US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Asherian Command**

Workers Association of a Better tomorrow.

That would be my guess.

**Galef**

I think the point about reforming the EC is NOT to petition for them to vote against Trump, but to take away the middle-men.
Even if members of the EC vote against Trump, who would they vote for? Probably not Clinton, at least not enough to make it matter. At least half of the Electors are GOING to vote Trump, so he will be Potus.
I am not suggesting the Potus elections to be popular vote, let's continue having states vote and lend a number of votes according to their representation.
For example, TX voted Reps and has 38 EC votes. Just count 38 votes and be done instead of 38 Electors. This way the states still maintain the control over the popular vote.

If the point of the EC is as a fail-safe, yet that power has A) never been used and B) is so thoroughly discouraged and C) isn't ever considered a realistic thing that "could" happen, then just take that power away.

On the second Tuesday of November every 4 years, have the nation vote and lend it's portion of EC votes to determine Potus. No "Electors" and no December election needed.

-

**Stevefamine**

Is business insider right wing? I barely read them

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11

Looks like he excused* Christie a few days back and then dismissed anyone that Christie picked. Pence is also going to work. This could be good. The Bannon pick - not so much.

As a Trump Voter I'm waiting to see how that works out for him.

**Prestor Jon**

Stevefamine wrote:
Is business insider right wing? I barely read them

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11

Looks like he executed Christie a few days back and then dismissed anyone that Christie picked. Pence is also going to work. This could be good. The Bannon pick - not so much.

As a Trump Voter I'm waiting to see how that works out for him.

There's plenty of other sources for articles on the shake up of Trump's transition team if you don't want to trust Business Insider.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-expert-mike-rogers-leaves-trump-transition-team-amid-shake-up-1479221847

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/mikes-rogers-leaves-trump-transition-team/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/trump-transition.html?_r=0

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/key-figures-purged-from-trump-transition-team/2016/11/15/ed4e2a36-ab6b-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html

**infinite_array**

Stevefamine wrote:
Is business insider right wing? I barely read them

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-transition-team-lobbyists-2016-11

Looks like he executed Christie a few days back and then dismissed anyone that Christie picked. Pence is also going to work. This could be good. The Bannon pick - not so much.

As a Trump Voter I'm waiting to see how that works out for him.

It should be noted that it seems it wasn't Trump that ousted Christy and the people Christy brought in, but his son-in-law Kushner, who has a history and potential grudge against Christy himself. The article fails to note, as the NYT article does, that Christy, as a federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail

So these aren't "all the lobbyists" being fired, but instead one faction getting rid of another.

This is additionally worrying, as it seems that the Trump campaign did none of the transition pre-work that is normally expected of presidential candidates. Some sources have them as a month behind schedule, and this kind of infighting will only make things worse.

**d-usa**

reds8n wrote:
The Con. fed . flag thing did generate a chuckle.

TBF going from the above the donations thing is being considered.

I'd like to laugh and watch as Trump completely disregards those he used to get into power but I don't quite see it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/trump-team-talks-of-setting-up-political-arm-231462

Donald Trump’s top advisers are discussing a plan to launch a new political organization outside the White House and the Republican Party to harness the energy that powered his populist candidacy, according to people familiar with talks.

While the planning for such a group is still in its infancy, the idea is to create a structure akin to what President Barack Obama did after he won in 2008, when members of his campaign team launched Organizing for America.

...........................

The exact form of the entity, whether it would be a super PAC or a nonprofit like OFA was, remains undecided.

would anyone care to place their bets with regards to this ?

Isn't this what Obama did, which the right criticized him for?

**djones520**

Not sure if it's been brought up, but I saw a lot of worrying over Ben Carson recently, and I read yesterday that he himself is refusing any cabinet positions offered to him.

**sirlynchmob**

djones520 wrote:
Not sure if it's been brought up, but I saw a lot of worrying over Ben Carson recently, and I read yesterday that he himself is refusing any cabinet positions offered to him.

Weird, trump give Bannon a position, then Carson leaves. I wonder if there's a connection.

**reds8n**

yes, apparently he reckoned he wasn't qualified to work in the Govt.

....... does make one wonder exactly what he thought he was running for with regards to the whole presidential bid thing but -- alas -- some things mankind is destined not to know.

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
reds8n wrote:
The Con. fed . flag thing did generate a chuckle.

TBF going from the above the donations thing is being considered.

I'd like to laugh and watch as Trump completely disregards those he used to get into power but I don't quite see it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/trump-team-talks-of-setting-up-political-arm-231462

Donald Trump’s top advisers are discussing a plan to launch a new political organization outside the White House and the Republican Party to harness the energy that powered his populist candidacy, according to people familiar with talks.

While the planning for such a group is still in its infancy, the idea is to create a structure akin to what President Barack Obama did after he won in 2008, when members of his campaign team launched Organizing for America.

...........................

The exact form of the entity, whether it would be a super PAC or a nonprofit like OFA was, remains undecided.

would anyone care to place their bets with regards to this ?

Isn't this what Obama did, which the right criticized him for?

If you're referring to the criticism of Obama for being in constant campaign mode, yes. This may not be a high priority for Trump himself, his campaign was criticized throughout the election cycle for having a terrible ground game. When Obama created OFA it was supposedly done to maintain the connection with all the young voters who turned out for Obama and keep them engaged and voting Democrat. It didn't seem to help much at all in 2016 when they really needed those votes. Whatever comes of it somebody will find a way to monetize it for profit and/or personal gain.

**Ensis Ferrae**

reds8n wrote:
yes, apparently he reckoned he wasn't qualified to work in the Govt.

....... does make one wonder exactly what he thought he was running for with regards to the whole presidential bid thing but -- alas -- some things mankind is destined not to know.

Yes.... the irony of it all.

Unironically, I did see a fb friend post an article from Breitbart claiming that Bannon "wasn't all that bad a pick" and "he's not really a racist"

**SemperMortis**

I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

**djones520**

SemperMortis wrote:
I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

While I don't disagree with the premise, I'd probably have not just highlighted Obama in it. Just about every sitting President has done it for their party.

**SemperMortis**

djones520 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

While I don't disagree with the premise, I'd probably have not just highlighted Obama in it. Just about every sitting President has done it for their party.

I believe Bush did it for McCain as well. I don't think its right for a sitting president to Campaign for another person. As far as using Obama as the example. Apparently he set new records while campaigning for Mrs Clinton.

**Prestor Jon**

SemperMortis wrote:
djones520 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

While I don't disagree with the premise, I'd probably have not just highlighted Obama in it. Just about every sitting President has done it for their party.

I believe Bush did it for McCain as well. I don't think its right for a sitting president to Campaign for another person. As far as using Obama as the example. Apparently he set new records while campaigning for Mrs Clinton.

I'm more annoyed at sitting Senators/Governors/Representatives who spend the majority of their time on the campaign trail for higher office when the position they currently hold is supposed to be working. If a sitting Senator or Governor wants to run for President that person should step down, let a replacement be appointed and then dedicate their time and focus to the campaign without short changing all the people they are supposed to be representing and governing.

**SemperMortis**

Prestor Jon wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
djones520 wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
I would love to see a new law passed that FORBIDS sitting presidents from Campaigning for office for another person. IE What Obama just did for Clinton. So if trump decides not to run for re-election but is still in office he should not spend ta payers money on stumping for his party.

This more then anything else has annoyed me about politics. We elect people to do a job and they spend more time worrying about getting re-elected.

While I don't disagree with the premise, I'd probably have not just highlighted Obama in it. Just about every sitting President has done it for their party.

I believe Bush did it for McCain as well. I don't think its right for a sitting president to Campaign for another person. As far as using Obama as the example. Apparently he set new records while campaigning for Mrs Clinton.

I'm more annoyed at sitting Senators/Governors/Representatives who spend the majority of their time on the campaign trail for higher office when the position they currently hold is supposed to be working. If a sitting Senator or Governor wants to run for President that person should step down, let a replacement be appointed and then dedicate their time and focus to the campaign without short changing all the people they are supposed to be representing and governing.

DEFINITELY! You're hired to do a job FETHING DO IT!

**whembly**

sirlynchmob wrote:
reds8n wrote:
.. so what's going on with regards to the donations from places like Iran, Venezuela & Qatar that Giuliani took ?

If money donated to the Clinton Foundation made her judgement in some areas suspect, is this not the same case here ?

You'd think so, but we're about to witness the great american flip flop again.

Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Is it a concern? Sure...

But the money donated wasn't done when Guiliani was in position of power. If were shown the same pattern as the Clinton Foundation DURING Guiliani's tenure, then feth yeah he'll need to be prosecuted.

where pence is trying to keep his offical emails away from the public eye.

I'll admit that's a strange one... but hey, at least they weren't fething TOP SECRET information on a PERSONAL email server in his basement.

where after numerous teachers got fired for being seen in a bikini, Melania Trump is now a great role model.

wut?

Executive actions will now be constitutional again and a sign of a leader taking action.

...he's not even President yet and you know how he'll use his power? But hey, the precedent is set...so THANK OBAMA!

and all those horrible policies that are destroying america will be kept
those flying confederate flags saying "you lost, get over it"

I need help to find my eyeballs... they've rolled out of their sockets.

**jasper76**

Edit: grrr. Can't get hyperlink to work.

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

and all those horrible policies that are destroying america will be kept
those flying confederate flags saying "you lost, get over it"

I need help to find my eyeballs... they've rolled out of their sockets.

You may be rolling your eyes, but I highly doubt any of the grand "MAGA" promises are coming true. Trump not dropping out of NAFTA, he's going to sign TPP, the hugely expensive and utterly futile War on Terror will continue apace.

And you have to admit the irony in shouting "you lost, get over it" while waving the Stars and Bars is delicious.

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
reds8n wrote:
.. so what's going on with regards to the donations from places like Iran, Venezuela & Qatar that Giuliani took ?

If money donated to the Clinton Foundation made her judgement in some areas suspect, is this not the same case here ?

You'd think so, but we're about to witness the great american flip flop again.

Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

See? Didn't take long at all.

**djones520**

He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

Leverage popular opinion as well. Ford recently backtracked pretty hard on their plan to move a lot of manufacturing to Mexico. The outrage, especially in the rust belt, was very loud. Now their going to put some new plants in Michigan and Ohio.

**whembly**

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
reds8n wrote:
.. so what's going on with regards to the donations from places like Iran, Venezuela & Qatar that Giuliani took ?

If money donated to the Clinton Foundation made her judgement in some areas suspect, is this not the same case here ?

You'd think so, but we're about to witness the great american flip flop again.

Not an apples-to-apples comparison.

See? Didn't take long at all.

Come back to me if they continue to donate while Giuliani holds a cabinet position. K?

Additionally... Giuliani for SoS? Doesn't this seem weird to you guys? Am I wrong to think that he's not a diplomat?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:

And you have to admit the irony in shouting "you lost, get over it" while waving the Stars and Bars is delicious.

Would be hysterical if that truly happened.... zero self awareness indeed.

**djones520**

It would create a conflict of interest Whembly. He's been hired by foreign nationals in the past (they're not donations, it was paid consultant work). It could impact how he deals with said nations as SecState. I'd say it's a fair concern.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
It would create a conflict of interest Whembly. He's been hired by foreign nationals in the past (they're not donations, it was paid consultant work). It could impact how he deals with said nations as SecState. I'd say it's a fair concern.

I'm in agreement. I was merely differentiating his prior donations.

Even then, he's an odd choice for SoS. I thought AG was his to lose, but evidently he didn't want it.

**ender502**

djones520 wrote:
He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

Leverage popular opinion as well. Ford recently backtracked pretty hard on their plan to move a lot of manufacturing to Mexico. The outrage, especially in the rust belt, was very loud. Now their going to put some new plants in Michigan and Ohio.

Hahaha! You are funny. A bunch of pro-business Republicans are going to act to put a collar on big business?

That kind of targeted tax break will never happen and even if it did businesses will not bite. Tax policy changes too often to change a long-term investment plan that is seen in terms of 10 plus years. Why go through a bunch of trouble and reorganization just to make roughly the same as if you did nothing?

And, as an aside... What happened to free enterprise? What happened to capitalism as the best way to create wealth? Your plan sounds like a democrats wet dream.

**Lord of Deeds**

As a bit of a seque from the popular vote vs EC discussion, I thought the following analysis was interesting. It is written as somewhat of a post mortem on Obama's legacy in regards to his influence on various elections at both the federal and state level. It seems that the last 6 years have been an unmitigated disaster election wise for the Democrats as a whole and would seem to offer evidence that there is more broad based support for Republicans than many people might think. It also seems to reaffirm the maxim "All politics is local" and that the 2016 Presidential election is the culmination of a trend that began two years after Obama became president. Offering the idea that had we been more attentive and looking in the right place, the surprise of 2016 shouldn't have been all that of a surprise. The other takeaway for me is what appears to be the utter failure of the political strategists in the DNC to develop a plan that would effectively address this trend. Had they, HRC might have pursued a different campaign strategy. Campaigning as if she was trying to make up votes and not just hold the ones she thought she had, which would have led to better engagement with independents and disaffected Republicans and thus avoid the loss of rust belt that ultimately secured Trump the election.

I think the article also hints at the fact that the Democratic leadership is in need of an overhaul. Obama, Reid, and Wasserman-Schultz are on the way out or already gone. The alleged Clinton machine appears to be dead. Does Pelosi deserve to say as minority leader in the House? Should Schumer really be the minority leader in the Senate? Are there other notable Democratic leaders that need to step aside to allow for the type of transformation that will allow the Democrats to reverse the trend and achieve the sustained broad election success that the Republicans seemed to have enjoyed the last 6 years? Or should the Democrats double down and castle up in their urban strongholds and not worry about rural and suburban America where the Republicans apparently hold sway?

The Democratic Party cathedral stands, to be sure, as structures will after a neutron-bomb attack. But it has been denuded of its priestly caste the elected officials who were teeming within it when Barack Obama was first elected in 2008 and had every reason to believe they would move inexorably from the back rows of American politics to the front. There are some 8,000 elected officials in the United States at the state and federal levels. Between 2009, when Barack Obama took office, and today, as he prepares to retire from it, more than 1,100 Democratic elected officials lost their jobs to Republicans. That number is unprecedented.

Barack Obama entered the White House with his party in control of 62 of the nation's 99 legislative chambers. By January 2015, Republicans were in control of 68. He then made it a personal mission to help reverse the damage that had caused the ejection of nearly a thousand Democratic state legislators from their seats by voters. He made 150 down-ballot endorsements in 2016 and even hit the trail for a few of them at a time when his personal approval rating was above 50 percent.

The result of the president's direct intercession? The Democrats did worse. On Election Night in 2016, Republicans took full control of the legislatures in Minnesota and Iowa. The Democratic Party's sole remaining legislative majority in the South, in Kentucky, fell to the GOP for the first time in nearly 100 years. In North Carolina, the GOP held onto veto-proof majorities in state legislatures despite the statewide loss of an unpopular Republican governor. The GOP prevented Democrats from retaking the state Senate in New York. There were some gains in Nevada and New Mexico and that was it.

The massacre of Democratic officials goes far beyond state legislatures. Democrats held 31 governorships in 2009. Now they hold 17, having been kicked out of the mansions in Missouri, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Following this year's election, Republicans have control of all levers of government in 25 states.

In Washington, after months of speculation that Democrats might eat away at the Republican majority in the House of Representatives or topple it, the GOP lost only nine seats and retained a 40-member advantage. And though the general expectation was that the Democrats were likely to take back control of the U.S. Senate, Republicans ended up losing only two incumbents and retained their majority at 52. Even more worrisome for Democrats, they head into the 2018 election with aging senators having to defend their seats in 10 states Donald Trump won.

**feeder**

ender502 wrote:
djones520 wrote:
He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

Leverage popular opinion as well. Ford recently backtracked pretty hard on their plan to move a lot of manufacturing to Mexico. The outrage, especially in the rust belt, was very loud. Now their going to put some new plants in Michigan and Ohio.

Hahaha! You are funny. A bunch of pro-business Republicans are going to act to put a collar on big business?

That kind of targeted tax break will never happen and even if it did businesses will not bite. Tax policy changes too often to change a long-term investment plan that is seen in terms of 10 plus years. Why go through a bunch of trouble and reorganization just to make roughly the same as if you did nothing?

And, as an aside... What happened to free enterprise? What happened to capitalism as the best way to create wealth? Your plan sounds like a democrats wet dream.

And as always, we circle back to the fact that traditional R economic policy does nothing to help the vast majority of their base, and in most cases, actively hurts them.

It's becoming clear that Trump's MAGA fantasy was just re-branded Hope and Change.

Rust belt jobs are gone, and if they come back, they aren't going to people but robots.

**Asherian Command**

djones520 wrote:
He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

Leverage popular opinion as well. Ford recently backtracked pretty hard on their plan to move a lot of manufacturing to Mexico. The outrage, especially in the rust belt, was very loud. Now their going to put some new plants in Michigan and Ohio.

What Manfacturing jobs? All those jobs need now are engineers. Most linework or anything with people assembly lines are being automated because it is chaper.

There are very few jobs that are left like that.

I mean there is even thoughts that automation will start being more common in other menial jobs like Truckers, Transportation and even ordering fastfood.

We already have planes that are essentially self driven except for landings and take offs.

TPP was smashed recently I believed its not doing so well. And thank god it isn't. (In a tech field)

**ender502**

Yep. Unless you plan to rip the robots out of factories and go back to 50's era production styles, the jobs are gone.

The return from foreign lands of jobs has ever been anything but a racist dog whistle.

ender502

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
He may not be able to pull us out of those agreements, but he can take steps to help keep US manufacturing in the US.

Most of it would require working with Congress, as it will all take legislation to do, but lowering tax rates for companies that keep manufacturing jobs here. I'm sure a balance can be found for revenue where you keep costs for a company comparable, in comparison to the revenue brought in by several thousand new jobs.

Leverage popular opinion as well. Ford recently backtracked pretty hard on their plan to move a lot of manufacturing to Mexico. The outrage, especially in the rust belt, was very loud. Now their going to put some new plants in Michigan and Ohio.

Declare China a currency manipulator under appropriate legislation. Watch the fun begin.