue. Tobacco-seriously? Gone. Firearms? You suck at it. Give enforcement to the FBI. HERESY!!!
Personal nitpick: Post Service-gone. ENLIGHTENMENT!
The Coast Guard is a DHS law enforcement organization and the Navy is DoD. The Coast Guard *can* function under the DoD given Presidential or Congressional direction during a time of war. Your justification for merging them is that both have boats? If we're going to talk about recommended changes, we should at least be reasonably well-informed.
They both have boats and choppers (and helicopters too ). Give the responsibility to the Navy. Cut the bureaucracy.
Also cut the insults. That attitude is why we are in the crapwagon we are in now.
DIA
NGA (National Geospatial-Intel Agency)
Office of Intelligence and Counter-intelligence
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Office of Terrorism and Finance Agency (seriously... WTF!?)
National Reconaissance Office
There are far too many Intel agencies in the country, and quite a few look rather redundant.
Why? Do you know what they do? Do you know how information is transferred among the agencies?
Not trying to be a jerk - there's a whole lot of alt-ctrl-delete in this thread with little knowledge of how it all works.
Less cut, more amalgamate. GIve me the list and I will tell you. Based on conversations so far:
*Coast Guard: cut the intelligence. Cut the Coast Guard as separate from the Navy. HERESY!!!
*DEA: cut the intelligence unit. Eliminate the DEA. Any legal drug issues remit to the FDA. HERESY!!!
*ATF: Kill it entirely. Alcohol by Con Amendment is a state issue. Tobacco-seriously? Gone. Firearms? You suck at it. Give enforcement to the FBI. HERESY!!!
Personal nitpick: Post Service-gone. ENLIGHTENMENT!
The Coast Guard is a DHS law enforcement organization and the Navy is DoD. The Coast Guard *can* function under the DoD given Presidential or Congressional direction during a time of war. Your justification for merging them is that both have boats? If we're going to talk about recommended changes, we should at least be reasonably well-informed.
They both have boats and choppers (and helicopters too ). Give the responsibility to the Navy. Cut the bureaucracy.
Also cut the insults. That attitude is why we are in the crapwagon we are in now.
That wasn't intended to be insulting - the fact is that each of these agencies has different missions, capabilities, and funding sources. Advocating deleting an agency simply because you think the name sounds redundant, without knowledge of that agency's specific mission and capabilities, is silly.
Like literally. That is why the DEA has a loop into the intelligence network (I mean, there's the opium trade too, but we tend to facilitate that one).
Less cut, more amalgamate. GIve me the list and I will tell you. Based on conversations so far:
*Coast Guard: cut the intelligence. Cut the Coast Guard as separate from the Navy. HERESY!!!
*DEA: cut the intelligence unit. Eliminate the DEA. Any legal drug issues remit to the FDA. HERESY!!!
*ATF: Kill it entirely. Alcohol by Con Amendment is a state issue. Tobacco-seriously? Gone. Firearms? You suck at it. Give enforcement to the FBI. HERESY!!!
Personal nitpick: Post Service-gone. ENLIGHTENMENT!
A counter-argument/proposal: Leave the Coasties as is... all branches of military have their own specialized intel units with mission sets/equipment geared toward the mission of the branch.
Cut DEA entirely... I agree. But the duties carried out currently by this branch would be split between the FDA and FBI.
BATFE: I also agree... they helped in a lot of tom-foolery including Ruby Ridge, Waco and whatnot. They've lost millions worth of guns across the border in their "investigations" and generally been a very big black mark on federal law enforcement for years.
Postal Service, I would probably make a fully fledged federal agency, rather than the weird, private-governmental hybrid that we have now.
Some agencies I'd roll up, or delete:
DIA
NGA (National Geospatial-Intel Agency)
Office of Intelligence and Counter-intelligence
Office of Intelligence and Analysis
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Office of Terrorism and Finance Agency (seriously... WTF!?)
National Reconaissance Office
There are far too many Intel agencies in the country, and quite a few look rather redundant.
Like literally. That is why the DEA has a loop into the intelligence network (I mean, there's the opium trade too, but we tend to facilitate that one).
horse . That would mean every police department in the US must have an intelligence unit.
Give their criminal duties back to the FBI.
Frazzled wrote: horse . That would mean every police department in the US must have an intelligence unit.
They basically do...
I mean they're obviously not roped into the national intelligence network, but the FBI, DEA, ATF, and whatnot do send information down the line for the purpose of coordination and someone in the NYPD has to manage that (not to mention the NYPD probably has its own city oriented intelligence interests).
Give their criminal duties back to the FBI.
So you're plan is to not shrink the government at all, but induce massive organizational bloat onto a single element of it by cutting all the others until the FBI itself is as large as the United States Army?
You can't cut agencies as an end to itself. Agencies only exist as an extension of policy. If we don't like the DEA, the solution is to end the policies that necessitate it, not treat the DEA itself as superfluous and damage the others when we shift all of its burdens to them (especially since that wouldn't really save much money anyway cause you still have to pay for all the drug enforcement).
You can't cut agencies as an end to itself. Agencies only exist as an extension of policy. If we don't like the DEA, the solution is to end the policies that necessitate it, not treat the DEA itself as superfluous and damage the others when we shift all of its burdens to them (especially since that wouldn't really save much money anyway cause you still have to pay for all the drug enforcement).
Precisely the point - if we don't care about a capability, then by all means eliminate the agency. If the capability is necessary, then we need to fully understand that agency's mission and capabilities before deciding it would be best to nix it.
The FBI/ATF issue is particularly weird - the FBI handles a bunch of firearms-related issues anyway (NICS checks, for example), while the ATF "handles" a lot of the paperwork (4473s, Form 4s, etc.). Until 2001 they weren't part of the same parent agency so it wouldn't have made sense to roll them together. Nowadays, it makes a lot more sense.
And that, of course, is exactly the message and theme behind Trump's slogan...
If that is true, then why is the word "again" in the slogan? See... the word "again" carries with it certain weight and meaning. Again means that something has ceased and restarted, or there's a desire to restart/return to that thing. If I say I'm going to the gym again, it's because at some point I've ceased gym activities, and now I've returned to them.
Which is why I asked those few questions I did above. I'll be honest, they were originally written by another member of this forum, as I said on the previous post, probably in the 2016 politics thread.... but when people continue to spout nonsense like "MAGA" I'm going to have to question them, if nothing else then to understand what these people are really wanting.
You did notice the sarcastic, laughing Orkmoticon attached to my comment, right?
Yes, I noticed your Orkmoticon.... I deleted much of the rest of the text to avoid creating a wall of quote blocks
Just not getting the sarcasm then? Even PJ pointed it out to you in a reply post, but, K...if you like arguing with yourself. Maybe I should have italicized "of course" to really get the tone across...*note to self.
Frazzled wrote: By combining entities they can cut corporate overhead while maintaining operational levels unchanged.
Citation needed. By that metric, why do you have separate air, navy and army forces? And then the Marines? Roll them all into one as they are all in the business of shooting things.
By combining multiple agencies into a single one you need to integrate the operations and command structure. Are we also going to move them into the same building? What if the headquarters of the agency that the smaller agency is being integrated into is far away from the headquarters on the integratee?
Frazzled wrote: By combining entities they can cut corporate overhead while maintaining operational levels unchanged.
Except public policy isn't a corporate enterprise;
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Citation needed. By that metric, why do you have separate air, navy and army forces? And then the Marines? Roll them all into one as they are all in the business of shooting things.
It's almost like you don't improve operational capacity by confusing organizational goals.
The FBI/ATF issue is particularly weird - the FBI handles a bunch of firearms-related issues anyway (NICS checks, for example), while the ATF "handles" a lot of the paperwork (4473s, Form 4s, etc.). Until 2001 they weren't part of the same parent agency so it wouldn't have made sense to roll them together. Nowadays, it makes a lot more sense.
Personally I think the ATF is in a different boat than the DEA. The DEA will always need a law enforcement capability because the entire point of the DEA is to enforce certain drug policies and not all of those policies are related to the War on Drugs. ATF I think has become dead wieght as an organization. I'm all for good gun control laws, and even stricter ones than we currently have, but our current gun control scheme is a fething mess. Five minutes into an explanation of gun trusts and my thoughts were "the feth is going on." The whole "black guns are bad guns" thing is sad and funny because it's such an accurate reflection of how we're doing it (really stupidly, on a superficial level). Alcohol and Tobacco don't need their own agency. They should be under some commerce regulator, the DEA, or the FDA. We aren't unindated with moonshine runners anymore. Basically all the ATF does is enforce our really badly organized and even worse realized gun control laws, and they can't even do that right. They're really asking for an inquisition, a purge, and a rebuilding as just "Firearms" (let the FBI trade over its own gun regulation obligations while we're at it, cause the FBI should be dealing with crimes not the ho-dum business of making sure the guy buying a Beretta hasn't bought another gun in the last 15 days or whatever the stupid measure is).
feeder wrote: I expect the CIA is still suffering from the institutional dysfunction created by decades of paranoid rule under Hoover.
Hey man. Someone has to spy on Congress to make sure there's no plans to cut the secret budget. I mean honestly. Damn elected officials thinking they can do what what they please.
Paranoidly spying on Americans for unAmerican activity, the real American past time
In all seriousness, AG Eric Holder refused to answer Sen. Kirk in a 2013 Congressional hearing when asked if the DoJ spies on Congress. Holder dodged the question and claimed he couldn't give a response in an open hearing and there's no reason why Holder couldn't say that no, the DoJ doesn't spy on Congress, in an open hearing. Sen. Bernie Sanders asked the NSA in 2014 if the NSA spied on Congress and the NSA replied by stating that members of Congress have the same protection from NSA spying as the public and we know that the NSA routinely collects phone call data from the public without warrants so by extension the NSA also freely wiretaps Congress. The CIA doesn't need to spy on Congress, multiple other agencies already do it.
feeder wrote: I expect the CIA is still suffering from the institutional dysfunction created by decades of paranoid rule under Hoover.
Hey man. Someone has to spy on Congress to make sure there's no plans to cut the secret budget. I mean honestly. Damn elected officials thinking they can do what what they please.
Paranoidly spying on Americans for unAmerican activity, the real American past time
In all seriousness, AG Eric Holder refused to answer Sen. Kirk in a 2013 Congressional hearing when asked if the DoJ spies on Congress. Holder dodged the question and claimed he couldn't give a response in an open hearing and there's no reason why Holder couldn't say that no, the DoJ doesn't spy on Congress, in an open hearing. Sen. Bernie Sanders asked the NSA in 2014 if the NSA spied on Congress and the NSA replied by stating that members of Congress have the same protection from NSA spying as the public and we know that the NSA routinely collects phone call data from the public without warrants so by extension the NSA also freely wiretaps Congress. The CIA doesn't need to spy on Congress, multiple other agencies already do it.
I only mention the CIA because they literally get caught spying on Congress at least once every decade. Last time was 2013 I think.
Really it's kind of funny. We fund a mountain of clandestine agencies and operations, and the idea that we can regulate them at all is just laughable. By its very nature "clandestine" is hidden. So yes. Let's give billions of dollars to huge agencies, and just trust that when we tell them to keep it all secret they'll actually be honest with anyone about what they're using the money for. By the way to anyone reading that gak is exactly how the US ended up in Vietnam (US intelligence agencies bungled their meddlings with a foreign country), exactly how we ended up in Iraq the first time (US intelligence agencies bungled their meddlings with a foreign country), how we ended up in Afghanistan (US intelligence agencies bungled their meddlings with a foreign country), and how we ended up in Iraq a second god damn time (US intelligence agencies bungled their meddlings with a foreign country).
You really think we'd learn the damn lesson at some point.
The FBI/ATF issue is particularly weird - the FBI handles a bunch of firearms-related issues anyway (NICS checks, for example), while the ATF "handles" a lot of the paperwork (4473s, Form 4s, etc.). Until 2001 they weren't part of the same parent agency so it wouldn't have made sense to roll them together. Nowadays, it makes a lot more sense.
Personally I think the ATF is in a different boat than the DEA. The DEA will always need a law enforcement capability because the entire point of the DEA is to enforce certain drug policies and not all of those policies are related to the War on Drugs. ATF I think has become dead wieght as an organization. I'm all for good gun control laws, and even stricter ones than we currently have, but our current gun control scheme is a fething mess. Five minutes into an explanation of gun trusts and my thoughts were "the feth is going on." The whole "black guns are bad guns" thing is sad and funny because it's such an accurate reflection of how we're doing it (really stupidly, on a superficial level). Alcohol and Tobacco don't need their own agency. They should be under some commerce regulator, the DEA, or the FDA. We aren't unindated with moonshine runners anymore. Basically all the ATF does is enforce our really badly organized and even worse realized gun control laws, and they can't even do that right. They're really asking for an inquisition, a purge, and a rebuilding as just "Firearms" (let the FBI trade over its own gun regulation obligations while we're at it, cause the FBI should be dealing with crimes not the ho-dum business of making sure the guy buying a Beretta hasn't bought another gun in the last 15 days or whatever the stupid measure is).
The FBI runs the NICS checks, the national criminal database that every licensed firearms dealer in the US has to use to run a background check on somebody before selling him/her a gun. Selling a firearm to a prohibited person is a federal crime, a felony, so it's completely independent of waiting period laws which only exist on the state level. If the FBI is controlling the database and prosecuting violators then it makes more sense to assign the enforcement duties from the ATF to the FBI and eliminate the ATF. Every state already has agencies that regulate alcohol and tobacco production and sales and enforce applicable state laws so federal alcohol and tobacco laws and enforcement is redundant.
I would be perfectly ok with losing the ATF, but that said, it does a lot more than just stuff related to individuals, it has a big role in industry regulation and technology compliance for firearms and explosives that the FBI just isnt set up for, and many firearms laws are actually set up to function in ways that dont necessarily flow through to the FBI well.
Prestor Jon wrote: The FBI runs the NICS checks, the national criminal database that every licensed firearms dealer in the US has to use to run a background check on somebody before selling him/her a gun.
To be fair to me, I think that once someone is out of prison further restrictions on their rights are unconstitutional
If the FBI is controlling the database and prosecuting violators then it makes more sense to assign the enforcement duties from the ATF to the FBI and eliminate the ATF.
I don't really mind that either. We just really need to overhaul gun control laws around here, because they're confusing as feth and a lot of them just seem pointless. It's almost like some of these laws only exist because some law maker was trying to check their "I'm for gun control" box on their "things to do to get elected" sheet.
Every state already has agencies that regulate alcohol and tobacco production and sales and enforce applicable state laws so federal alcohol and tobacco laws and enforcement is redundant.
We'd still need some federal enforcement because Texas and Oklahoma don't have jurisdiction over each other, but certainly the actual task of regulating alcohol and tobacco today is not so monumental as to need a chimera-like monstrosity of regulatory cluster fething that is the ATF.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I would be perfectly ok with losing the ATF, but that said, it does a lot more than just stuff related to individuals, it has a big role in industry regulation and technology compliance for firearms and explosives that the FBI just isnt set up for, and many firearms laws are actually set up to function in ways that dont necessarily flow through to the FBI well.
Vaktathi wrote: I would be perfectly ok with losing the ATF, but that said, it does a lot more than just stuff related to individuals, it has a big role in industry regulation and technology compliance for firearms and explosives that the FBI just isnt set up for, and many firearms laws are actually set up to function in ways that dont necessarily flow through to the FBI well.
Make it a subsidiary dept in the FBI rather than its own agency in the DoJ. Redefine it's role to remove redundancy of state laws and improve it's connection to the FBI. Enforcing compliance with federal laws is an FBI mission and the awkward split of responsibilities between the 2 agencies isn't helpful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: The confirmation hearings have been fairly interesting so far, as examples of how to give 'yes' sounding answers while absolutely not saying yes.
Get a load of this nonsense from Betsy DeVos;
Tim Kaine: Do you think k-12 schools that receive federal funding should meet the same accountability standards, outcome standards?
DeVos: All schools that receive public funding should be accountable, yes.
Kaine: Should meet the same accountability standards?
DeVos: Yes, although you have different accountability standards between traditional public schools and charter schools.
Kaine: But I'm really interested in this, should everybody be on a level playing field? So public, charter, or private K-12 schools, if they receive taxpayer funding, they should meet the same accountability standards?
DeVos: Yes, they should be very transparent with the information. And parents should have that information first and foremost.
Kaine: And, if confirmed, will you insist upon that equal accountability in any K-12 school or educational program that receives federal funding whether public charter or private?
DeVos: I support accountability.
Kaine: Equal accountability for all schools that receive federal funding?
DeVos: I support accountability.
Kaine: Okay, is that a yes or a no?
DeVos: That's a "I support accountability"
Kaine: Do you want to answer my question?
DeVos: I support accountability.
The laughs from DeVos' political blather side, the pattern here is pretty clear - she wants to give funding to private entities, which is fine in some contexts, but then she doesn't seem too fussed about ensuring that the organisations that money goes to are providing decent returns, which is disastrous, especially given the issues with private colleges in the US that just started to be pulled back in Obama's second term. It is amazing that DeVos is so indifferent on the issue, unless, like with the tax handout called an infrastructure program, we start to see the pattern emerging - this whole thing has Berlusconi Mk II written all over it. If that sounds a little dramatic, remember the president elect ran this exact same scam himself.
Most of what the Dept of Ed does is handing out federal funding, making sure the right amounts go to the right schools with the right strings attached. It's a big factor in a lot of the problems we have in public education. The qualifications that schools have to meet to get their federal funding is primarily getting good test scores on federally mandated end of grade tests. That's why 3rd graders at my kids elementary school get stress counseling and teachers get stuck having to teach to the test, because if the kids don't get good marks on their EOG standardized tests then the school loses money. If you don't like economic policy that just amounts to the rich getting richer then I don't know why you're a fan of this education policy. Schools that do well on the test get money schools that don't do well get less money/no money so the nice suburban schools in areas with good household incomes get plenty of federal funding and the inner city schools plagued with problems lose their money because their test scores are low. Of course parents are still bound by law to send their kids to those failing public schools that lose federal funding and they'll run afoul of truant officers and child services if they don't send their kids there and voucher programs to help those parents be able to afford to send their kids to better schools are an evil Republican plot to destroy teacher unions so they can't have that either.
Instead of having the Federal govt collect Federal taxes from state residents just to then send that money back to the schools those residents use via a convoluted Federal program the Federal govt should collect less tax revenue, not give money to schools and leave the states and local govts to run the schools and collect taxes to fund them. The Dept of Ed has no idea what my local schools are like, there are no Dept of Ed employees who take the time to research the schools and find out exactly what the successes and failures of each are and how they're doing. The Dept of Ed only knows my local schools as a table of test results that is used to determine federal funding payments. My county school board, school superintendent, principals, state representatives and state dept of Education actually know what's going on with my local schools, collects data on the schools and student performance and most importantly they are much more susceptible to the desires of the public they serve than Federal bureaucrats and cabinet appointees that don't give a feth about my kids because they don't even know they exist.
Prestor Jon wrote: The FBI runs the NICS checks, the national criminal database that every licensed firearms dealer in the US has to use to run a background check on somebody before selling him/her a gun.
To be fair to me, I think that once someone is out of prison further restrictions on their rights are unconstitutional
If the FBI is controlling the database and prosecuting violators then it makes more sense to assign the enforcement duties from the ATF to the FBI and eliminate the ATF.
I don't really mind that either. We just really need to overhaul gun control laws around here, because they're confusing as feth and a lot of them just seem pointless. It's almost like some of these laws only exist because some law maker was trying to check their "I'm for gun control" box on their "things to do to get elected" sheet.
Every state already has agencies that regulate alcohol and tobacco production and sales and enforce applicable state laws so federal alcohol and tobacco laws and enforcement is redundant.
We'd still need some federal enforcement because Texas and Oklahoma don't have jurisdiction over each other, but certainly the actual task of regulating alcohol and tobacco today is not so monumental as to need a chimera-like monstrosity of regulatory cluster fething that is the ATF.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I would be perfectly ok with losing the ATF, but that said, it does a lot more than just stuff related to individuals, it has a big role in industry regulation and technology compliance for firearms and explosives that the FBI just isnt set up for, and many firearms laws are actually set up to function in ways that dont necessarily flow through to the FBI well.
This too.
Why does the Federal govt need some kind of overarching alcohol and tobacco enforcement powers over the states? We've let individual states break Federal drug laws and legalize marijuana and everything seems to be working out fine. Marijuana laws can be different in Colorado and Nebraska and alcohol laws can be different in Texas and Oklahoma, that's not a problem we need to solve.
The most confusing aspect of Federal firearms laws are the seemingly arbitrary distinctions the ATF makes between something that is legal versus illegal. The most confusing aspect of state firearm laws is why some states need to have severe draconian gun laws while states that have more pragmatic gun laws get along just fine.
Why does the Federal govt need some kind of overarching alcohol and tobacco enforcement powers over the states?
I'm not talking about keep the current scheme, but tobacco and alcohol are still major industries and there's a need for oversight and some of that is best managed at the federal level. Specifically I was referring to things like cigarette runners. New York's ability to keep people from smuggling tobacco products up I-81 from Georgia ends at their border, and Georgia's ability to help ends at theirs. A federal agency can get all parties organized and on board to make sure existing laws are being respected and followed.
And of course I'd point out that the last time the Federal government passed a law and expected the states to sort it out, we had 10 years of on again off again quasi-martial law throughout the South trying to get the point across that "sort it out" was not a gentle suggestion. The frank reality is that the states are no more noble than the federal government, and expecting them to be able to handle things themselves is like expecting five-year-olds to go unsupervised for two hours and not do something potentially harmful.
We've let individual states break Federal drug laws and legalize marijuana and everything seems to be working out fine.
I don't think it's fine. What point is there to legalizing marijuana, when you never know if a change in Federal attitudes will have some federal agency kick your door down and arresting you for possession and intent to distribute? What point is there in having weed be illegal if someone can just drive over the border and get all the weed they want? There is a point where "its a state matter" stops making any sense. There needs to be at least a basic national policy strategy for these things and that necessitates some kind of federal regulation/enforcement need even if it's a very small one.
The most confusing aspect of Federal firearms laws are the seemingly arbitrary distinctions the ATF makes between something that is legal versus illegal.
Frazzled wrote: horse . That would mean every police department in the US must have an intelligence unit.
They basically do...
I mean they're obviously not roped into the national intelligence network, but the FBI, DEA, ATF, and whatnot do send information down the line for the purpose of coordination and someone in the NYPD has to manage that (not to mention the NYPD probably has its own city oriented intelligence interests).
Most police departments in major cities have dedicated intelligence and counter-intelligence officers working there, and not just in gang-related units.
With the Fed, each agency's intelligence unit is tasked for a specific purpose. DEA is narco. CIA is foreign governments/insurgents. ATF is gun running/smuggling. I don't see how you effectively consolidate all those disparate purposes under one roof. Another thing to keep in mind is that the CIA isn't worried about prosecuting people whereas the DEA is. The need for warrants really impacts what can and cannot be done in the name of gathering information.
@Prestor Jon
Just to address your bit about the Fed collecting less taxes for education: ideally, that money should help even out schools to ensure all children across the country have an equal education. If left purely to the states, then poorer states will have poorer education as they'll have less money per student compared to richer states. No child should be punished educationally because they live in state X instead of Y.
Wyrmalla wrote: I've decided to tune out of US politics for the next 4 years and just adamantly believe that Vermin Supreme had actually became the president. :(
Tune out? While we're imploding with mutual hatred for one another? I say get get some frigging entertainment out of it...someone should!
Most of what the Dept of Ed does is handing out federal funding, making sure the right amounts go to the right schools with the right strings attached. It's a big factor in a lot of the problems we have in public education. The qualifications that schools have to meet to get their federal funding is primarily getting good test scores on federally mandated end of grade tests. That's why 3rd graders at my kids elementary school get stress counseling and teachers get stuck having to teach to the test, because if the kids don't get good marks on their EOG standardized tests then the school loses money. If you don't like economic policy that just amounts to the rich getting richer then I don't know why you're a fan of this education policy. Schools that do well on the test get money schools that don't do well get less money/no money so the nice suburban schools in areas with good household incomes get plenty of federal funding and the inner city schools plagued with problems lose their money because their test scores are low. Of course parents are still bound by law to send their kids to those failing public schools that lose federal funding and they'll run afoul of truant officers and child services if they don't send their kids there and voucher programs to help those parents be able to afford to send their kids to better schools are an evil Republican plot to destroy teacher unions so they can't have that either.
Instead of having the Federal govt collect Federal taxes from state residents just to then send that money back to the schools those residents use via a convoluted Federal program the Federal govt should collect less tax revenue, not give money to schools and leave the states and local govts to run the schools and collect taxes to fund them. The Dept of Ed has no idea what my local schools are like, there are no Dept of Ed employees who take the time to research the schools and find out exactly what the successes and failures of each are and how they're doing. The Dept of Ed only knows my local schools as a table of test results that is used to determine federal funding payments. My county school board, school superintendent, principals, state representatives and state dept of Education actually know what's going on with my local schools, collects data on the schools and student performance and most importantly they are much more susceptible to the desires of the public they serve than Federal bureaucrats and cabinet appointees that don't give a feth about my kids because they don't even know they exist.
It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
Seriously though I am pretty sure I saw Michael Moore and... he's just awful. If you want to sink a protest though his involvement is probably a pretty good way to do it.
Seriously though I am pretty sure I saw Michael Moore and... he's just awful. If you want to sink a protest though his involvement is probably a pretty good way to do it.
Progressives better learn, and learn very quickly, that celebrities are starting to subtract from, rather than add to, their causes.
I get such a cringe when some uber-rich celebrity starts preaching at me.
Tannhauser42 wrote: @Prestor Jon
Just to address your bit about the Fed collecting less taxes for education: ideally, that money should help even out schools to ensure all children across the country have an equal education. If left purely to the states, then poorer states will have poorer education as they'll have less money per student compared to richer states. No child should be punished educationally because they live in state X instead of Y.
That's the ideal, anyway.
If the goal is to equalize funding for all schools why do the Feds tie funding to performance? Giving extra money to schools that are already successful and withholding funding from schools that are struggling or failing seems to be the opposite of equalizing schools, rich get richer poor get worse. Plus if schools/school systems consistently fail to meet the testing standards it's the state govt that takes control of the schools from local authorities the Feds don't nationalize failing schools to improve them they just yank their funding and let the states clean up the mess, which is usually too difficult of a task for the states to accomplish. And again while these schools are failing to meet the testing standards parents are still required to send their kids there so they're not being helped at all.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
The great irony of conservative opposition to public education is that American conservatives pushed for it to begin with way way back in the late 19th early 20 centuries because the Catholics were opening up lots of great schools and how dare they teach Catholicism in school. Now conservatives oppose public education because the state won't teach Creationism in school XD
There's nothing inherently wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
The great irony of conservative opposition to public education is that American conservatives pushed for it to begin with way way back in the late 19th early 20 centuries because the Catholics were opening up lots of great schools and how dare they teach Catholicism in school. Now conservatives oppose public education because the state won't teach Creationism in school XD
It's not public education that I'm opposed to. It's the Federal government being involved in it that I have a problem with.
If the goal is to equalize funding for all schools why do the Feds tie funding to performance? Giving extra money to schools that are already successful and withholding funding from schools that are struggling or failing seems to be the opposite of equalizing schools, rich get richer poor get worse.
Because the people who proposed, wrote, and passed that policy wanted to sabotage public education and then complain about how it doesn't work. It was impressive in itself with a bipartisan collection of Congressmen managed to quietly get rid of that stupid law, but indeed they then just dumped the problem down a level and didn't do anything to rectify the damage done. Much of the education policy history of the US os defined by being ignored on one side and purposefully sabotaged on the other.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's not public education that I'm opposed to. It's the Federal government being involved in it that I have a problem with.
I just think it's a very funny piece of trivia
There's a similar one with the railroads; Mid 18th century Republicans were real big on expanding the railroad, so railroads got huge amounts of public money to make more railroads, and continued to get massive subsidies up until WWII when the Republicans decided Highways were better and then blasted the railroads for wasting public funds for years and asked why the Federal government was spending so much money on corporate welfare (while proposing huge subsidies and tax breaks for the fledgling trucking industry) XD
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
Please elaborate.
Where does the rubber grind the road with federal education standards?
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
Why does the Federal govt need some kind of overarching alcohol and tobacco enforcement powers over the states?
I'm not talking about keep the current scheme, but tobacco and alcohol are still major industries and there's a need for oversight and some of that is best managed at the federal level. Specifically I was referring to things like cigarette runners. New York's ability to keep people from smuggling tobacco products up I-81 from Georgia ends at their border, and Georgia's ability to help ends at theirs. A federal agency can get all parties organized and on board to make sure existing laws are being respected and followed.
And of course I'd point out that the last time the Federal government passed a law and expected the states to sort it out, we had 10 years of on again off again quasi-martial law throughout the South trying to get the point across that "sort it out" was not a gentle suggestion. The frank reality is that the states are no more noble than the federal government, and expecting them to be able to handle things themselves is like expecting five-year-olds to go unsupervised for two hours and not do something potentially harmful.
We've let individual states break Federal drug laws and legalize marijuana and everything seems to be working out fine.
I don't think it's fine. What point is there to legalizing marijuana, when you never know if a change in Federal attitudes will have some federal agency kick your door down and arresting you for possession and intent to distribute? What point is there in having weed be illegal if someone can just drive over the border and get all the weed they want? There is a point where "its a state matter" stops making any sense. There needs to be at least a basic national policy strategy for these things and that necessitates some kind of federal regulation/enforcement need even if it's a very small one.
The most confusing aspect of Federal firearms laws are the seemingly arbitrary distinctions the ATF makes between something that is legal versus illegal.
Agreed.
Why do we need the Feds to enforce a NY state sales tax? If NY wants to reduce cigarette smuggling they can stop having punitive sin taxes. If NY wants to punish cigarette smokers to the extent that they incentivize a black market whose demand incentivized an interstate smuggling operation to supply it that's a problem with the NY state tax policy not a concern for the FBI.
We tried to control alcohol at the federal level during prohibition and it failed. There is a ton of stuff that varies state to state that don't cause harm or require federal intervention. I can own guns in NC that I can't own in NY. I can smoke marijuana in Colorado that I can't smoke in Utah. I can drive with open alcohol beverage containers in my car in Texas and that's illegal in California. My car only needs a rear license plate in South Carolina but it would need front and rear plates in NJ. I can buy beer in a grocery store in Virginia but I have to go to a beer distributor to buy it in PA.
States are allowed to be different and the federal govt doesn't need to enforce an intrusive unnecessary level of conformity over issues they really don't have any jurisdiction over.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Trump is a direct chain reaction response to the 2008 downturn, just as Obama was a hope and change candidate and Sanders received such support. People have been voting for change for almost two decades and have not been heard-at least to their satisfaction,which accelerated with the downturn. With each election the electorate decides to choose a more extreme version. Its a logical reaction. they will continue to elect stronger and stronger candidates to kick over all the ant piles until they get what they want.
Unless there are real changes, expect the new slew of candidates to be even more extreme.
What you're missing is that the primary driver of the negativity in the electorate comes from a political strategy shared by conservative media and the Republican party. They spew a constant stream of negativity no matter what is actually happening. This is where the Republicans ended up overplaying their card - after 8 years of claiming Obama was a radical secret muslim who wanted to round people up in FEMA camps etc... and that America was falling to pieces and being taken over by special interest minorities... is it any wonder that Republicans who tried to campaign with run of the mill Republican ideas got smashed by the guy who really was acting like the end of America was just around the corner?
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
And what, pray tell, will happen when the majority of people in your state adopt a harmful education standard, perhaps like the Holocaust is a myth, or unicorns are just around the corner, or it's safe to hunt humans in Maine?
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
And what, pray tell, will happen when the majority of people in your state adopt a harmful education standard, perhaps like the Holocaust is a myth, or unicorns are just around the corner, or Maine is a state setup for human hunting?
I'll have a smaller pool of people to persuade to see the error in their thinking than I would if the Federal govt set bad education policy. I would also need a smaller group of like minded people to organize a successful campaign to vote in new representation to overturn bad policy than I would if it happened on the federal level. I would also have an easier time having standing to contest state laws in state court than I would contesting federa laws in federal court.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
And what, pray tell, will happen when the majority of people in your state adopt a harmful education standard, perhaps like the Holocaust is a myth, or unicorns are just around the corner, or Maine is a state setup for human hunting?
I'll have a smaller pool of people to persuade to see the error in their thinking than I would if the Federal govt set bad education policy. I would also need a smaller group of like minded people to organize a successful campaign to vote in new representation to overturn bad policy than I would if it happened on the federal level. I would also have an easier time having standing to contest state laws in state court than I would contesting federa laws in federal court.
Yes, I do see your point. I don't trust State governments though, they are usually much worse than the feds, where controversies tend to level out.
Not sure what is the good answer here, to be honest.
The answer is NOT lower standards at the state level though. We are already dumb enough on the world stage.
Prestor, the whole point of federal education standards is to ideally keep every state on the same page. I don't know if you have kids or not or if you ever plan to move to another state, but if I had a kid in, say,, fifth grade, and we moved to another state, federal standards ensure he would roughly have the same knowledge as fifth graders in the new state, rather than being significantly ahead or behind.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why do we need the Feds to enforce a NY state sales tax? If NY wants to reduce cigarette smuggling they can stop having punitive sin taxes.
Because telling the states they can set their own policy, and then telling them not to complain that people are violating their policy is a bit hypocritical. A country built of a bunch of municipalities with no obligations to one another quickly ceases to be a country. I don't understand why you're jumping to the conclusion that I expect all states to be the same, or that I want some kind of overarching conformity on everything. Setting basic policy standards can be as simple as "all gun manufacturers must include a safety in their design", or as detailed as "vodka is an alcohol with a proof of x to y fermented in manner z from ingredients a, b, and c and bottled as d."
Let's say someone sells a batch of beer and it turns out it contains rat poison. People die in the state of Indiana, but the beer is made and sold in Nevada and distributed from there. Indiana can't just investigate a beer maker in Nevada. Now, Nevada can investigate the crime (and find that the manufacturer was reckless) but Nevada courts can't bring charges for deaths in other states and Indiana can't charge the manufacturer for selling bad goods in Nevada. The only thing Nevada can do is charge for violating state law and and reckless endangerment. And of course, what about the people who died in California, Utah, and Idaho, and the money the business was funneling to New Jersey mob? The only body that can actual handle all of that practically and Constitutionally is the Federal government. Crimes cross state lines, and Constitutionally that's the Federal government's job.
The states are not intrinsically better at everything at all levels, and just because the states can handle a given regulatory challenge doesn't mean they have no need for a federal regulator or investigative arm. Especially in a global economic environment where money and goods travel massive distances, it's kind of absurd to expect the state of Florida be be able to fulfill all the needs that will ever exist or even exist now on any issue, let alone something like alcohol or tobacco. Especially since these are goods that tend to be grown in one place, processed in another, and then manufactured into a consumer good in dozens of other places before shipping to markets all over the country and these steps can take place in completely different states.
NY state tax policy not a concern for the FBI.
I never said it was something for the FBI to do.
We tried to control alcohol at the federal level during prohibition and it failed.
I don't think its that we tried to control it at a federal level so much that we tried to ban it period. That was just doomed to fail (not that we learned any lessons from the experience).
Please show me, (a direct quote, audio or video) that the author used to support his thesis...
Okay, for starters we can go back to Perry's infamous gaffe, in which he forgot the name of the third department he wanted to close. That was the Department of Energy. Do you think Perry was saying he wanted the US nuclear stockpile dismantled? Or do you think he simply had no idea that the Dept of Energy maintained the US weapons stockpile? It's obviously the latter, so there's one bit of evidence that Perry didn't know what the Dept of Energy did.
For a second bit, here's a quote from Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist, advisor to Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of the Trump transition team for the Energy Department. “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy. If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
There's your evidence. We have a quote from Perry showing he had no idea what the Department of Energy actually did, and we have an advisor to Perry saying Perry had no idea what the job entailed. The story is solid.
And so can I now ask you to please rethink how you approached this story? You read something you didn't like, so you immediately wrote it off as fake news and challenged other people to prove the story. That is how you maintain an ignorance bubble. Instead next time go and research for yourself, open up to the idea that the story might be true, and then go and do some reading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: As an aside, show me a clean renewable that will take care of US energy needs and I will show you a snow blizzard in Southern Texas.
Junk argument. The idea that clean energy must be capable of covering all energy needs tomorrow, or else it should be ignored entirely is a false argument put up to try and dismiss making any progress in clean energy. A real and meaningful consideration would involve accepting any clean energy that is cost efficient (or close enough) because any increase in clean energy is a reduction in emissions.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Trump is a direct chain reaction response to the 2008 downturn, just as Obama was a hope and change candidate and Sanders received such support. People have been voting for change for almost two decades and have not been heard-at least to their satisfaction,which accelerated with the downturn. With each election the electorate decides to choose a more extreme version. Its a logical reaction. they will continue to elect stronger and stronger candidates to kick over all the ant piles until they get what they want.
Unless there are real changes, expect the new slew of candidates to be even more extreme.
What you're missing is that the primary driver of the negativity in the electorate comes from a political strategy shared by conservative media and the Republican party. They spew a constant stream of negativity no matter what is actually happening. This is where the Republicans ended up overplaying their card - after 8 years of claiming Obama was a radical secret muslim who wanted to round people up in FEMA camps etc... and that America was falling to pieces and being taken over by special interest minorities... is it any wonder that Republicans who tried to campaign with run of the mill Republican ideas got smashed by the guy who really was acting like the end of America was just around the corner?
...and watch the liberals and old school media lose their gak in a Trump administration.
Evidence #85664: That NYT hit piece on Rick Perry.
Rick Perry is an idiot, no inquiry required. The fact that he is set to head Energy and our nuclear system should horrify both conservatives, liberals, and progressives alike.
Please show me, (a direct quote, audio or video) that the author used to support his thesis...
Okay, for starters we can go back to Perry's infamous gaffe, in which he forgot the name of the third department he wanted to close. That was the Department of Energy. Do you think Perry was saying he wanted the US nuclear stockpile dismantled? Or do you think he simply had no idea that the Dept of Energy maintained the US weapons stockpile? It's obviously the latter, so there's one bit of evidence that Perry didn't know what the Dept of Energy did.
That's simply a gaffe in a heated 2012 Republican primary, while hopped up on pain meds for a recent surgery AND being poorly prepared for said debate.
For a second bit, here's a quote from Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist, advisor to Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of the Trump transition team for the Energy Department. “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy. If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
There's your evidence. We have a quote from Perry showing he had no idea what the Department of Energy actually did, and we have an advisor to Perry saying Perry had no idea what the job entailed. The story is solid.
The story is NOT fething solid. McKenna was NOT on the trasition team for about 4 weeks when Perry was tapped.
It's an obvious hit job over a non-controversial individual.
And so can I now ask you to please rethink how you approached this story? You read something you didn't like, so you immediately wrote it off as fake news and challenged other people to prove the story. That is how you maintain an ignorance bubble. Instead next time go and research for yourself, open up to the idea that the story might be true, and then go and do some reading.
Ignorance bubble my ass... I'm well informed on this...
Even the journalists who cheered on this story has repudiated it.
whembly wrote: I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
I would certainly hope every fething politician who campaigned on the national stage to close a department was first briefed about what that department does. To me, that would be common sense.
Perry didn't get that briefing before he campaigned to close the Department, because Perry is an idiot and a political hack.
It's kind of funny that in a latter post you have a go at people complaining about Perry's selection because it's a 'non-contraversial' pick. I actually agree with that, not because Perry is a good choice, but because Dept of Energy is a run of the mill, business as usual administrative role. It's just that your arguments trying to defend Perry are so terrible I had to call you on them. You end up making a non-starter of an issue in to a win for the left because you put up really bad arguments.
whembly wrote: I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
I would certainly hope every fething politician who campaigned on the national stage to close a department was first briefed about what that department does. To me, that would be common sense.
Perry didn't get that briefing before he campaigned to close the Department, because Perry is an idiot and a political hack.
Amen. I don't spend much time nitpicking appointments, but a dunce in charge of our nukes is a nightmare waiting to happen.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Really?
You have a "news" network that perpetuated around the clock coverage of crap like "Obama's not actually an American citizen" or "Black Lives Matter advocates for the death of police officers"...and you want to say that it's not a big factor?
naxium wrote: It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming and there was less class/cultural division.
If that's what you want for a return for greatness, and you think Trump is going to do that, or even try to do that, then oh boy you are in for a very disappointing 4 years.
...
"I think in my mind I know who it is," he said at a leadership luncheon at his hotel in downtown Washington, according to cell phone video of the event obtained by CNN. "I think you're going to be very, very excited."
Trump said he would be submitting a name from a list of 20 that he put out during the campaign.
"I put out the list of 20, all highly responsible and highly talented, very talented judges ... Replacing somebody that was somebody I had great respect for as an intellect, Justice (Antonin) Scalia," Trump said.
...
The announcement will come "within two to three" weeks after the start of his administration," he said.
Well... shoot... he's going to make the Turtle nuke the filibuster on SCoTUS pick.
Bet he's going with William Pryor... no way in hades that they'll get enough Democrats to vote for him...
I guess that if you're wanted to nuke the filibuster, the time to do it is early on your Presidency.... that seems like a calculation by Preibus and Bannon.
:sigh: I guess these parties won't ever learn that their 'majority' status isn't forever...
Please show me, (a direct quote, audio or video) that the author used to support his thesis...
Okay, for starters we can go back to Perry's infamous gaffe, in which he forgot the name of the third department he wanted to close. That was the Department of Energy. Do you think Perry was saying he wanted the US nuclear stockpile dismantled? Or do you think he simply had no idea that the Dept of Energy maintained the US weapons stockpile? It's obviously the latter, so there's one bit of evidence that Perry didn't know what the Dept of Energy did.
That's simply a gaffe in a heated 2012 Republican primary, while hopped up on pain meds for a recent surgery AND being poorly prepared for said debate.
For a second bit, here's a quote from Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist, advisor to Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of the Trump transition team for the Energy Department. “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy. If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
There's your evidence. We have a quote from Perry showing he had no idea what the Department of Energy actually did, and we have an advisor to Perry saying Perry had no idea what the job entailed. The story is solid.
The story is NOT fething solid. McKenna was NOT on the trasition team for about 4 weeks when Perry was tapped.
It's an obvious hit job over a non-controversial individual.
And so can I now ask you to please rethink how you approached this story? You read something you didn't like, so you immediately wrote it off as fake news and challenged other people to prove the story. That is how you maintain an ignorance bubble. Instead next time go and research for yourself, open up to the idea that the story might be true, and then go and do some reading.
Ignorance bubble my ass... I'm well informed on this...
Even the journalists who cheered on this story has repudiated it.
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
What was his own words... you show me that please.
The only thing I saw is that he regretted wanting to shut down that dept...
oldravenman3025 wrote: And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
I apologize if I missed the announcement, but is OT really at risk of being axed? It is the second most viewed board on the forums.
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
What was his own words... you show me that please.
The only thing I saw is that he regretted wanting to shut down that dept...
Fething Christ, man, I already told you two pages ago it's in every damned article covering his hearing, are you just being deliberately difficult?!
"My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking,” he said, adding, “In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
jasper76 wrote: It's worth staying again: Rick Perry is a dunce.
Do you really want a bubbly-eyed fool in charge of our nuclear system?
Of course you don't.
Perry will be a fine administer.
He'll need to:
a) smooze lawmakers for stuff
b) enact directive by Trump administration
c) make budgets
d) manage the DOE peeps, whom are experts on what DOE peeps does...
If he was able to steer Texas alright... he'd be fine running the show at the DOE.
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
What was his own words... you show me that please.
The only thing I saw is that he regretted wanting to shut down that dept...
Fething Christ, man, I already told you two pages ago it's in every damned article covering his hearing, are you just being deliberately difficult?!
"My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking,” he said, adding, “In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
No. I didn't trust you as you summarized. I wanted something that was close to the transcript.
That's a tactic walkback.... an elegant one if I may add.
Furthermore, you have to realize that this is his confirmation hearing, so it's politicized.
Still... adds no redeeming aspect to that hackastic NTY hit job.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth staying again: Rick Perry is a dunce.
Do you really want a bubbly-eyed fool in charge of our nuclear system?
Of course you don't.
Perry will be a fine administer.
He'll need to:
a) smooze lawmakers for stuff
b) enact directive by Trump administration
c) make budgets
d) manage the DOE peeps, whom are experts on what DOE peeps does...
If he was able to steer Texas alright... he'd be fine running the show at the DOE.
I can't tell these days whether you are having a go at me, or if this is a serious response.
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
What was his own words... you show me that please.
The only thing I saw is that he regretted wanting to shut down that dept...
Fething Christ, man, I already told you two pages ago it's in every damned article covering his hearing, are you just being deliberately difficult?!
"My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking,” he said, adding, “In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
No. I didn't trust you as you summarized. I wanted something that was close to the transcript.
That's a tactic walkback.... an elegant one if I may add.
Furthermore, you have to realize that this is his confirmation hearing, so it's politicized.
Still... adds no redeeming aspect to that hackastic NTY hit job.
The NYT has feth all to do with the point at hand, you didn't have to "trust" me but instead do your own god damned reading, so, YES, you are being deliberately fething difficult! I am so absolutely done with your dishonesty and partisanship for now.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth staying again: Rick Perry is a dunce.
Do you really want a bubbly-eyed fool in charge of our nuclear system?
Of course you don't.
Perry will be a fine administer.
He'll need to:
a) smooze lawmakers for stuff
b) enact directive by Trump administration
c) make budgets
d) manage the DOE peeps, whom are experts on what DOE peeps does...
If he was able to steer Texas alright... he'd be fine running the show at the DOE.
I can't tell these days whether you are having a go at me, or if this is a serious response.
I may agree with you if I hadn't heard Perry speak. He's an idiot, and he may be an alcoholic. He showed up drunk to a presidential press conference, what's to stop him drinking on the job?
I don't want someone mentally dependent on drink running our nukes, and I don't apologize for saying so.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth staying again: Rick Perry is a dunce.
Do you really want a bubbly-eyed fool in charge of our nuclear system?
Of course you don't.
Perry will be a fine administer.
He'll need to:
a) smooze lawmakers for stuff
b) enact directive by Trump administration
c) make budgets
d) manage the DOE peeps, whom are experts on what DOE peeps does...
If he was able to steer Texas alright... he'd be fine running the show at the DOE.
I can't tell these days whether you are having a go at me, or if this is a serious response.
In any case, beware Texans bearing gifts.
A big wooden horse...no, not gonna trust em,. A Tex-mex dinner..trust off the chain yo!
jasper76 wrote: It's worth staying again: Rick Perry is a dunce.
Do you really want a bubbly-eyed fool in charge of our nuclear system?
Of course you don't.
Perry will be a fine administer.
He'll need to:
a) smooze lawmakers for stuff
b) enact directive by Trump administration
c) make budgets
d) manage the DOE peeps, whom are experts on what DOE peeps does...
If he was able to steer Texas alright... he'd be fine running the show at the DOE.
I can't tell these days whether you are having a go at me, or if this is a serious response.
In any case, beware Texans bearing gifts.
A big wooden horse...no, not gonna trust em,. A Tex-mex dinner..trust off the chain yo!
True enough, sorry bit given Texans history of separatism, why would we trust them with anything, let alone out nuclear system?
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
What was his own words... you show me that please.
The only thing I saw is that he regretted wanting to shut down that dept...
Fething Christ, man, I already told you two pages ago it's in every damned article covering his hearing, are you just being deliberately difficult?!
"My past statements made over five years ago about abolishing the Department of Energy do not reflect my current thinking,” he said, adding, “In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.”
No. I didn't trust you as you summarized. I wanted something that was close to the transcript.
That's a tactic walkback.... an elegant one if I may add.
Furthermore, you have to realize that this is his confirmation hearing, so it's politicized.
Still... adds no redeeming aspect to that hackastic NTY hit job.
The NYT has feth all to do with the point at hand, you didn't have to "trust" me but instead do your own god damned reading, so, YES, you are being deliberately fething difficult! I am so absolutely done with your dishonesty and partisanship for now.
A) YOU were summarizing what he said, so I wanted to know where you getting this information.
B) YOU jumped into the NYT hit job discussion.
C) I think it's ridiculous to point out Perry's DoE walkback as it somehow demonstrates he's an idiot and shouldn't have been nominated.
whembly wrote: C) I think it's rediculous to point out Perry's DoE walkback as it somehow demonstrates he's an idiot and shouldn't have been nominated.
No, it's not ridiculous at all. You're talking about someone who called for a department to be abolished while having no clue what the department did, then suddenly changed his mind about it when he got the opportunity to be in charge of it. Either he's an idiot, or he's the kind of partisan who will rubber-stamp whatever right-wing ideology is popular without understanding anything about the subject. Either way he should not have been nominated.
whembly wrote: Well... you can thank Harry Reid for making it difficult for Democrats to stop the Perry nomination.
And there we go, back to "The Other Team is wrong" as your only response. The problem is not that the democrats made obstructionism harder as a response to the republican party taking obstructionism to extremes previous generations would have considered insane, it's that the republican party has completely departed from reality. So stop blaming the democrats for the dysfunctional mess that Your Team has become.
whembly wrote: Well... you can thank Harry Reid for making it difficult for Democrats to stop the Perry nomination.
And there we go, back to "The Other Team is wrong" as your only response. The problem is not that the democrats made obstructionism harder as a response to the republican party taking obstructionism to extremes previous generations would have considered insane, it's that the republican party has completely departed from reality. So stop blaming the democrats for the dysfunctional mess that Your Team has become.
The answer is simply the republican won... and kept on winning.
My problem is Reid neutering the filibuster that weakens the minority party... which the Democrats are now going to experience the repercussion at full-speed.
It's the same issue I'm going to have when the GOP Senate nukes the filibuster for the next SCoTUS pick.
It's shortsighted to weaken the minority party, as the GOP won't be the majority forever, and THEY'LL bear the brunt of a Democrat administration, with no means to stop a partisan unpopular pick.
Frazzled wrote: They both have boats and choppers (and helicopters too ). Give the responsibility to the Navy. Cut the bureaucracy.
It's an old cliche that merging removes overheads by removing top layers of management. That only works when the merged entities have significantly aligned activities. That isn't the case with coast guard and navy. The operations and processes done by each is very different.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I apologize if I missed the announcement, but is OT really at risk of being axed? It is the second most viewed board on the forums.
Pg 59.
Last chance, folks. There's debate on closing the thread permanently, and some voices in favor of closing the OT forum permanently. Kindly conduct yourselves with at least a little decorum, and in accordance with Dakka's few rules.
This instance may have been my fault. In other discussions, I generally avoided using gender pronouns when discussing Inmate Manning, I slipped up, was accused of "misgendering" and outrage ensued. My B!
With that said, it's probably the most heavily moderated forum too.
whembly wrote: The answer is simply the republican won... and kept on winning.
They're still a dysfunctional mess, as we're about to see now that they have to do more than yell "OBAMA SUCKS REPEAL OBAMA" at their rabid followers.
My problem is Reid neutering the filibuster that weakens the minority party... which the Democrats are now going to experience the repercussion at full-speed.
It's the same issue I'm going to have when the GOP Senate nukes the filibuster for the next SCoTUS pick.
It's shortsighted to weaken the minority party, as the GOP won't be the majority forever, and THEY'LL bear the brunt of a Democrat administration, with no means to stop a partisan unpopular pick.
We've been over this already. The system of having minority power depends on the minority using it responsibly. IOW, filibuster the most extreme examples of bad picks, let the rest get a vote. The republican party decided to replace that with obstructing everything as a general principle, so the only option was to fix the broken system so that the everyday business of governing the country could continue. If you want someone to blame it's Your Team, no matter how many times you overlook the part their dysfunctional mess played in changing those rules.
Prestor Jon wrote: Most of what the Dept of Ed does is handing out federal funding, making sure the right amounts go to the right schools with the right strings attached. It's a big factor in a lot of the problems we have in public education. The qualifications that schools have to meet to get their federal funding is primarily getting good test scores on federally mandated end of grade tests. That's why 3rd graders at my kids elementary school get stress counseling and teachers get stuck having to teach to the test, because if the kids don't get good marks on their EOG standardized tests then the school loses money. If you don't like economic policy that just amounts to the rich getting richer then I don't know why you're a fan of this education policy.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I posted. It's just a boilerplate "NCLB is bad" post. Nothing wrong with pointing out the many issues with NCLB and the general idea of standardised testing = funding. The question is about how it might be fixed, and more specifically how the incoming presidency plans to address the issue.
The big idea from DeVos is that you give public money to support kids moving in to non-public schools. It's an okay idea, that might work if well managed. The issue is how you manage to ensure that lots of private schools of varying means, sizes and goals are delivering results for kids and giving a reasonable return on taxpayer funds. DeVos has shown she has little interest in actually monitoring this in a meaningful way. That's the issue here.
If you want some actual experience in this, here in WA (and more generally Australia wide) we just went through a process of opening up vocational education to private companies - the new scheme gave them govt funding for each student they took on much the same as the voucher system proposed in the US. I was actually part of seeing all this role out, as I was working at one of the state vocational schools at the time. At its core the scheme isn't too bad, there's plenty of training types the private sector can deliver at a lower cost, and having a range of private actors offering courses makes for a more flexible market as private actors can raise and lower capacity more easily to meet market demand. However, all that counts for nought if you don't have an effective scheme in place to monitor what these schools are delivering. What we saw was a range of fly by night companies geared to take student fees and government money, who'd then offer as little as possible until they collapsed, and then start up next term under a new name. It wasted government money and cost students a wasted year or two.
Lessons were learned, better monitoring schemes were put in place and the industry is slowly starting to right itself. A similar thing has occurred with college loans and shonky for profits in the US tertiary sector, which is slowly being fixed with better monitoring.
And now we have DeVos coming in to the job, with little interest in the existing monitoring system on US private colleges, and wanting to bring in a similar system in primary and secondary education, again with little interest in monitoring.
The problem isn't hard to spot.
Instead of having the Federal govt collect Federal taxes from state residents just to then send that money back to the schools those residents use via a convoluted Federal program the Federal govt should collect less tax revenue, not give money to schools and leave the states and local govts to run the schools and collect taxes to fund them. The Dept of Ed has no idea what my local schools are like, there are no Dept of Ed employees who take the time to research the schools and find out exactly what the successes and failures of each are and how they're doing. The Dept of Ed only knows my local schools as a table of test results that is used to determine federal funding payments. My county school board, school superintendent, principals, state representatives and state dept of Education actually know what's going on with my local schools, collects data on the schools and student performance and most importantly they are much more susceptible to the desires of the public they serve than Federal bureaucrats and cabinet appointees that don't give a feth about my kids because they don't even know they exist.
You just finished a bit in which you claim to be concerned about the rich getting richer, and then here you are saying each school district should pay for itself, with little to no interest shown in the massive differences in resources available to rich compared to poor districts. Wow.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
Good to know you hate children in poorer states then.
whembly wrote: The answer is simply the republican won... and kept on winning.
If the only goal is to be in power, then Republicans are doing okay. If there's a greater goal of winning power in order to make a stronger and more prosperous country, then the Republicans are in real trouble. Trump isn't just a once off. The last president before this was GW Bush. Republican politics has been dominated by the deeply stupid, needlessly confrontational freedom caucus, who it far more difficult for Boehner to govern than anything the Democrats did. Republicans are now walking in to government with a set of policy goals that are either economic or political insanity, and often both.
In a two party system parties are going to win something around half the time just by existing. The issue is what you do when you're in office. What Republicans are set up to do is catastrophic. The only limit on it is that it's likely they won't get that much of it done (Bush had 8 years, four with both houses of the legislature, and got hardly any of his agenda through).
I mean hey, you may be looking forward to your glorious summer made by this sun of (New) York, and hey I guess there's a chance I could be wrong and we're about to see a new age of rainbows and puppies. Maybe third time is a charm with tax cuts for the rich. Maybe 20 million people losing their insurance will become motivated to bootstrap themselves up, start their own businesses and all become millionaires.
Or you know, maybe the 2006 and 2008 electoral disasters for Republicans were nothing compared to what we'll soon see.
My problem is Reid neutering the filibuster that weakens the minority party... which the Democrats are now going to experience the repercussion at full-speed.
As I've said before, the filibuster was only ever going to last as long as the minority treated that power with the restraint required of a minority party. Republicans rejected all appointments as a matter of general policy, it made the system unworkable and forced the rules change.
If you have a problem with how the rule was changed, you probably should have listened to me back when I was telling you it was important for Republicans to respect not just the letter of the law but the tradition of how the parties behaved. When you change the culture, you never really know where the new equilibrium will settle.
SickSix wrote: Good morning everyone! Today is going to be a great day in America! Hope everyone has a good day today.
Not so sure what's so great for america to have a president whose politics are so bad for america one has to wonder if he's not intentionally aiming to damage america. Frankly he's more of a traitor than Snowden etc could hope to be.
SickSix wrote: Good morning everyone! Today is going to be a great day in America! Hope everyone has a good day today.
Not so sure what's so great for america to have a president whose politics are so bad for america one has to wonder if he's not intentionally aiming to damage america. Frankly he's more of a traitor than Snowden etc could hope to be.
Thats it. I'm calling Putin. No more vodka for you!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: It's worth staying again: Rick Perry is a dunce.
Do you really want a bubbly-eyed fool in charge of our nuclear system?
SickSix wrote: Good morning everyone! Today is going to be a great day in America! Hope everyone has a good day today.
Not so sure what's so great for america to have a president whose politics are so bad for america one has to wonder if he's not intentionally aiming to damage america. Frankly he's more of a traitor than Snowden etc could hope to be.
Thats it. I'm calling Putin. No more vodka for you!
The NYT has feth all to do with the point at hand, you didn't have to "trust" me but instead do your own god damned reading, so, YES, you are being deliberately fething difficult! I am so absolutely done with your dishonesty and partisanship for now.
You seem tense. To avoid the thread getting banned and you getting banned, maybe you should chill the out no? It a thread in the OT of a forum about the greatness of squats and the dire threat of the Pan Fo, not Deathmatch 1802.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth staying again: Rick Perry is a dunce.
Do you really want a bubbly-eyed fool in charge of our nuclear system?
Of course you don't.
Perry will be a fine administer.
He'll need to:
a) smooze lawmakers for stuff
b) enact directive by Trump administration
c) make budgets
d) manage the DOE peeps, whom are experts on what DOE peeps does...
If he was able to steer Texas alright... he'd be fine running the show at the DOE.
I can't tell these days whether you are having a go at me, or if this is a serious response.
In any case, beware Texans bearing gifts.
A big wooden horse...no, not gonna trust em,. A Tex-mex dinner..trust off the chain yo!
True enough, sorry bit given Texans history of separatism, why would we trust them with anything, let alone out nuclear system?
SickSix wrote: Good morning everyone! Today is going to be a great day in America! Hope everyone has a good day today.
Not so sure what's so great for america to have a president whose politics are so bad for america one has to wonder if he's not intentionally aiming to damage america. Frankly he's more of a traitor than Snowden etc could hope to be.
Thats it. I'm calling Putin. No more vodka for you!
Finland makes its own vodka.
Its not Vodka if its not Russian, or Texan. Its just girly water for people who don't understand the deep philosophical meaning behind Hawaiian shirts.
It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming and there was less class/cultural division.
The US has always had divisions. To start with, declaring black people non-human and using them for chattel slavery is pretty divisive. Once slavery was crushed they still weren't allowed to vote until the 60's. Even then, the war on drugs was aimed at ending black radicalism by throwing people into prison wholesale. Today, there are still lobby groups for segregation in housing and education and black americans are systemically poorer, less educated and in worse health than white americans. This is all with centuries of struggle to end racism and just one group in the US. Latinos and native americans have their own stories to add, to say nothing of chinese americans. Or even just plain poor white americans! If there was ever a time of less division, it wasn't by much and it was most certainly brief.
Its not Vodka if its not Russian, or Texan. Its just girly water for people who don't understand the deep philosophical meaning behind Hawaiian shirts.
I have to agree, it's a sad day, we put a sexist bigot who has no clue what he's doing and throws terrible tantrums like a child in charge of our country.
The EC failed to protect us from an unfit man, today is the fruit of that failure.
It sickens me how many Never Trumps are now just thrilled with him because their party rode his coattails to power. Just as much as it sickens me that people believe a man who built his fortune from stabbing people in the back and trodding on human decency will be their champion.
Feth this America, we get what we deserve. All hail the idiocracy.
Inauguration day and people are already claiming the sky is falling.
Hold on to your seats. You might find that Trump is right in talk, but centrist on a lot of policies. My prediction...he's going to at least attempt to put together an amnesty package for illegals.
lonestarr777 wrote: I have to agree, it's a sad day, we put a sexist bigot who has no clue what he's doing and throws terrible tantrums like a child in charge of our country.
The EC failed to protect us from an unfit man, today is the fruit of that failure.
It sickens me how many Never Trumps are now just thrilled with him because their party rode his coattails to power. Just as much as it sickens me that people believe a man who built his fortune from stabbing people in the back and trodding on human decency will be their champion.
Feth this America, we get what we deserve. All hail the idiocracy.
In the interests of historical balance, Andrew Jackson ran and won his campaign of the basis of how many British redcoats and Seminole Native Americans he had killed, so Trump is hardly unique in this respect.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: If only the DNC hadn't run someone under investigation by the FBI.
Accusation is not guilt, presumption of innocence and all that. It's a shame that Western media overlooks that important point.
Frazzled wrote: If only the DNC hadn't run someone under investigation by the FBI.
...and they've yet to own up to that... thus, dooming themselves to repeating the same mistakes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Inauguration day and people are already claiming the sky is falling.
I mean... I voted for the stoner. But, what these peeps don't realize is that their hysterical outrage is confirming the folks who voted for Trump.
Hold on to your seats. You might find that Trump is right in talk, but centrist on a lot of policies. My prediction...he's going to at least attempt to put together an amnesty package for illegals.
Frazzled wrote: If only the DNC hadn't run someone under investigation by the FBI.
...and they've yet to own up to that... thus, dooming themselves to repeating the same mistakes.
One of the most disliked candidates in history with the personality...not conducive to being elected...who got smoked in her last election run and almost lost to a socialist geezer...in a change election.
But its the Russians or the EC or the FBI or whatever.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Inauguration day and people are already claiming the sky is falling.
Hold on to your seats. You might find that Trump is right in talk, but centrist on a lot of policies. My prediction...he's going to at least attempt to put together an amnesty package for illegals.
You can easily judge a man's potential policies by the people he puts in his cabinet whose jobs it will be to develop and enforce these policies.
M
Frazzled wrote: If only the DNC hadn't run someone under investigation by the FBI.
...and they've yet to own up to that... thus, dooming themselves to repeating the same mistakes.
One of the most disliked candidates in history with the personality...not conducive to being elected...who got smoked in her last election run and almost lost to a socialist geezer...in a change election.
But its the Russians or the EC or the FBI or whatever.
It can be all those things; we aren't limited to a single problematic reason for getting Mango-Man as President-Elect.
Frazzled wrote: If only the DNC hadn't run someone under investigation by the FBI.
...and they've yet to own up to that... thus, dooming themselves to repeating the same mistakes.
One of the most disliked candidates in history with the personality...not conducive to being elected...who got smoked in her last election run and almost lost to a socialist geezer...in a change election.
But its the Russians or the EC or the FBI or whatever.
It can be all those things; we aren't limited to a single problematic reason for getting Mango-Man as President-Elect.
This is very true.
As noted, don't blame me, I voted for the dopehead. Now that I think about it, I didn't vote for any of them at the Federal level. This is not new however. Strangely Texas frowns when you attempt to write in Ghost TBone Lord of all Wiener Dogs as a candidate.
Frazzled wrote: If only the DNC hadn't run someone under investigation by the FBI.
Accusation is not guilt, presumption of innocence and all that. It's a shame that Western media overlooks that important point.
Accusations has always been a 'contagion' in voter's minds.
People has had a lot of issues over Clinton... fair or unfair.
However, when you've had the FBI director who goes on national TV (a unprecedentedordeal) who re-counts a litany of offenses that would be the foundationof a prosecution... but, yet at the same breath, 're-interpret' the statutes to claim 'mens reas' is required (when its not) in order to avoid recommending charges against a Presidential candidate... people can sees it as the rich & powerful being treated differently.
That just reinforces the negative perception of Clinton.
Keep in mind, that Trump barely won mutilple states.... and part of the reasons is how unpopular his opponents is... as well as Trump getting the historical wind-in-the-back simply because a "3rd term" President rarely happens.
He's not going to enjoy those favorable attributes for his 2nd term run...
Another 'outside looking in' question, and again one asked without ulterior motive.
Here in the UK, the populace has, theoretically, the right and power to recall Parliament, and force a General Election (history isn't my suit, so no idea if we've ever actually done that).
So whilst impeachment can get rid of a President, is there any mechanism by which the US populace can force a full on Presidential Election?
I celebrated Trump victory at lunch, and at dinner I will be celebrating him being officialy the president !
What is it ? Firstly, anger, then denial ? And then acceptation ?
So many angry people, angry against their own president, or worse, against other country's president !
Just wait for him the lead the county, at least.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another 'outside looking in' question, and again one asked without ulterior motive.
Here in the UK, the populace has, theoretically, the right and power to recall Parliament, and force a General Election (history isn't my suit, so no idea if we've ever actually done that).
So whilst impeachment can get rid of a President, is there any mechanism by which the US populace can force a full on Presidential Election?
No there is not. Thats where impeachment comes in.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another 'outside looking in' question, and again one asked without ulterior motive.
Here in the UK, the populace has, theoretically, the right and power to recall Parliament, and force a General Election (history isn't my suit, so no idea if we've ever actually done that).
So whilst impeachment can get rid of a President, is there any mechanism by which the US populace can force a full on Presidential Election?
No.
However, we do have elections every 2 years for The House of Representative (2 year terms) and some Senate seats (6 year terms).
Additionally, President's actions can be taken to courts.
Hence why we bang on that 'separation of powers' drum a bit here... as it's a check on each of the branches.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another 'outside looking in' question, and again one asked without ulterior motive.
Here in the UK, the populace has, theoretically, the right and power to recall Parliament, and force a General Election (history isn't my suit, so no idea if we've ever actually done that).
So whilst impeachment can get rid of a President, is there any mechanism by which the US populace can force a full on Presidential Election?
It's the wrong thread for this stuff, but in the UK, it's the MPs who drive any recall. We've had two motions of no confidence in the last 100 years: the winter of discontent in 1979, (which my father never stops going on about even til this day ) and before that we had 1924 with Ramsey MacDonald getting a swift boot to the rear for various reasons.
As for the USA, Frazz is correct - it's usually impeachment that drives that process and the whole two thirds thing. You can do anything in the USA with two thirds
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Another 'outside looking in' question, and again one asked without ulterior motive.
Here in the UK, the populace has, theoretically, the right and power to recall Parliament, and force a General Election (history isn't my suit, so no idea if we've ever actually done that).
So whilst impeachment can get rid of a President, is there any mechanism by which the US populace can force a full on Presidential Election?
No.
However, we do have elections every 2 years for The House of Representative (2 year terms) and some Senate seats (6 year terms).
Additionally, President's actions can be taken to courts.
Hence why we bang on that 'separation of powers' drum a bit here... as it's a check on each of the branches.
I think separation of powers was wounded in 1861, and then buried in the 1930s.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Inauguration day and people are already claiming the sky is falling.
Hold on to your seats. You might find that Trump is right in talk, but centrist on a lot of policies. My prediction...he's going to at least attempt to put together an amnesty package for illegals.
You can easily judge a man's potential policies by the people he puts in his cabinet whose jobs it will be to develop and enforce these policies.
M
If it's any consolation, Trump may find himself hostage to fortune and of course, events.
GW Bush's time was shaped by 9/11 and famously, 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson vowed to keep the USA out of WW1, and the rest is history...
Events will play their part, for better or for worse.
godardc wrote: I celebrated Trump victory at lunch, and at dinner I will be celebrating him being officialy the president !
What is it ? Firstly, anger, then denial ? And then acceptation ?
So many angry people, angry against their own president, or worse, against other country's president !
Just wait for him the lead the county, at least.
I am more angry with his cabinet picks. People were put in place who were outright in opposition or knew nothing about the very places they will be in charge of. If thats not alarming...
Last week, President Barack Obama gave his farewell address. Today is his last full day in office. Now is therefore an appropriate time to begin to assess his legacy, including his legacy for American constitutional law.
Any such early assessment must be provisional, at best. We do not yet have sufficient historical distance from Obama’s time in office to reach anything approaching definitive conclusions. Still, we can at least make a start.
Obama deserves credit for helping to push the struggle for same-sex marriage to a successful conclusion, for appointing some highly capable judges (despite flaws in their judicial philosophy), and for causing the Supreme Court to establish some valuable precedents protecting federalism, property rights, and religious freedom (albeit, often unintentionally). On the other hand, we may well have occasion to rue his overly expansive approach to executive power, particularly when it comes to initiating wars without congressional authorization.
I. The Loaded Gun Obama Will Leave Trump.
Perhaps the most important constitutional legacy of the Obama administration is one that does not get nearly as much attention as it deserves: by starting two wars without the constitutionally required congressional authorization, Obama established dangerous precedents that can be used by Donald Trump and other potentially unscrupulous successors. In the case of both the 2011 war against Libya and the still-ongoing war against ISIS, Obama relied on flimsy legal pretexts to to initiate wars.
To his credit, Obama has since admitted that the Libya intervention was his “worst mistake.” But he still refuses to recognize that it was unconstitutional, or that its dubious legal rationale had any connection to the sorry outcome.
In both the Libya and ISIS conflicts, the Obama administration stopped short of claiming, in the fashion of John Yoo, that the president has unlimited inherent power to start wars. But the rationales they relied on instead are not much better. In the Libya case, for example, the administration advanced the ridiculous theory that the Libya conflict was not a real war (or even a case of “armed hostilities” covered by the War Powers Act) because “U.S. operations [in Libya] do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces.” You don’t have to be a law professor like Obama to understand that launching numerous air strikes for the purpose of overthrowing a government qualifies as war, and certainly as “armed hostilities.” If it does not, all sorts of other large-scale military interventions can be justified on similar grounds. Similar problems arise from the administration’s attempts to stretch the 2001 and 2002 congressional authorizations for the use of military force to cover the conflict against ISIS. These too are holes that Donald Trump – or some other future president – could potentially drive a truck through.
Obama’s actions have, quite literally, left Trump a loaded gun he could potentially fire almost any time he wants to. Actually it’s an entire army of loaded guns, to say nothing of loaded missile launchers and aircraft carriers. Hopefully, Congress will reassert its constitutional authority over this important field. Principled lawmakers like Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Rand Paul would like to do just that. But I am not as optimistic as I wish I could be that their counsel will be followed. Most members of Congress – and most of the general public – seem happy to continue ignoring this issue.
The constitutional requirement of congressional authorization is not just a legal technicality. It also helps protect us against initiating dubious conflicts at the behest of a single man, and increases the likelihood of success in those wars we do choose to fight.
President Obama would have done better to stick to the principle then-Senator Obama stated in 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” We may yet have occasion to lament his failure to live up to his own principles here.
Obama’s overextension of executive power to initiate war was the most dangerous example of numerous similar abuses in other areas, many of them chronicled in my George Mason University colleague David Bernstein’s book on the subject.
I don’t agree with all of the conservative criticisms of Obama’s executive actions. And some had precedents in similar abuses by previous presidents, including Republican ones. But the overall picture is still not a pretty one, and still creates dangerous precedents.
II. Victory in the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.
Obama’s term in office coincided with the dramatic final victory the struggle for marriage equality, which culminated in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision striking state down laws banning same-sex marriage. Obama’s role in this battle was somewhat equivocal, but nonetheless crucial.
For a long time, Obama led the fight for marriage equality from behind, to adapt a notorious phrase from the Libya conflict. He spent years pretending to be opposed to same-sex marriage even though he was actually in favor of it. But when he did finally reveal his true position in 2012, it helped coalesce public and elite opinion in favor of same-sex marriage, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court decision in its favor. Given the Supreme Court justices’ sensitivity to public opinion such a high-profile issue (which may have caused them to duck it when it first came to the court in 2013), it seems unlikely that the Court would have struck down all state laws banning same-sex marriage if the nation’s popular liberal Democratic president were still officially against it. Moreover, Obama appointed two of the five justices who voted with the majority in Obergefell.
While Obergefell was a close 5-4 decision, it has rapidly achieved widespread public acceptance, to the point where it barely registered as an issue in the bitter 2016 presidential campaign, and Donald Trump says that it is settled law that should not be overruled.
In my opinion, Obergefell was a correct decision, albeit poorly reasoned. Many will dispute one or another of those characterizations. Be that as it may, the ruling is likely to be a lasting part of Obama’s constitutional legacy. More generally, the Obama era may well be remembered as the time when gays and lesbians became fully equal citizens to a much greater extent than ever before. Obama deserves considerable credit for that, even if his performance was far from a profile in political courage.
III. Obama’s Impact on Supreme Court Doctrine.
The Obama administration’s policies led to some major Supreme Court decisions, many of which changed legal doctrine for the better. By far the most high-profile of these cases were a series of rulings involving challenges to the president’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court upheld the ACA’s health insurance mandate by reinterpreting it as a “tax,” but also set important limits on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. On the latter issue, the Court provided the most through analysis of the meaning of “proper” (and the way it limits federal power) that it had ever issued in 200 years of case law. NFIB also partially struck down the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, thereby providing the first Supreme Court ruling limiting Congress’ spending power, in over 75 years. This unexpected ruling – joined by two of the Court’s liberal justices, including Obama appointee Elena Kagan – was an important part of of a more general revival of constitutional federalism in the Roberts Court.
The long-term impact of NFIB is still unclear. But I tentatively predict that these limits on federal power will ultimately prove more significant than Chief Justice John Roberts’ awkward attempt to reframe the mandate as a tax. Liberals -including President Obama himself – decried the pro-federalism elements of the decision at the time. But they may have reason to take a different view of constitutional federalism under Trump.
In 2015, the Supreme Court, ruled in the administration’s favor in King v. Burwell, thereby saving Obamacare subsidies for people purchasing health insurance on federal exchanges established in the many states that refused to set up state exchanges. The case was a major victory for the administration. But the Court also reaffirmed the principle that courts should not defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of law on major questions, instead making their own decisions on such issues. That could help curb executive power in the future.
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, yet another ACA case, the administration suffered a notable defeat when the Court ruled that commercial firms can assert rights to religious free exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Although the case was not directly focused on constitutional issues, its reasoning offers important protection to people using the corporate form more generally, including with respect to their ability to assert constitutional rights.
While I disagreed with many of the Obama administration’s positions in the various Obamacare cases, I also recognize that most of them were at least plausibly defensible. Even when the administration lost on key issues in these decisions, it was usually on a close vote split along ideological lines.
The same can’t be said for many of the arguments the administration advanced in numerous property rights cases, which were so extreme that they resulted in a series of lopsided 9-0 and 8-1 defeats in the Supreme Court. The most recent was Horne v. Department of Agriculture II, the famous raisin takings case. These decisions led to a notable strengthening of judicial protection for constitutional property rights under the Takings Clause – the very opposite of the result the administration probably hoped to achieve.
There is a similar story to be told about Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, an important religious freedom case in which the Obama administration also adopted an extreme position that led to a unanimous ruling protecting the right of religious institutions to choose ministers free of restriction by antidiscrimination law. Here too, the administration ended up helping its adversaries.
In sum, advocates of constitutional federalism, property rights, and religious liberty have reason to be grateful for the Obama administration’s efforts in these fields. They would have been hard-pressed to gain so much ground otherwise. But President Obama himself probably doesn’t want the credit.
IV. Obama’s Judicial Appointments.
As with any president, Barack Obama’s judicial appointments are likely to be among his most lasting legacies. President Obama appointed two Supreme Court justices – Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – and hundreds of lower court judges. Many of these judges will continue to serve for decades after President Obama leaves office. For that reason, their full impact is difficult to predict at this point. So far, Obama’s judicial appointees are notable for their impressive professional skills, their racial and ethnic diversity, and their near-uniform adherence to liberal orthodoxy on most major constitutional issues. That uniformity has moved many lower federal courts significantly to the left of where they were when Obama took office.
Few can doubt the value of having judges with solid professional skills, and there is also some value to having judges from a wider range of racial and ethnic backgrounds. Whether we should approve of the Obama appointees’ judicial philosophy is a question that splits commentators along predictable ideological lines.
What is true of the Obama judges generally is also true of his two Supreme Court appointees, justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Both have impressive professional skills, and both are predictable liberal votes on most major issues.
I myself take a more favorable view of Kagan (whose nomination I supported) than Sotomayor (whom I testified against, because of her record on property rights issues). So far, both have performed on the Court more or less as I would have expected: voting similarly on most issues, but with Kagan showing greater open-mindedness and less tendency to dismiss opposing views in ideologically charged cases.
On one additional point both Kagan and Sotomayor deserve praise: neither has turned out to be a mere rubber-stamp for the president who appointed her. Both have voted against the Obama administration on some important cases, including several of the property rights and religious liberties cases described above. The two justices deserve credit for their independence, and the president himself deserves some credit for appointing people with that sort of integrity.
But the jury is still out on both of these justices. Kagan and Sotomayor may be on the Supreme Court for many years to come, and their most important decisions might well lie ahead of them.
I end this essay where I began: It is still too early to make any definitive judgment on Obama’s constitutional legacy. Years from now, it might look very different than today. If Donald Trump turns out to be as bad as I and many others fear, Obama’s legacy might come out looking good simply by virtue of the inevitable comparison with his successor. If, by contrast, Trump is perceived as a success, Obama’s reputation might suffer accordingly. And if Trump or another successor misuses the dangerously broadened executive powers Obama leaves behind, Obama will deserve a share of the blame.
For now, all we can say for sure is that Obama’s presidency is likely to have a lasting impact on American constitutionalism. It is not yet clear whether its bad effects are likely to outweigh the good. We should hope for the best. But, as Obama himself put it, “[h]ope is not blind optimism. It’s not ignoring the enormity of the task ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.”
UPDATE: For other evaluations of Obama’s constitutional legacy posted today, see this article by prominent liberal legal scholar Garrett Epps and this one by Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute. Epps’ article is notable for being surprisingly negative about Obama’s record on constitutional issues, despite the ideological similarity between the two. He concludes that “Obama leaves the Constitution weaker than at the beginning of his terms.”
It's that I think I would actually feel better if I though that Trump would actually be the one governing. Reading stories from people who have actually interacted with him privately and who know him outside of business and politics, it really seems like the actual person is very different than the public person.
But I don't think he has any actual interest in governing. VP Pence will likely be Acting POTUS during Trump's term, appointments to cabinets are going to people who are cashing in favors and who will enforce their own agendas, and I'm worried that the conflict of interest stories will bear fruit and that it will be a "MAG for business A" administration.
But I don't think he has any actual interest in governing. VP Pence will likely be Acting POTUS during Trump's term, appointments to cabinets are going to people who are cashing in favors and who will enforce their own agendas, and I'm worried that the conflict of interest stories will bear fruit and that it will be a "MAG for business A" administration.
I'm not sure how well they can be compared, but look at Dan McQueen, ex-Mayor of Corpus Christi, TX. No political experience except for a failed previous campaign, lots of promises to "fix" the city, won the position in an unexpected upset, lots of lies/half-truths about background, antagonistic relationship with media and "establishment." Went and resigned after just 37 days.
I was also trying to think of some easy "metrics" to compare Bush/Obama/Trump from the beginning of their terms to the end. Something like:
GDP
Budget Deficit/Surplus
Total Debt
Trade Balance
Unemployment Rate
# of soldiers killed
# of executive orders
# of uninsured
Cost of Insurance (although that one would be hard, because it is ripe for number games)
# of manufacturing jobs
But I don't think he has any actual interest in governing. VP Pence will likely be Acting POTUS during Trump's term, appointments to cabinets are going to people who are cashing in favors and who will enforce their own agendas, and I'm worried that the conflict of interest stories will bear fruit and that it will be a "MAG for business A" administration.
I'm not sure how well they can be compared, but look at Dan McQueen, ex-Mayor of Corpus Christi, TX. No political experience except for a failed previous campaign, lots of promises to "fix" the city, won the position in an unexpected upset, lots of lies/half-truths about background, antagonistic relationship with media and "establishment." Went and resigned after just 37 days.
I think Governor Ventura in MN is a better example. He was a single term but he didn't have any political support from a party.
d-usa wrote: I was also trying to think of some easy "metrics" to compare Bush/Obama/Trump from the beginning of their terms to the end. Something like:
GDP
Budget Deficit/Surplus
Total Debt
Trade Balance
Unemployment Rate
# of soldiers killed
# of executive orders
# of uninsured
Cost of Insurance (although that one would be hard, because it is ripe for number games)
# of manufacturing jobs
Any other suggestions?
Number of regulations added.
Number of people employed.
Price of cocaine.
Number of regulations overruled by SCOTUS.
d-usa wrote: How would you measure "regulations added"?
Number of regulations and "letters." Not hard to do as they are kept track of now.
So absolutely no weighting given to the nature of the regulations. So a regulation banning the use of anewly found to be carcinogenic (or toxic or whatever) material in a dogs chew toy would be regarded the same as one banning the colour blue from being used on the west-facing wall of office blocks as it ruins the feng shui.
d-usa wrote: How would you measure "regulations added"?
Number of regulations and "letters." Not hard to do as they are kept track of now.
So absolutely no weighting given to the nature of the regulations. So a regulation banning the use of anewly found to be carcinogenic (or toxic or whatever) material in a dogs chew toy would be regarded the same as one banning the colour blue from being used on the west-facing wall of office blocks as it ruins the feng shui.
You've not dealt with the US government much have you...
d-usa wrote: I was also trying to think of some easy "metrics" to compare Bush/Obama/Trump from the beginning of their terms to the end. Something like:
GDP
Budget Deficit/Surplus
Total Debt
Trade Balance
Unemployment Rate
# of soldiers killed
# of executive orders
# of uninsured
Cost of Insurance (although that one would be hard, because it is ripe for number games)
# of manufacturing jobs
Any other suggestions?
Workforce participation
Median income
Number of people on SNAP
Number of people receiving public assistance other than SNAP
Number of drone strikes carried out
Number of Presidential Memos
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Light crowd at the inauguration, but at least it doesn't look like any problems.
Light crowd or protesters/rioters (anyone smashing up a Starbucks, bank, bus stop, or damaging property is not a protester), or attendees?
d-usa wrote: Light crowd at the inauguration, but at least it doesn't look like any problems.
Light crowd or protesters/rioters (anyone smashing up a Starbucks, bank, bus stop, or damaging property is not a protester), or attendees?
Not as massive is the 2008 inauguration... but, that's not 'a light crowd'...
Automatically Appended Next Post: We have a new President.
NOW: SCOTUS Associate Justice Clarence Thomas administers Oath of Office to Mike Pence #InaugurationDay https://t.co/KQIQKZOBvv pic.twitter.com/gsbt1YWpOc
I'll miss the class and civility of Obama. Truly a well educated and eloquent man. By far my favorite modern President
If Trump can muster even half of what Obama had, the next 4 years might not be so dreadful. Too bad he has yet to exhibit any of those qualities.
Here's to 4 years of horrible examples of behavior I'll have to explain to my kids
They're watching the inauguration in the lunchroomat work, and its so loud I can hear Trump's speech over my Finnish metal. This bites.
Personally I think Trump will puss out, and pretty much do nothing other than sign laws into effect that the GOP put forward. I don't think he realizes the magnitude of his job just yet.
(That... sounds like a pron stage name 
). Give the responsibility to the Navy. Cut the bureaucracy.
. That would mean every police department in the US must have an intelligence unit.
