US Politics: 2017 Edition

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.

**tneva82**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hey I found a very funny article on the Onion's offshot website called Washington Post, it's really funny, it's entitled:
President Trump is pretty sure that Barack Obama likes him

BWAHAHAHA!!! Oh wait? He's serious? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well. He has to keep delusions going on to protect his fragile ego.

**Frazzled**

Vaktathi wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
infinite_array wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
In other news... Yeah, the Betsy DeVos thing... fething hell. It's ridiculous to see just how quiet the right leaning folks have gotten over pay-to-play politics. Whats worse is we have recorded media interviews with DeVos a few years ago where she blatantly said, "I've spent a bunch of money, I expect some returns"

And all the while, the schools will suffer the most for this.

We just have to hope that DeVos runs afoul of whatever red tape can be thrown at her, and that anything she does to the public education system can be fixed in the next administration.

What is it you guys are afraid Devon will do? The Dept of Ed is controlled by Federal education laws all that the Sec of Ed does is oversee the administrating of Federal laws, namely school performance testing and sending out Feseral funds. Is there anything that a Sec of Ed has done over the last few decades that has had a meaningful impact, good or bad, on US public education?
If your response to a nominee who is clearly unqualified and unfamiliar with subjects that are central to the role of that office they are being nominated for is to ask "whats the worst that can happen?", methinks we're not being objective, and are asking for waste, fraud, and ineffectiveness in what roles the department does play.

At first I was "wait Devon is an investment grade energy company that has nothing to do with education" then I realized you were talking about something completely different...

**Prestor Jon**

Vaktathi wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

The Ed Dept provides about 8% of school spending and the Ed Sec is primarily an administrator and advocate. Devon can advocate for the craziest education policies ever and it won't matter because it still takes an act of Congress to enact new policy. The allocation of federal education funds is spelled out in federal education laws how much room to create waste fraud and abuse do you think Devos has?
As much as anyone else who has been put in charge of something with clearly defined rules and procedures and then proceeded to ignore or bungle them...

If the position was so inconsequential and toothless as to be immune from corruption and ineptitude, then it probably wouldnt be a cabinet level position requiring senate confirmation.

I'm not sayign DeVos is going to obliterate public education overnight, but there's zero evidence she's qualified to effectivrly run what it is responsible for.

The dept effectively runs itself, its just a pass through for federal funding dollars to the states and a collection point for testing/school performance data. The country didn't need a Secretary of Education in the cabinet until 1980 so for the majority of American history we didn't need a Sec of Ed at all so it's not that vital. It's also the smallest cabinet level department because it doesn't do much. The Dept of Ed basically checks to see if, in accordance with Federal education law, a school has done X so that the Dept of Ed can award them $Y. If Devos screws that up and doesn't give schools that do X the $Y they're entitled to then the states and school districts will sue in federal court and win. Devos' appointment doesn't change any Federal laws or constraints on Federal education funding. Sec of Ed is a caretaker position, the Feds need a bureaucracy to administer Federal policy/programs and somebody has to oversee that bureaucracy, the PotUS is ultimately responsible for it but too busy to personally run the department. If Devos manages to actually screw up running the Dept of Ed that in itself would be quite an accomplishment, albeit a rather dubious one.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There is no danger that Trump will degrade our democracy. Trump can be rude and antagonistic towards the judiciary, he can even go as far as questioning their integrity but he can't control Federal judges. The judiciary is shielded from the executive by the legislative branch. No president can remove a federal judge from the bench. A federal judge can willfully resign or be impeached by Congress (articles of impeachment passed by the House and found guilty after a trial in the Senate). Congress has to confirm any new appointment to a Federal court bench. Any Federal judge has a lifelong job unless they resign, die or get impeached so they are insulated against the pique of the President.

None of this matters. What matters is “How much popularity Trump have in the military”. With high popularity among senior officers and sufficient popularity among the rest he can just seize power and be done with it.

No, that is quite literally impossible. We're not Burma we're not going to have a military coup or ruling junta. Iraq was too big and complex to be controlled with US martial law, there's no way you could have a military coup over the CONUS even if everyone in the military was in favor of it.

**kronk**

Prestor Jon wrote:
The Dept of Ed basically checks to see if, in accordance with Federal education law, a school has done X so that the Dept of Ed can award them $Y. If Devos screws that up and doesn't give schools that do X the $Y they're entitled to then the states and school districts will sue in federal court and win.

You mean underfunded schools will be short their $$ to buy books and pay teachers can then go out and get lawyers and spend 4-10 years in court (or, really, the length of this 1-term joke, 4 years) to get their money. Meanwhile, teachers will get laid off, books will go short, and so on.

Great plan. Why are the rest of us so worried about those stupid, whiney teachers not getting paid? Or the support staff. Fire those counselors and admin assistants, too.

"Hey, don't worry about how gakky she is." isn't a stance to take when people's livelihood's are on the line.

Schools are hand-to-mouth, and DeVos wants to take money from public schools and give it to Charter Schools, like the gakky ones she was a part of in Michigan. Remember, her department CAN ear-mark money and divert federal funds from one school, school district, or even state to another.

No thanks!

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

infinite_array wrote:
DeVos' confirmation also further erodes the idea of separation of Church and State. And DeVos is just as likely to pivot on her God's Kingdom stance as Trump has been to pivot on... anything, really.

Yeah, I was looking back at some of the stuff Trump has said over the years.

I swear he's the only person on God's earth who is both pro-gun rights and anti-gun rights, depending on what day it is, who's paying, and who the audience is.

On another note, this might be small comfort to Americans, but you guys are not the only people with idiots in charge of public education

Here in the UK, education policy has been changing on a weekly basis since the 1980s, with the result being that most teachers want to bail out, and teacher recruitment is heading towards rock bottom levels

**BobtheInquisitor**

IN the US, too. Half of all new teachers quit in their first five years.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Prestor Jon wrote:
We're not Burma

The US is not Burma, or Argentina, or Germany. It definitely cannot happen in the US. I mean, you are not the Philippines, right? You instead elect sensible President and all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
IN the US, too. Half of all new teachers quit in their first five years.

TBF, having worked as a substitute math teacher in middle schools, that seems like quite a lot that keep going

.

**Frazzled**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
We're not Burma

The US is not Burma, or Argentina, or Germany. It definitely cannot happen in the US. I mean, you are not the Philippines, right? You instead elect sensible President and all.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
IN the US, too. Half of all new teachers quit in their first five years.

TBF, having worked as a substitute math teacher in middle schools, that seems like quite a lot that keep going .

We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.
Come on, who do you think we are? Europe?

**Prestor Jon**

kronk wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The Dept of Ed basically checks to see if, in accordance with Federal education law, a school has done X so that the Dept of Ed can award them $Y. If Devos screws that up and doesn't give schools that do X the $Y they're entitled to then the states and school districts will sue in federal court and win.

You mean underfunded schools will be short their $$ to buy books and pay teachers can then go out and get lawyers and spend 4-10 years in court (or, really, the length of this 1-term joke, 4 years) to get their money. Meanwhile, teachers will get laid off, books will go short, and so on.

Great plan. Why are the rest of us so worried about those stupid, whiney teachers not getting paid? Or the support staff. Fire those counselors and admin assistants, too.

"Hey, don't worry about how gakky she is." isn't a stance to take when people's livelihood's are on the line.

Schools are hand-to-mouth, and DeVos wants to take money from public schools and give it to Charter Schools, like the gakky ones she was a part of in Michigan. Remember, her department CAN ear-mark money and divert federal funds from one school, school district, or even state to another.

No thanks!

Public schools get 92% of their funding from sources other than the Feds. The 8% the Feds contribute is controlled by Federal law. It's possible in a worst case scenario that Devos could somehow get Dept of Ed employees to deliberately not do their job and disobey federal law but it would only last as long as it took to file against it in federal court get an injunction and the funds flow again. Devos as Sec of Ed can't arbitrarily give Federal funds to charter schools. Federal funds are controlled by Congress, the allocation of Federal funds is determined by the programs/policies written in the federal laws that authorize the spending. If a charter school isn't currently qualifying for Federal funding under Federal law then there's nothing Devos can do to change that. It's not like Devos can suddenly make the entire Federal Dept of Ed go rogue and allocate federal education funds however she wants.

The Dept of Ed is going to operate in accordance to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) that was passed in 2015 and goes into full effect next school year (2018-2019) and ESSA is a symbiotic system that works in conjunction with state accountability standards that would govern charter schools. The Sec of Ed has never had authority to dictate how federal funding gets apportioned to states and school districts.
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=ft

**Co'tor Shas**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
IN the US, too. Half of all new teachers quit in their first five years.

Yeah, teaching is a hard-as-feth job, that pays next to nothing (especialy when you consider the number of teacher who have master's degrees). Our teachers and teaching staff should be celebrated for the work they do, but instead are attacked and vilified.

**Prestor Jon**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
We're not Burma

The US is not Burma, or Argentina, or Germany. It definitely cannot happen in the US. I mean, you are not the Philippines, right? You instead elect sensible President and all.

There is no structure or staff within the US military that is equipped to govern anything, that's not a military objective. That's why we have a State department and govt agencies to do the administrative work. The US military isn't big enough to put the country under martial law and doesn't have trained personnel to run the country and you'd never get enough people on active duty who have sworn an oath to protect the constitution to deliberately violate that oath to stage a military coup on behalf of a president that wants to be a dictator. Even if Trump got the entire Joint Chiefs on board with a military coup plan the military isn't big enough to control the country the most they could do would be to put pockets of the country under their control while the vast majority of the country became autonomous. A military coup in the US isn't just politically improbably it's physically impossible.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Frazzled wrote:
We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.

A constitution and Separation of Power only works as far as people respect those. The Weimar republic had both.
Don't believe those will inherently prevent a dictatorship. What will prevent a dictatorship is the disapproval of everyone in the system (police, military, legislature, judiciary, …). However, given how Trump interacts with its followers, I can see him convincing them that it would be a good thing to give him unchecked power.
I mean, someone posted this in this thread:
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/06/the-left-hates-you-act-accordingly-n2281602
The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly.
Act accordingly? What does that even mean?

Prestor Jon wrote:
The US military isn't big enough to put the country under martial law and doesn't have trained personnel to run the country and you'd never get enough people on active duty who have sworn an oath to protect the constitution to deliberately violate that oath to stage a military coup on behalf of a president that wants to be a dictator.

Yeah, I'm sure that given the US military's tiny budget, they can't do anything on their own. How many head of police forces are Trump fans? For now?

**Breotan**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.

A constitution and Separation of Power only works as far as people respect those.

You mean like how President Trump's Immigration EO is being dragged through the courts instead of the Judge just being told to "pound sand"?

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The Weimar republic had both.

Comparing the US to the Weimar Republic doesn't help the credibility of your argument.

**Prestor Jon**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
We also have a Constitution, and Separation of Powers with military to enforce it if needed.

A constitution and Separation of Power only works as far as people respect those. The Weimar republic had both.
Don't believe those will inherently prevent a dictatorship. What will prevent a dictatorship is the disapproval of everyone in the system (police, military, legislature, judiciary, …). However, given how Trump interacts with its followers, I can see him convincing them that it would be a good thing to give him unchecked power.
I mean, someone posted this in this thread:
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/06/the-left-hates-you-act-accordingly-n2281602
The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly.
Act accordingly? What does that even mean?

Prestor Jon wrote:
The US military isn't big enough to put the country under martial law and doesn't have trained personnel to run the country and you'd never get enough people on active duty who have sworn an oath to protect the constitution to deliberately violate that oath to stage a military coup on behalf of a president that wants to be a dictator.

Yeah, I'm sure that given the US military's tiny budget, they can't do anything on their own. How many head of police forces are Trump fans? For now?

Yeah, no, you're not going to get literally hundreds of thousands of military and LEOs to join forces to conspire to ditch the constitution for the sake of making Trump dictator of America.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Breotan wrote:
You mean like how President Trump's Immigration EO is being dragged through the courts instead of the Judge just being told to "pound sand"?

Precisely. That shows how we are not there yet here, how Trump is unhappy with this, how he can convince his support base to be unhappy with this too, and how he can work to replace the right people so that in the future it doesn't happen. Hopefully, and thankfully, the task is too hard for him. But he already surprised most of us by winning the primaries and then the election, so…

**Ahtman**

I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

**Prestor Jon**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Breotan wrote:
You mean like how President Trump's Immigration EO is being dragged through the courts instead of the Judge just being told to "pound sand"?

Precisely. That shows how we are not there yet here, how Trump is unhappy with this, how he can convince his support base to be unhappy with this too, and how he can work to replace the right people so that in the future it doesn't happen. Hopefully, and thankfully, the task is too hard for him. But he already surprised most of us by winning the primaries and then the election, so…

Trump can't just replace Federal judges. The best he can do is try to get Congress to impeach them but right now it's rather difficult for Trump to just get his cabinet nominees confirmed by Congress so I don't think they'll be very cooperative with impeaching judges with trumped up charges.

(couldn't resist the pun)

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I know right? Go to Townhall or something, its like arguing with leftwing fanatics from two years ago. That and the weird undercurrent or racist SOB posters spouting off (I'd say 1 in 15). We are through the looking glass here people...

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Trump can't just replace Federal judges.

No, but I hope that'll be enough. It's good to have checks and limitations of power, it's even better to be very vigilant about someone trying to bypass them.

**Frazzled**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Trump can't just replace Federal judges.

No, but I hope that'll be enough. It's good to have checks and limitations of power, it's even better to be very vigilant about someone trying to bypass them.

Thats why you need two strong parties and not a defacto single party state.

**Prestor Jon**

Ahtman wrote:
I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I voted for Libertarians and I'm not arguing in favor of Devos, she's pretty far from my first choice but she's not going to reach down from DC and feth up my kids elementary school either. Our public education system needs a lot of reform and unfortunately that's not going to happen under Devos, I doubt it could happen in a Trump administration regardless of whom he could nominate for Ed Sec. Of course if it was easy to overcome the inertia of the status quo and effect reform we wouldn't still be using the same 36 week school calendar that we created over a century ago for reasons that have nothing to do with student achievement.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Frazzled wrote:
Thats why you need two strong parties and not a defacto single party state.

Do you think 2 parties is better than 3+ parties?

**feeder**

Ahtman wrote:
..... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

This isn't the first time I've said those exact words today.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Thats why you need two strong parties and not a defacto single party state.

Do you think 2 parties is better than 3+ parties?

The problem is, the US pretty much runs on FPTP voting... if you care to, there's a decent video on youtube that explains how under FPTP, you're basically guaranteed to end up with only 2 viable parties.

In order for 3+ parties to be viable, you can't be set up the way the US is... you literally have to have some kind of parliamentary system (like the UK, Germany and a number of other countries)

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The problem is, the US pretty much runs on FPTP voting...

FPTP?
So I guess Frazzled comment was more because 2 parties is the only way that make sense in the US context rather than 2 parties are better in general?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The problem is, the US pretty much runs on FPTP voting...

FPTP?
So I guess Frazzled comment was more because 2 parties is the only way that make sense in the US context rather than 2 parties are better in general?

Sorry, First Past the Post = FPTP

And while I don't want to put words into Frazzled's mouth, that is generally how I understood it

**Ahtman**

I've seen this posted several places in different ways so might as well see what people here say:

You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.

You voted for Trump because of Clinton's emails. The Trump administration is running its own private email server.

You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments. \

You voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.

You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he took away your health insurance so he could give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.

You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.

You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies, and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.

You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the stamina to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5pm phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."

You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't "respect" Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.

You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.

Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Now that you know the score, quit insisting the con-man is on your side.

**Kilkrazy**

tneva82 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
30-40% support roughly matches his votes as a proportion of the electorate FWIW.

Didn't he get like 48% votes though? If 30-40% americans approve his actions and 48% voted him then whole bunch of people who voted for him then don't support his orders...

Not all the electorate voted. Trump got less than half the votes of the IDK what percentage of people actually voted.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
feeder wrote:
My issue is she highlights the pay-to-play politics that all the true believers were endlessly banging on about during the election and now... crickets.

I'm sure Whem' will be all over this after the fuss he made over the Clinton Foundation

Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??

**Dakka Flakka Flame**

Ahtman wrote:
I've seen this posted several places in different ways so might as well see what people here say:

Spoiler:

You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to be in Wall Street's pocket. Trump wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and eliminate the Fiduciary Rule, letting Wall Street return to its pre-2008 ways.

You voted for Trump because of Clinton's emails. The Trump administration is running its own private email server.

You voted for Trump because you thought the Clinton Foundation was "pay for play." Trump has refused to wall off his businesses from his administration, and personally profits from payments from foreign governments. \

You voted for Trump because of Clinton's role in Benghazi. Trump ordered the Yemen raid without adequate intel, and tweeted about "FAKE NEWS" while Americans died as a result of his carelessness.

You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't care about "the little guy." Trump's cabinet is full of billionaires, and he took away your health insurance so he could give them a multi-million-dollar tax break.

You voted for Trump because he was going to build a wall and Mexico was going to pay for it. American consumers will pay for the wall via import tariffs.

You voted for Trump because Clinton was going to get us into a war. Trump has provoked our enemies, alienated our allies, and given ISIS a decade's worth of recruiting material.

You voted for Trump because Clinton didn't have the stamina to do the job. Trump hung up on the Australian Prime Minister during a 5pm phone call because "it was at the end of a long day and he was tired and fatigue was setting in."

You voted for Trump because foreign leaders wouldn't "respect" Clinton. Foreign leaders, both friendly and hostile, are openly mocking Trump.

You voted for Trump because Clinton lies and "he tells it like it is." Trump and his administration lie with a regularity and brazenness that can only be described as shocking.

Let's be honest about what really happened. The reality is that you voted for Trump because you got conned. Trump is a grifter and the American people were the mark. Now that you know the score, quit insisting the con-man is on your side.

From speaking with Trump supporters that I know, there was another reason many of them voted for him: he made people they don't like really, really angry and upset. I don't think that's a very good reason to vote for someone, but I guess if that's what they were going for it has worked out as they expected?

(I am not a Trump supporter, I just know a few and my anecdotal experience might not be representative of the average Trump supporter.)