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.

**jasper76**

jmurph wrote:
Does anyone else think that maybe the best course for the Dems is to let Trump have what he wants in the cabinet positions? Seriously, just stand aside and say hey, it's on you buddy. Want a billionaire donor for ed secretary? A disgraced hack who couldn't even fill her term as governor for ambassador to our northern neighbor? Whatever. You guys have the votes.

Although fighting and showing that the Repubs will happily silence even token resistance may have it's benefits. "The bottom line is, it was long overdue with her," Lindsey Graham said. "I mean, she is clearly running for the nomination in 2020." Because screw that debate stuff. Not like Repub supporters care, of course. The Trumpistos seem to prefer imprisonment or execution....

I think the Democrats are currently running the risk of diluting the efficacy of their opposition through frequency. If it comes across that every sigle issue is opposed, then the opposition will not be taken seriously because people will become fatigued. Pick your battles.

The pre-Trump Republicans did the same thing to themselves with their staunch opposition to Obama. They came across as dysfunctional and hyperventilating. This in part I believe is responsible for Trumps success in defeating the GOP at the presidential level.

Honestly I think the Dems that are willing to work with Republicans will be the ones that will gain the most national admiration, if they even want it, and I think the staunch oppositionists are misreading the tea leaves.

As a case to consider, I think Elizabeth Warren is impressing her progressive base and giving them exactly what they want, but I think she is hurting her presidential aspirations (assuming she runs).

**Frazzled**

cuda1179 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
[Canada is between America and Alaska. She can see it from her house.

I'm not sure if you are trying to be funny here or not. You'd be surprised how many people think that is an actual Palin quote. It's not, it came from an SNL skit staring Tina Fey. Now, I'm not trying to fanboy Palin (she's and idiot), but aim for something real.

So she can't see Canadia from her house? What if she's on a mountain?

Edit: Trump tweets about his daughter's fashion line being dropped.
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/donald-trump-us-president-says-without-travel-ban-america-can-never-be-safe-and-secure/news-story/5ee2b193f95b2e5e8e42a421338c70ea
That has interesting permutations about his own properties, to whit "don't give me money and you will pay?"

**jasper76**

Frazzled wrote:

Edit: Trump tweets about his daughter's fashion line being dropped.
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/donald-trump-us-president-says-without-travel-ban-america-can-never-be-safe-and-secure/news-story/5ee2b193f95b2e5e8e42a421338c70ea
That has interesting permutations about his own properties, to whit "don't give me money and you will pay?"

Perhaps it's a little different. I don't think he's going after a retailer that will not push his daughter's line, but instead a retailer who already did push his daughter's line but in his view caved into political pressure and dropped it.

Defense rather than offense.

But that said, I think it's pretty troubling that he bothers to comment at all. I wish he would take the high road, be more presidential and above this kind of stuff. And I agree there are troubling implications in using the presidency to advocate for a company that is within his own family. Another conflict of interest made manifest, for sure.

**Kanluwen**

jasper76 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Edit: Trump tweets about his daughter's fashion line being dropped.
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/donald-trump-us-president-says-without-travel-ban-america-can-never-be-safe-and-secure/news-story/5ee2b193f95b2e5e8e42a421338c70ea
That has interesting permutations about his own properties, to whit "don't give me money and you will pay?"

Perhaps it's a little different. I don't think he's going after a retailer that will not push his daughter's line, but instead a retailer who already did push his daughter's line but in his view caved into political pressure and dropped it.

Defense rather than offense.

But that said, I think it's pretty troubling that he bothers to comment at all. I wish he would take the high road, be more presidential and above this kind of stuff. And I agree there are traveling implications in using the presidency to advocate for a company that is within your own family. Another conflict of interest made manifest, for sure.

It doesn't matter the reasoning. He used the fething PotUS account to retweet his personal tweet.

**jasper76**

Kanluwen wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Edit: Trump tweets about his daughter's fashion line being dropped.
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/donald-trump-us-president-says-without-travel-ban-america-can-never-be-safe-and-secure/news-story/5ee2b193f95b2e5e8e42a421338c70ea
That has interesting permutations about his own properties, to whit "don't give me money and you will pay?"

Perhaps it's a little different. I don't think he's going after a retailer that will not push his daughter's line, but instead a retailer who already did push his daughter's line but in his view caved into political pressure and dropped it.

Defense rather than offense.

But that said, I think it's pretty troubling that he bothers to comment at all. I wish he would take the high road, be more presidential and above this kind of stuff. And I agree there are traveling implications in using the presidency to advocate for a company that is within your own family. Another conflict of interest made manifest, for sure.

It doesn't matter the reasoning. He used the fething PotUS account to retweet his personal tweet.

OK, I didn't even think much about the "official" POTUS account. Yeah, twitter is stupid, no president should have a personal twitter account, and if we MUST have a POTUS account, it should definitely not be used for the advancement of the President's family's businesses.

**Kanluwen**

jmurph wrote:
Does anyone else think that maybe the best course for the Dems is to let Trump have what he wants in the cabinet positions? Seriously, just stand aside and say hey, it's on you buddy. Want a billionaire donor for ed secretary? A disgraced hack who couldn't even fill her term as governor for ambassador to our northern neighbor? Whatever. You guys have the votes.

Honestly, it doesn't matter what the Dems do. The Republican voter base at this juncture will devour everything and anything that the Republican party says is the fault of the Democrats.

A wonderful example is HB2 in NC, where McCrory managed to convince Republican voters that HB2 was only necessary because of the Democrats in Charlotte.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Edit: Trump tweets about his daughter's fashion line being dropped.
http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/donald-trump-us-president-says-without-travel-ban-america-can-never-be-safe-and-secure/news-story/5ee2b193f95b2e5e8e42a421338c70ea
That has interesting permutations about his own properties, to whit "don't give me money and you will pay?"

Perhaps it's a little different. I don't think he's going after a retailer that will not push his daughter's line, but instead a retailer who already did push his daughter's line but in his view caved into political pressure and dropped it.

Defense rather than offense.

But that said, I think it's pretty troubling that he bothers to comment at all. I wish he would take the high road, be more presidential and above this kind of stuff. And I agree there are traveling implications in using the presidency to advocate for a company that is within your own family. Another conflict of interest made manifest, for sure.

It doesn't matter the reasoning. He used the fething PotUS account to retweet his personal tweet.

I don't understand your post. I think we are in agreement??

No, you clearly didn't understand the post.

It doesn't matter that he commented. He has a personal, private account. That's his. He can say whatever stupid crap he wants from that and it's not policy or "official" government stuff.
When he then uses the official President of the United States account to retweet his personal tweet? It shows that, as has been said time and time and time and time again, he has no concept of separating himself from his businesses or those of his children.

**jasper76**

@Kanlewin: See my post above for my edited reply. I did not understand what you were getting at at first, sorry about that.

The only argument I might have with you is that I think it's a really bad idea for a president to use twitter, at least while he's in office. It's silly and beneath the office, as well as dangerous, IMO.

**Frazzled**

It doesn't matter that he commented. He has a personal, private account. That's his. He can say whatever stupid crap he wants from that and it's not policy or "official" government stuff.
When he then uses the official President of the United States account to retweet his personal tweet? It shows that, as has been said time and time and time and time again, he has no concept of separating himself from his businesses or those of his children.

Going to have to disagree there KL. When you are President, EVERYTHING he does is official and will be interpreted by the markets, political leaders, and other nations.

However your point about having no concept of separating himself is excellent, and absolutely on point.

**Prestor Jon**

sebster wrote:
Trump put in an official complaint about the hand towels on air force one. They're not soft enough. Remember, this is the man who totally understands the plight of the working man.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Who is "the right" that's adopting a position on what "quid pro quo" means in politics? That's already been settled by SCOTUS.

The right, of course, means the right wing. I'll make sure to spell this out for you in future.

I have no idea how you possibly took anything I said as confusion over the legal standard established for a quid pro quo arrangement. It's like you're arguing from a script or something. Like you've turned up to an improv session with King Lear memorised, and you're going to say each of your lines in turn, no matter what anyone else around you is saying.

Anyhow, the point is not the legal standard for corruption. That's obviously a very narrow definition, which it needs to because it is dealing with a criminal standard of guilt. But the rest of us aren't connected to that criminal standard, we can make our own assessments and decide if a person has given an informal favour for past campaign funding and know that isn't cool, even if it isn't technically a crime.

What's funny is that 6 months ago the right wing didn't care one jot about the narrow legal definition. They were very concerned that after the Clinton Foundation received a donation from Brunei then some months later Sec of State Clinton met with the Prince of Brunei. They didn't even to establish any notion of personal benefit, let alone a formal quid pro quo. The left, on the other hand, was all about that narrow definition, they defended Obama's appointment of a bunch of diplomats with zero foreign policy experience or knowledge (who just happened to have been prolific fund raisers), because those appointments didn't meet the narrow legal definition.

Now Trump is making appointments, and oh my gosh will you look at that the right is using the narrow definition, and the left is trying for as expansive a definition as is possible.

Is the right wing making that argument? I'm not hearing it made on the radio or on the websites I peruse. Calling Devos' appointment a quid pro quo arrangement came up in this thread and I agreed that her appointment shows favoritism, the corruptive influence of donations on political campaigns, and that Devos was a poor choice for the position but that her quote about getting a return on the investment of her contribution to the RNC didn't qualify as an actual quid pro quo agreement. Let's not confuse things by ignoring definitions.

Clinton taking foreign donations for the Foundation during her time as SecState wasn't bad because it created a quid pro quo agreement it was bad because it created a scenario that might present a conflict of interest or be an impropriety. That's why Obama told Hillary not to take foreign donations as SecState. Hillary continued to take foreign donations during her time as SecState even after Obama publically said he told her not to do it. When the SecState deliberately defies the PotUS she works for that's a bad look for the SecState. My problem with Hillary letting the Foundation take money from Brunei wasn't that I thought it was going to allow Brunei to dictate policy to Hillary when she was PotUS it was that Obama told her not to do it, it made sense for her not to do it but she did it anyway because Hillary doesn't have to follow the rules. It was another chapter in the narrative that Hillary believes she gets to flaunt the rules.

**Ensis Ferrae**

jasper76 wrote:
@Kanlewin: See my post above for my edited reply. I did not understand what you were getting at at first, sorry about that.

The only argument I might have with you is that I think it's a really bad idea for a president to use twitter, at least while he's in office. It's silly and beneath the office, as well as dangerous, IMO.

I can sort of see a point to having an official @ Potus twitter account... But I do not think that POTUS Actual should be the one with the keyboard, the person in charge should be POTUS Delta, or POTUS Charlie (delta being driver, charlie being chef), or realistically, anyone but POTUS

**jasper76**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Kanlewin: See my post above for my edited reply. I did not understand what you were getting at at first, sorry about that.

The only argument I might have with you is that I think it's a really bad idea for a president to use twitter, at least while he's in office. It's silly and beneath the office, as well as dangerous, IMO.

I can sort of see a point to having an official @ Potus twitter account... But I do not think that POTUS Actual should be the one with the keyboard, the person in charge should be POTUS Delta, or POTUS Charlie (delta being driver, charlie being chef), or realistically, anyone but POTUS

I guess I don't have a problem in principle with the office of the POTUS using social media to communicate to a general audience. It's just that Twitter in particular is so .... juvenile.

Maybe I'm just becoming a fuddy-duddy and the world is passing me by.

**Ensis Ferrae**

jasper76 wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
@Kanlewin: See my post above for my edited reply. I did not understand what you were getting at at first, sorry about that.

The only argument I might have with you is that I think it's a really bad idea for a president to use twitter, at least while he's in office. It's silly and beneath the office, as well as dangerous, IMO.

I can sort of see a point to having an official @ Potus twitter account... But I do not think that POTUS Actual should be the one with the keyboard, the person in charge should be POTUS Delta, or POTUS Charlie (delta being driver, charlie being chef), or realistically, anyone but POTUS

I guess I don't have a problem in principle with the office of the POTUS using social media to communicate to a general audience. It's just that Twitter in particular is so .... juvenile.

Maybe I'm just becoming a fuddy-duddy and the world is passing me by.

Lol, Im not on Twitter.... but I think it can and maybe "should" be used to do things like, say "happy 4th of July, and a reminder from POTUS, don't blow your fething hand off with fireworks today" while it should not be used for things like, I dunno... calling out department stores for dropping a line of clothes.

**jasper76**

Hey, Trump's got feels that he needs to get off his chest in 140 characters or less. Trump needs to be the center of attention every now and then and then some. Trump needs to be liked and loved and poked. Just like the rest of us silk-soft, self-absorbed, juvenile Americans.

**LordofHats**

sebster wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Not to mention that the graph doesn't support the claim that it's his most popular order, just that's its popular with the majority of voters

Maybe everything he's done has been unpopular, making this 55% popular EO his most popular

But to make that claim you'd have to include the popularity of his other EOs in the infographic

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
Hey, Trump's got feels that he needs to get off his chest in 140 characters or less. Trump needs to be the center of attention every now and then and then some. Trump needs to be liked and loved and poked. Just like the rest of us silk-soft, self-absorbed, social media-addicted Americans.

I feel like someone needs to adjust Trumpo's ADHD meds, change his twittah password and tell him to at least pretend to be the President.

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Hey, Trump's got feels that he needs to get off his chest in 140 characters or less. Trump needs to be the center of attention every now and then and then some. Trump needs to be liked and loved and poked. Just like the rest of us silk-soft, self-absorbed, social media-addicted Americans.

I feel like someone needs to adjust Trumpo's ADHD meds, change his twittah password and tell him to at least pretend to be the President.

Howard Stern had some pretty telling hings to say about Trump recently. IIRC Stern said that Trump was basically addicted to affirmation and attention, particularly from the press, Hollywood, and other celebrities, and that the Presidency by nature will therefore be detrimental to his psychological health. He went on to say that he thinks alot of Trumps lashing out is because he's subconsciously angry that he won the Presidency and now has to endure being Mr. Unpopular.

I don't lend too much credence to what Howard Stern says, but apparently they were good friends in the past, and if the shoe fits...

EDIT: Source = http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/02/media/kfile-stern-on-trump/

**Vaktathi**

So...now Trump and Spicer have attacked McCain for being critical of the apparently...troubled Yemen raid.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318658-trump-mccain-emboldens-the-enemy-by-questioning-success-of-yemen-raid

An economics professor of mine from some years back, also a currently serving Naval reserve officer like Spicer, noted that, between McCain and Spicer, one of the men needed to refamiliarize themselves with the tale of the Wasp and Hobson, and particularly this passage from the Wall Street Journal on the subject.

On the sea there is a tradition older even than the traditions of the country itself and wiser in its age than this new custom. It is the tradition that with responsibility goes authority and with them accountability.

This accountability is not for the intentions but for the deed. The Captain of a ship, like the captain of a state, is given honor and privileges and trust beyond other men. But let him set the wrong course, let him touch ground, let him bring disaster to his ship or to his men, and he must answer for what he has done.

It is cruel, this accountability of good and well intentioned men. But the choice is that or an end to responsibility and finally, as the cruel sea has taught, an end to the confidence and trust in the men who lead, for men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do.

**Sasori**

Looks like we may see the first round of his proposed Tax cuts here in the next 2-3 weeks according to his latest announcement.

This is one of the things I've been waiting for, and what I think may be one of his defining moments.

I really do hope he puts out a decent tax plan.

I also hope Obamacare gets "fixed" but I am curious what form that will take. If the Single payer option had stayed in, I don't think it would be suffering from so many problems.

**jasper76**

Sasori wrote:
Looks like we may see the first round of his proposed Tax cuts here in the next 2-3 weeks according to his latest announcement.

This is one of the things I've been waiting for, and what I think may be one of his defining moments.

I really do hope he puts out a decent tax plan.

This is one of my "silver lining" hopes as well, and who knows? Maybe a united Congress and White House will be able to simplify the tax code and let everyone keep more of their money.

**Vaktathi**

Given the tax plans released by Republicans over the last several decades and murmerings from Trumps campaign so far, I would expect a heavily regressively shifted tax burden down the economic ladder from the upper crust.

I mean, we can all hope, but I wouldnt be holding my breath just based on existing track records, statements and proposals.

**jasper76**

Vaktathi wrote:
Given the tax plans released by Republicans over the last several decades and murmerings from Trumps campaign so far, I would expect a heavily regressively shifted tax burden down the economic ladder from the upper crust.

I mean, we can all hope, but I wouldnt be holding my breath just based on existing track records, statements and proposals.

I'm just concerned with results at this point. Am I going to be able to keep more of my money, and above all will the tax code be SIMPLE? I shouldn't need to pay H&R Block to decipher the tax code for me when I'm just a middle-class Joe with some managed investments.

**Vaktathi**

jasper76 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Given the tax plans released by Republicans over the last several decades and murmerings from Trumps campaign so far, I would expect a heavily regressively shifted tax burden down the economic ladder from the upper crust.

I mean, we can all hope, but I wouldnt be holding my breath just based on existing track records, statements and proposals.

I'm just concerned with results at this point. Am I going to be able to keep more of my money, and above all will the tax code be SIMPLE? I shouldn't need to pay H&R Block to decipher the tax code for me when I'm just a middle-class Joe with some managed investments.

I dont disagree with that, that's just not a result I would expect given available data, or alternatively, expect without it being used as a cover to regressively shift the tax burden.

**jasper76**

Now I'm triggered. Tax accountants and software companies are leeches feeding off the middle and working classes. Down with the system! Down with the system! Give me a business to burn, a road to close, and somebody to punch!

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
Now I'm triggered. Tax accountants and software companies are leeches feeding off the middle and working classes. Down with the system! Down with the system! Give me a business to burn, a road to close, and somebody to punch!

Last I heard, for the individual taxes... it cost the nation well over 3 BILLION dollars in order to COMPLY. That is, the cost of buying tax filing software/accountant's time in order to file the damn thing.

That's a lotta jack yo.

I can't imagine how much compliance costs corporations pays...

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Now I'm triggered. Tax accountants and software companies are leeches feeding off the middle and working classes. Down with the system! Down with the system! Give me a business to burn, a road to close, and somebody to punch!

Last I heard, for the individual taxes... it cost the nation well over 3 BILLION dollars in order to COMPLY. That is, the cost of buying tax filing software/accountant's time in order to file the damn thing.

That's a lotta jack yo.

I can't imagine how much compliance costs corporations pays...

You're not helping....now I need to go to my happy place.

(Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...)

**Vaktathi**

whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Now I'm triggered. Tax accountants and software companies are leeches feeding off the middle and working classes. Down with the system! Down with the system! Give me a business to burn, a road to close, and somebody to punch!

Last I heard, for the individual taxes... it cost the nation well over 3 BILLION dollars in order to COMPLY. That is, the cost of buying tax filing software/accountant's time in order to file the damn thing.

That's a lotta jack yo.

On a per person basis that works out to be about $10 per person in the US. Not ideal, but not exactly crushing either

I can't imagine how much compliance costs corporations pays...

well, keep in mind that much of that is spent on trying to avoid paying any taxes at all...

**CptJake**

Vaktathi wrote:
whembly wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Now I'm triggered. Tax accountants and software companies are leeches feeding off the middle and working classes. Down with the system! Down with the system! Give me a business to burn, a road to close, and somebody to punch!

Last I heard, for the individual taxes... it cost the nation well over 3 BILLION dollars in order to COMPLY. That is, the cost of buying tax filing software/accountant's time in order to file the damn thing.

That's a lotta jack yo.
On a per person basis that works out to be about $10 per person in the US. Not ideal, but not exactly crushing either

I strongly suspect that $10 a person is not so evenly distributed. I know my wife and I paid for about 50 folks last year at that rate.

**lonestarr777**

I love how you think that Trumps Tax plan isn't going to be a part of the dumpster fire everything else is currently. It's cute.

**jasper76**

lonestarr777 wrote:
I love how you think that Trumps Tax plan isn't going to be a part of the dumpster fire everything else is currently. It's cute.

Correction (if directed at me): I'm not rooting for it be a dumpster fire simply because Trump will be the one signing it. That's decadently uncute.

**Easy E**

jasper76 wrote:
jmurph wrote:
Does anyone else think that maybe the best course for the Dems is to let Trump have what he wants in the cabinet positions? Seriously, just stand aside and say hey, it's on you buddy. Want a billionaire donor for ed secretary? A disgraced hack who couldn't even fill her term as governor for ambassador to our northern neighbor? Whatever. You guys have the votes.

Although fighting and showing that the Repubs will happily silence even token resistance may have it's benefits. "The bottom line is, it was long overdue with her," Lindsey Graham said. "I mean, she is clearly running for the nomination in 2020." Because screw that debate stuff. Not like Repub supporters care, of course. The Trumpistos seem to prefer imprisonment or execution....

I think the Democrats are currently running the risk of diluting the efficacy of their opposition through frequency. If it comes across that every sigle issue is opposed, then the opposition will not be taken seriously because people will become fatigued. Pick your battles.

The pre-Trump Republicans did the same thing to themselves with their staunch opposition to Obama. They came across as dysfunctional and hyperventilating. This in part I believe is responsible for Trumps success in defeating the GOP at the presidential level.

Yet, the party won a lot of elections, controls the government, and was rewarded for their behavior by the voters. Therefore..... you are wrong.

I really, really, really wish you were fight. However, we have seen that the "actual" voters who vote (in the party base) love this schtick and will reward it. If we learned anything from Karl Rove it was screw everyone else as long as the base is motivated!