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.
CptJake wrote: He doesn't control spending. Got it. Of course you imply he can cut taxes. He does not control tax rates either.
But why be accurate, right?
Presidents work with congress. The Bush tax cuts were called the Bush tax cuts because Bush promised them on the campaign trail, then delivered them by working with congress to reach a bill he would sign in to law. The Reagan tax cuts were called the Reagan tax custs because Reagan promised them on the campaign trail, then delivered them by working with congress to reach a bill that he would sign in to law.
Trump promised a tax cut in the campaign, and has stated his intent to work with congress to develop a bill that he will sign in to law.
Claiming that congress controls taxation and spending therefore this is out of Trump's hands is absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Just checked, Ladbrokes is giving equal odds (7-1) to Booker or Warren being the Dem 2020 nominee. Cuomo and Sanders trail at 10-1. Any takers?
The names thrown around at this time are generally pretty far from the mark. There's four year of politics in which people can distinguish themselves and move to the front of the queue, or screw up and drop out of the running (well, three years before primaries).
Remember 2008... lots of places had John Edwards as the likely winner. Most people now don't even remember that guy existed.
As evidenced by his former political opponents, it seems that Trump forgives if you "bend the knee" so to speak.
Trump doesn't even care if you bend the knee, he doesn't even care if you beat him. Once the contest is over he just moves on to other things. Remember before the election I was talking about Trump taking a biographer to court for questioning Trump's wealth? In the deposition the journalist's lawyers made Trump look like a total ass, they proved Trump had made more than 30 false claims about his wealth in a single sitting. Trump lost the case, the book remained in print.
Years later the two met up, Trump thought nothing of it and even cut a cheque for $5,000 to the journalist's charity.
He's the classic example of 'what happens on the field, stays on the field'. This is good in one sense, because it means Trump is unlikely to spend his administration chasing petty feuds. It's also bad, because it is wrapped up in Trump's method of saying anything, doing anything to win the current battle, it's what leads him to tell a dozen easily disproven lies daily, it's what leads him to ally with all kinds of shitheels and bigots to secure a win.
It's why he's been happy to have Roger Stone, yes Nixon's Roger Stone as a mentor for decades.
Bannon? He stuck me as someone you don't ever want to get on his bad side. Now that he's in position of power, that kind of personellel cannot be healthy.
Yeah, he's an old fashioned head kicker. The kind of guy that works real well in administration that will do anything to win. He's also likely to be the first guy thrown under the base when the administration starts tanking. But time will tell on that last bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, no, if I was depending on magic, it would not be very sensible. However, I'm depending on market forces acting in response to Trump's proposed actions. If the cost of tariffs in one of your primary markets would raise costs to the point that it cannot be considered competative, then the answer is to start manufacturing locally.
Honestly magic sounds more plausible than this. For starters the countries the US imports from are also the countries the US exports. If the US were to drive up tariffs, you would see retaliatory tariffs. So maybe the US textile industry would receive a nice boost, but other industries like aeronautics, pharmaceuticals, finance etc (the ones with the good jobs) would suffer a massive hit.
The second part, which I already explained and that you cut when quoting me, is that looking to boost manufacturing output and assuming that will bring jobs with it is just plain wrong. Look at the wake of 2008, all the manufacturing jobs that were lost never came back. Manufacturing output recovered quite quickly, and is now larger than ever, but the jobs didn't come with it because the new manufacturing was built around highly automated factories.
This is why companies like Toyota, Honda, Daimler AG, etc etc have US plants.
No, it's because the US is the world's biggest market for cars, and it makes basic sense to produce close to the primary market. You only move away from this when there's a really good business reason to build some other place. Wages drive lots of industries offshore because a large part of their cost is low skilled labour, but car manufacturing these days has little such expense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, the US debt under Reagan increased from around $700billion to around $2trillion. Reagan basically enacted Keynesian stimulus policies in order to achieve his growth.
Yep, he exploded the debt and left in place a structural deficit which has led to the US posting consistent debt results ever since.
It's debatable whether the deficit spending actually drove greater growth though, as through most of this period the US was operating near full employment, so likely the result was a crowding out effect that drove up interest rates and reduced private investment.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/11/18 04:35:25
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Breotan wrote: Liberal Jon Stewart is a striking contrast to liberal college protesters.
Well, he has lived an interesting life, one of education and having to be well informed in order to do his job.
He is incredibly intelligent when it comes down to it. Jon Stewart is one of the few people who not only understands politics but is so well informed that he likes to educate himself.
I think what he has said about the Republican strategy and the ideas he share are not analytically true. (That being he said word for word what we were thinking but also shared thoughts and ideas that are compelling to us right now.)
I keep seeing people post on facebook, all these young people posting : how leftists don't get it... Or how the Democrats don't get it.
Yet here we have Jon Stewart explaining how President Elect Donald Trump Won.
Which is he played off a base, he used strategy and was vague, and promised to get rid of the swamp, and pushed the idea that we as a country can become great again. It was hope, that was his message. It was the same message as Obama and several other successful presidents. "We will make America great again." People many people are afraid of their social security their insurances, their problems their issues within their communities. Just in a similar way to brexit, people were scared afraid of the current administration or of the future, they were either misinformed, or rightfully fearing this idea of a foreign power, or of someone telling them what to do. They were told : How can you trust politicans? Then they saw a man, who not only has an epitome of success and wealth and of rich old blood, but of values and a dream that they wanted to live and see.
Then we have Hillary who had no slogan, nothing about promises about making our country great, it was nowhere to be found. She wasn't seen as rich, she was seen as a criminal, someone that would be wrong for this country.
Maybe I am completely wrong but I believe that is what Jon Stewart basically said.
I think that is something that most liberals and conservatives and have failed to realize. They don't reflect as to the why or the stepping stones of how we got here as a nation. All you gotta look at is at brexit and the writing is right on the wall.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
The article points out there's basically three options with trade. The first is to throw up borders, get nativist and think you can improve people's lives by restricting global trade - the article points out this is certain to hurt the poor the most - the poorest 10% gain 62% of their purchasing power from trade. The second option is to crank up trade even more... the problem here is that trade is just about at its peak, worldwide tariffs are almost zero. The last option is to look at making economic conditions consistent and 'fair', and this is what the TPP does.
"For the first time, strict labor and environmental rules matching Western standards are being imposed in principle on all signatories, no matter how poor. A failure to enforce “acceptable” labor standards, for example, “cannot be excused on the grounds of resource allocation.”
It requires nations to allow trade unionism, and requires open and transparent bidding, and will finally break in to Japan's subsidised and non-competitive agricultural sector, allowing lots of countries to start selling more agricultural produce in Japan.
And given everyone is concerned with the unbalanced nature of trade with China, it's staggering that they've decided to turn away from the deal designed entirely to force reform within China. China isn't a signatory to TPP, precisely because it would force reforms on them that would make it harder for them to pump out cheap products with cheap labour and dangerous production standards. Instead it's a deal to form a trading block around China, to shut them out of future trade and watch as other countries reform internal practices and offer China new deals only with such conditions in place.
And of course there's the US strategy underpinning this;
"The larger geo-strategic imperatives for the TPP haven’t changed, either. The deal was always meant as a concrete demonstration that the U.S. intended to remain a leader in the Asia-Pacific. China is embedded in the economies of the region; this would ensure that Asian nations continued to have an alternative. As Obama has repeatedly said, if the U.S. doesn’t set these rules for future trade, China will -- and that won’t help American (or Indian) workers at all."
And all this is being walked away from, because people didn't bother to find out what TPP was about, they just decided they don't like trade, TPP has trade in the name, and that is that. And of course, leaders were either too gutless, or too opportunistic to try and substantiate what TPP was about.
The article also has a really good bit about the left and trade... it points out that believing international trade is a negative was a pet issue of the left long before Trump picked it up as a convenient means of attack. "When some on the American left bemoan the effect of trade on the working class, they are being as nativist as Trump. Their moral calculus consistently ignores the obvious benefits of trade for workers in poorer countries, and thus barely deserves to be called progressive."
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: And all this is being walked away from, because people didn't bother to find out what TPP was about, they just decided they don't like trade, TPP has trade in the name, and that is that.
I don't think that's entirely fair. I've seen a lot of opposition to TPP over the IP law issues and concerns that it would enable corporations to sue over any government policies that hurt their profits (minimum wage laws, efforts to fight global warming, etc). The perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations with the lawyers to exploit it, coming at the expense of the average people and even of national governments. Some of these concerns may not have been justified, but there was a lot more to it than just "IT HAS TRADE IT MUST DIE".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/18 07:10:39
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: I don't think that's entirely fair. I've seen a lot of opposition to TPP over the IP law issues and concerns that it would enable corporations to sue over any government policies that hurt their profits (minimum wage laws, efforts to fight global warming, etc). The perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations with the lawyers to exploit it, coming at the expense of the average people and even of national governments. Some of these concerns may not have been justified, but there was a lot more to it than just "IT HAS TRADE IT MUST DIE".
That's kind of the point, though. The only commentary that came out of the left at all was about how bad the IP and corporate standing are. I agree that both those elements contained genuine concerns, and any debate would probably just be on how hyperbolic the left was or wasn't on each. And I think that discussion would probably miss the bigger point, on why the left only focused on those two elements, when so much of the rest of TPP focused on the foundations of fair trade that the left had been claiming it wanted for so long. It's almost as if the left saw there was a new trade deal, decided to find a couple of bits they could cast in a very negative light, and then decided to protest them and just ignore the rest.
As you say, the perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations. The other parts, like requiring countries to allow trade unions, wasn't perceived by anyone hearing about TPP from the left. That strikes me as pretty irresponsible politics.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/18 07:25:58
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
He flips houses for a living and looks like he'd be a good host of one of those "no money down" real estate shows.
Or maybe get a spot on The Apprentice?
I can see Trump doing that just so he can fire him.
I just had a thought. Is it possible that we could actually get The Apprentice: White House Interns show? I might actually watch that. There's probably too many legal hoops to jump though to make it feasible, though.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Peregrine wrote: I don't think that's entirely fair. I've seen a lot of opposition to TPP over the IP law issues and concerns that it would enable corporations to sue over any government policies that hurt their profits (minimum wage laws, efforts to fight global warming, etc). The perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations with the lawyers to exploit it, coming at the expense of the average people and even of national governments. Some of these concerns may not have been justified, but there was a lot more to it than just "IT HAS TRADE IT MUST DIE".
That's kind of the point, though. The only commentary that came out of the left at all was about how bad the IP and corporate standing are. I agree that both those elements contained genuine concerns, and any debate would probably just be on how hyperbolic the left was or wasn't on each. And I think that discussion would probably miss the bigger point, on why the left only focused on those two elements, when so much of the rest of TPP focused on the foundations of fair trade that the left had been claiming it wanted for so long. It's almost as if the left saw there was a new trade deal, decided to find a couple of bits they could cast in a very negative light, and then decided to protest them and just ignore the rest.
As you say, the perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations. The other parts, like requiring countries to allow trade unions, wasn't perceived by anyone hearing about TPP from the left. That strikes me as pretty irresponsible politics.
I think it is similar to what Trump did to Republicans. The Right has a specific ideology and creates legislation based on that. However, their base is primarily not politically educated and so has no care for any of that. Democrats have specific ideas and ideology too. Economic integration and interdependence is important to liberals, but their base is often anti-capitalist and anti-corporate.
Long story short, Americans love capitalism until its time to do capitalist stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/18 14:24:26
Peregrine wrote: I don't think that's entirely fair. I've seen a lot of opposition to TPP over the IP law issues and concerns that it would enable corporations to sue over any government policies that hurt their profits (minimum wage laws, efforts to fight global warming, etc). The perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations with the lawyers to exploit it, coming at the expense of the average people and even of national governments. Some of these concerns may not have been justified, but there was a lot more to it than just "IT HAS TRADE IT MUST DIE".
That's kind of the point, though. The only commentary that came out of the left at all was about how bad the IP and corporate standing are. I agree that both those elements contained genuine concerns, and any debate would probably just be on how hyperbolic the left was or wasn't on each. And I think that discussion would probably miss the bigger point, on why the left only focused on those two elements, when so much of the rest of TPP focused on the foundations of fair trade that the left had been claiming it wanted for so long. It's almost as if the left saw there was a new trade deal, decided to find a couple of bits they could cast in a very negative light, and then decided to protest them and just ignore the rest.
As you say, the perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations. The other parts, like requiring countries to allow trade unions, wasn't perceived by anyone hearing about TPP from the left. That strikes me as pretty irresponsible politics.
I think it is similar to what Trump did to Republicans. The Right has a specific ideology and creates legislation based on that. However, their base is primarily not politically educated and so has no care for any of that. Democrats have specific ideas and ideology too. Economic integration and interdependence is important to liberals, but their base is often anti-capitalist and anti-corporate.
Long story short, Americans love capitalism until its time to do capitalist stuff.
Basically.
But Capitalism does have its negatives, can't be always positive.
There were a few problems with TPP but lots of benefits too.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Peregrine wrote: I don't think that's entirely fair. I've seen a lot of opposition to TPP over the IP law issues and concerns that it would enable corporations to sue over any government policies that hurt their profits (minimum wage laws, efforts to fight global warming, etc). The perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations with the lawyers to exploit it, coming at the expense of the average people and even of national governments. Some of these concerns may not have been justified, but there was a lot more to it than just "IT HAS TRADE IT MUST DIE".
That's kind of the point, though. The only commentary that came out of the left at all was about how bad the IP and corporate standing are. I agree that both those elements contained genuine concerns, and any debate would probably just be on how hyperbolic the left was or wasn't on each. And I think that discussion would probably miss the bigger point, on why the left only focused on those two elements, when so much of the rest of TPP focused on the foundations of fair trade that the left had been claiming it wanted for so long. It's almost as if the left saw there was a new trade deal, decided to find a couple of bits they could cast in a very negative light, and then decided to protest them and just ignore the rest.
As you say, the perception was that TPP was a gift to large corporations. The other parts, like requiring countries to allow trade unions, wasn't perceived by anyone hearing about TPP from the left. That strikes me as pretty irresponsible politics.
A trade union is irrelevant in a place like China.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
It's horrifying.
And then you've got the other names.
As if we don't have enough terrifying evidence that Trump has direct ties to Russia, or that Russia has its string all over Trump, he's looking at Michael Flynn for national security adviser.
And for CIA Director? Mike Pompeo, who thought the conclusion of the Benghazi trials weren't good enough and has ties to the Koch Brothers.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
It's horrifying.
And then you've got the other names.
As if we don't have enough terrifying evidence that Trump has direct ties to Russia, or that Russia has its string all over Trump, he's looking at Michael Flynn for national security adviser.
And for CIA Director? Mike Pompeo, who thought the conclusion of the Benghazi trials weren't good enough and has ties to the Koch Brothers.
The Koch brothers? Bloody hell!
So much for draining the 'swamp.'
On another note, for months, I've been rooting around in search of a historical comparison for a Trump administration.
I've narrowed it down to the corruption and incompetence that dogged Grant and Harding when they were president, but I think Trump will trump that.
You know what, I think a Trump victory could be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, because if they get their act together in 2020, I think the Democrats could be well placed to sweep to victory.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
You know what, I think a Trump victory could be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, because if they get their act together in 2020, I think the Democrats could be well placed to sweep to victory.
This is my hope, however I am pretty sure that those who voted for Trump will not see his flaws in 4 years and will still blame the "establishment" for impeding their glorious orange savior. Therefore Trump will get another term unless he truly, undeniably feths up, and said feth-up isn't blamed on someone else (which is likely)
-
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/18 16:39:21
You know what, I think a Trump victory could be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, because if they get their act together in 2020, I think the Democrats could be well placed to sweep to victory.
This is my hope, however I am pretty sure that those who voted for Trump will not see his flaws in 4 years and will still blame the "establishment" for impeding their glorious orange savior.
Therefore Trump will get another term unless he truly, undeniably feths up, and said feth-up isn't blamed on someone else (which is likely)
-
Yep, they'll blame the establishment, while failing to grasp the GOP is the establishment.
You know what, I think a Trump victory could be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, because if they get their act together in 2020, I think the Democrats could be well placed to sweep to victory.
This is my hope, however I am pretty sure that those who voted for Trump will not see his flaws in 4 years and will still blame the "establishment" for impeding their glorious orange savior.
Therefore Trump will get another term unless he truly, undeniably feths up, and said feth-up isn't blamed on someone else (which is likely)
-
I think people will quickly tire of Trump and if it really goes belly up (which I suspect it will) you could have a lame duck President after only 2 years i.e a White House so divided, so incompetent and close to collapse.
A week is a long time in politics, as a former British Prime Minister once said....
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
Session is an illegal immigrant hardliner, but I don't think he'll be bad for the 4th amendment.
However, blame Harry fething Reid for this.
He nuked the 60 Closure vote requirement for political appointees for Obama. Now, Trump only needs 51 votes (or 50 Senate yea + VP vote).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
Session is an illegal immigrant hardliner, but I don't think he'll be bad for the 4th amendment.
However, blame Harry fething Reid for this.
He nuked the 60 Closure vote requirement for political appointees for Obama. Now, Trump only needs 51 votes (or 50 Senate yea + VP vote).
Democrats... reap what thou has sowed.
Nah, I think I'll blame the guy making the actual appointments, thanks.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
Session is an illegal immigrant hardliner, but I don't think he'll be bad for the 4th amendment.
However, blame Harry fething Reid for this.
He nuked the 60 Closure vote requirement for political appointees for Obama. Now, Trump only needs 51 votes (or 50 Senate yea + VP vote).
Democrats... reap what thou has sowed.
It would seem that Sessions hates legal immigrants, never mind illegal immigrants
If they thought he was unsuitable to be a judge back in the 1980s because of his views, then he really must be bad.
I'm sure there's an ironic joke in there about an American who hates immigration
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
Session is an illegal immigrant hardliner, but I don't think he'll be bad for the 4th amendment.
However, blame Harry fething Reid for this.
He nuked the 60 Closure vote requirement for political appointees for Obama. Now, Trump only needs 51 votes (or 50 Senate yea + VP vote).
Democrats... reap what thou has sowed.
Nah, I think I'll blame the guy making the actual appointments, thanks.
Well... the minority party used to have a means to block appointments like these... and Reid destroyed it.
As for Pompeo for head of CIA directory... ex-CIA directory Hayden approved this selection.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, I'm just following the reaction to Trump's cabinet picks, and to say it's a collection of misfits, has beens and crackpots, would be a gross understatement.
I've never heard of Jeff Sessions, but if the ACLU are to be believed, he makes Judge Dredd look moderate!
I think most Americans have given up on the 4th amendment, but from what little I've read, Sessions as AG could be the final nail in the 4th amendment's coffin....
Some amendments it would seem are more equal than others...
Session is an illegal immigrant hardliner, but I don't think he'll be bad for the 4th amendment.
However, blame Harry fething Reid for this.
He nuked the 60 Closure vote requirement for political appointees for Obama. Now, Trump only needs 51 votes (or 50 Senate yea + VP vote).
Democrats... reap what thou has sowed.
It would seem that Sessions hates legal immigrants, never mind illegal immigrants
If they thought he was unsuitable to be a judge back in the 1980s because of his views, then he really must be bad.
I'm sure there's an ironic joke in there about an American who hates immigration
And he went onto to *working* with those senators that blocked him for years. So... meh.
After 8 years of Holder and Lynch pushing the extreme left in DoJ... we're going to get a serious whiplash with Sessions as AG pushing the DoJ to the right.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/18 17:06:52
BrotherGecko wrote: I think it is similar to what Trump did to Republicans. The Right has a specific ideology and creates legislation based on that. However, their base is primarily not politically educated and so has no care for any of that. Democrats have specific ideas and ideology too. Economic integration and interdependence is important to liberals, but their base is often anti-capitalist and anti-corporate.
Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions. They claim the visigoths are at the border, and they set about not passing a budget. Trump was the guy who acted as if the rhetoric was real.
Democrats have a whole bunch of problems that are the same - there is a disconnect between large parts of their most energised base, and the actual policies pursued by the party at the national level. Trade is a classic, but Wall St regulation and bank bail outs and all kinds of other issues have similar issues. It's what Sanders played on, and that was a fight Clinton ran away from. Clinton didn't try to defend TPP, just walked away from it... and I'm pretty sure she would have just walked back to it once in office, without ever doing the real political work of selling the thing to the public.
Long story short, Americans love capitalism until its time to do capitalist stuff.
Americans like capitalism as the story of how they can get rich. They hate the bit where they might face personal uncertainty as their skills become irrelevant in a changing industry, or where they risk losing their job because their company is being out-competed. People love progress, but hate change, basically.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: A trade union is irrelevant in a place like China.
China isn't a signatory to TPP. This is about drawing a wall around China, and cutting them out from greater economic integration unless they commit to many kinds of reforms, of which trade unions are just one.
It's like you didn't read my post, or click on the link, or learn anything about TPP from anywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On another note, for months, I've been rooting around in search of a historical comparison for a Trump administration.
I've narrowed it down to the corruption and incompetence that dogged Grant and Harding when they were president, but I think Trump will trump that.
Going too far back in time stretches the comparison, the past is another country etc.
Maybe the best comparison is to just go to another country. I think Trump the best comparison for Trump is Berlusconi. Prominent, self-promoting businessman who carried a history of dodgy business dealings, then entered politics while the right wing was a mess, with the promise of being the guy strong enough to stop the left, ran campaign where he dominated media coverage, and promising the creation of millions of jobs without actually saying how. Outside of that he promised a simplified, much lower tax rate, and a massive program of public infrastructure, and to protect and expand pensions... without ever reconciling this with the budget. He complained constantly about the print media being against him.
When in office Berlusconi basically tanked the federal budget with his nonsense promises, and set up a kleptocracy that gifted huge payouts to his loyal stooges. We're yet to see if Trump will also deliver this part.
One great thing about the US system is that Berlusconi was able to come in and out of governent over two decades, because the Italian political system is utterly bonkers. Trump will be gone in a maximum of 8 years, and more like 4 if he's anywhere near as terrible in office as Berlusconi was.
You know what, I think a Trump victory could be a blessing in disguise for the Democrats, because if they get their act together in 2020, I think the Democrats could be well placed to sweep to victory.
Next census is in 2020, which means whoever does well in those elections will get to control the next round of redistricting. Democrats may still blow it, in fact they likely will because Democrats, but it could well be a blessing in disguise. The alternative was Clinton leading a hostile Republican senate and house, which would likely have led to a big loss in 2020 as she was blamed for nothing getting done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: However, blame Harry fething Reid for this.
He nuked the 60 Closure vote requirement for political appointees for Obama. Now, Trump only needs 51 votes (or 50 Senate yea + VP vote).
Democrats... reap what thou has sowed.
Republicans deserve blame for abusing the rule to deny appointments as a matter of routine. When a protection prevents the basic functioning of government, the protection becomes unworkable and must go. That is why you should always be careful about misusing protections, or they will be lost. Republicans were not careful, instead they were as reckless as they are with all government mechanisms. The response was inevitable. If you don't like things like this happening, start demanding better practice from your political party.
And when it comes to Trump's appointments, he is responsible for who he picks. A protection is gone, but Trump is meant to be a grown ass man, who is mean to be leading a party full of adults. They are responsible for the people they pick.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/11/18 17:50:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: However, blame Harry fething Reid for this.
He nuked the 60 Closure vote requirement for political appointees for Obama. Now, Trump only needs 51 votes (or 50 Senate yea + VP vote).
Democrats... reap what thou has sowed.
Republicans deserve blame for abusing the rule to deny appointments as a matter of routine. When a protection prevents the basic functioning of government, the protection becomes unworkable and must go. That is why you should always be careful about misusing protections, or they will be lost. Republicans were not careful, instead they were as reckless as they are with all government mechanisms. The response was inevitable. If you don't like things like this happening, start demanding better practice from your political party.
And when it comes to Trump's appointments, he is responsible for who he picks. A protection is gone, but Trump is meant to be a grown ass man, who is mean to be leading a party full of adults. They are responsible for the people they pick.
I'm not trying to lay blame on Democrats for Trump's pick. That's wholly on him.
But, the fact is, Reid invoked the Nuke option that drastically reduced the minority's influence in the future. That's all I'm saying.
Also, for all the talks the Republicans may invoke the 'Reid Option' on SCoTUS pick? My stance is the same... I wouldn't do it as they won't be the majority forever.
Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.
I disagree with this statement. A large part of why Trump exists, is because people were upset with what Obama had been doing by ramrodding his agenda by executive fiat. Plus the disaster of Obamacare, and Hilary Clinton was a terrible choice for the dems.
Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.
I disagree with this statement. A large part of why Trump exists, is because people were upset with what Obama had been doing by ramrodding his agenda by executive fiat.
Can we get those executive order statistics by two-term presidents again, please?
Yeah, Trump exists because, as Jon Stewart said (either in the video above or the next link I clicked on after that one), Republicans had a disconnect between their rhetoric and their actions.
I disagree with this statement. A large part of why Trump exists, is because people were upset with what Obama had been doing by ramrodding his agenda by executive fiat.
Can we get those executive order statistics by two-term presidents again, please?
And Stewart's right. The Republicans spent the past eight years screaming that the barbarians were at the gates, and then tried to shut down the government at every turn. Obama had to use some executive orders (less than Bush, btw) to actually keep things moving. Obamacare is a "disaster" because the Republicans refused to help - notice that it's not so bad now that they're in charge and actually have to fix things.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/18 19:11:07
