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.

**Vaktathi**

CptJake wrote:
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.

I wont contest that its not evenly distributed (children arent paying anything themselves for instance), but it should also be realized that, relative to many other developed nations, its not necessarily hugely out of line either, particularly with the geometric increase in complexity of financial instruments over the last few decades and the associated accounting for them.

**Easy E**

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...

Taxes are made way harder by people than they really are. Most people should just do a standard deduction and go from there. It is dead simple then. It takes less than an hour. Most people are simply buying/hiring people for convenience/security rather than need.

It is only complicated when the standard deduction can not be used, but that does not apply to the VAST majority of citizens. Therefore, simplifying the tax code is more smoke and mirrors to shift the burden.

**jasper76**

Easy E 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.

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

Taxes are made way harder by people than they really are. Most people should just do a standard deduction and go from there. It is dead simple then. It takes less than an hour. Most people are simply buying/hiring people for convenience/security rather than need.

It is only complicated when the standard deduction can not be used, but that does not apply to the VAST majority of citizens. Therefore, simplifying the tax code is more smoke and mirrors to shift the burden.

Were that it were so for me, but alas, it is not.

I could get in the weeds, but I value my privacy when it comes to finances.

(Sorry now realizing this was directed at whembley instead of myself)

**Vaktathi**

So...now Conway has gone on to Fox & Friends and basically used it to hawk Ivanka's business.

"Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would tell you, I hate shopping, I’m going to go get some myself today.”

“This is just wonderful line,” she continued. “I own some of it. I fully… I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.”

...draining the swamp indeed.

**jasper76**

Easy E wrote:
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!

I'd be sincerely interested to know how much of the downticket Republican success was due to conviction in the candidates, or people just voting party line under Trump. Or were people voting for downticket Republicans in order to better enable Trump. I don't know if such a thing is even knowable.

I was speaking about Presidential politics. The Presidential GOP candidates were routed by the outsider Trump. When it comes to Presidential politics, I don't think an "obstructionist" will end up winning the election, and I think nominating one would be a losing strategy. Elizabeth Warrens efforts will play well in her progressive stronghold, but I don't see it playing well nationally.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
So...now Conway has gone on to Fox & Friends and basically used it to hawk Ivanka's business.

"Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would tell you, I hate shopping, I’m going to go get some myself today.”

“This is just wonderful line,” she continued. “I own some of it. I fully… I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.”

...draining the swamp indeed.

Of all the figures that have emerged from the Trump phenomenon, including Trump himself, I find Kellyann Conway to be the most villainous and unsavory. I cringe every time I see an image of her ghostly, ghastly face.

Seriously, she looks like the Plague incarnated into human form. I won't forget how she said Trump was unpresidential and vulgar when campaigning for Cruz, then did a 180 after her man was defeated. Opportunist to the core.

**Co'tor Shas**

For those of you who don't pay attention to NY state politics (which I assume is most of you), we're having an interesting little thing happening because of the Trump presidency. There is a group of now 9 NY democratic state senators who currently caucus with the Republicans (the "Independent Democratic Conference"), to give the Republicans control of the State Senate (and themselves quite a bit of power and influence). Up until now they have been able to do this without out so much as a peep from the electorate (these sort of power plays are depressingly common in NY politics). However, the wave of anti-Trump sentiment has also hit them, the most recent Senator to join them just got mobbed by angry constituents at a town hall meeting. It's going to be an interesting 4 years.

**jasper76**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
For those of you who don't pay attention to NY state politics (which I assume is most of you), we're having an interesting little thing happening because of the Trump presidency. There is a group of now 9 NY democratic state senators who currently caucus with the Republicans (the "Independent Democratic Conference"), to give the Republicans control of the State Senate (and themselves quite a bit of power and influence). Up until now they have been able to do this without out so much as a peep from the electorate (these sort of power plays are depressingly common in NY politics). However, the wave of anti-Trump sentiment has also hit them, the most recent Senator to join them just got mobbed by angry constituents at a town hall meeting. It's going to be an interesting 4 years.

Are these folks remaining in their alliance with the Republicans, or breaking away due to the pressure? I.e. are they getting mob treatment because they are staying with the Republicans, or because they are breaking away from them?

**Co'tor Shas**

jasper76 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
For those of you who don't pay attention to NY state politics (which I assume is most of you), we're having an interesting little thing happening because of the Trump presidency. There is a group of now 9 NY democratic state senators who currently caucus with the Republicans (the "Independent Democratic Conference"), to give the Republicans control of the State Senate (and themselves quite a bit of power and influence). Up until now they have been able to do this without out so much as a peep from the electorate (these sort of power plays are depressingly common in NY politics). However, the wave of anti-Trump sentiment has also hit them, the most recent Senator to join them just got mobbed by angry constituents at a town hall meeting. It's going to be an interesting 4 years.

Are these folks remaining in their alliance with the Republicans, or breaking away due to the pressure? I.e. are they getting mob treatment because they are staying with the Republicans, or because they are breaking away from them?

The pressure is from their constituents who want them to re-join with the D's. The IDC is the only reason why the R's have held onto the State Senate.

**Peregrine**

jasper76 wrote:
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.

This would be a much more compelling argument if we weren't facing a parade of bad decision after bad decision. Letting the other side screw up because you only want to oppose some of their bad decisions is not a good way to run the country.

The pre-Trump Republicans did the same thing to themselves with their staunch opposition to Obama. They came across as dysfunctional and hyperventilating

The difference is that opposition to Obama was mostly based on criticism that was wildly exaggerated at best, and blatant tinfoil hattery at worst. Obama faced obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism, even when doing rather centrist stuff that was well within the bounds of mainstream policy. Opposition to Trump is based on the fact that he keeps doing spectacularly bad things, far beyond the bounds of what is normal in politics.

**Frazzled**

And in the case of jerk vs. jerk professor punches College Republican at a counterprotest:

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8763

**kronk**

Frazzled wrote:
And in the case of jerk vs. jerk professor punches College Republican at a counterprotest:

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8763

Professor Canin managed to also push an ASI (student government) student [who was] trying to break up the scuffle

"Thanks for the free tuition for this kid and every other kid I have!" Parents of said student.

Kronk is not lawsuit happy, but a professor/teacher laying hands on a student, college or otherwise, brings it out of me. Control yourself, moron.

**jasper76**

Peregrine wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
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.

This would be a much more compelling argument if we weren't facing a parade of bad decision after bad decision. Letting the other side screw up because you only want to oppose some of their bad decisions is not a good way to run the country.

The pre-Trump Republicans did the same thing to themselves with their staunch opposition to Obama. They came across as dysfunctional and hyperventilating

The difference is that opposition to Obama was mostly based on criticism that was wildly exaggerated at best, and blatant tinfoil hattery at worst. Obama faced obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism, even when doing rather centrist stuff that was well within the bounds of mainstream policy. Opposition to Trump is based on the fact that he keeps doing spectacularly bad things, far beyond the bounds of what is normal in politics.

To be fair, Obama ran on a platform that was sincerely opposed by the Republicans, particularly on universal healthcare, which was pursued and ultimately warped into the ACA with no Republican support at all IIRC. Now we have Trump who ran on a platform that was sincerely opposed by the Democrats, for better or worse he is delivering on his platform, and many Democrats are also pursuing an obstructionist course to the extent they even have any power to obstruct. I'm not even commenting on whether the objects of the new obstructionism are worth fighting against, just that iI don't think it will play well in Presidential politics. In other words if Elizabeth Warren or people like her want to President one day, I think they are working against themselves by pursuing obstructionist politics.

The way I read the tea leaves is that voters generally want a functional, non-obstructed government capable of accomplishing things, rather than the dysfunction we've had for the last eight years due to the Obama/GOP stalemate. If Democrats want to go down the obstructionist route, it may play well in progressive strongholds, but I do not see it playing well in Presidential politics.

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:

The difference is that opposition to Obama was mostly based on criticism that was wildly exaggerated at best, and blatant tinfoil hattery at worst. Obama faced obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism, even when doing rather centrist stuff that was well within the bounds of mainstream policy. Opposition to Trump is based on the fact that he keeps doing spectacularly bad things, far beyond the bounds of what is normal in politics.

bs. When gak had to get done, they all played ball... see the Omnibus funding bills every fething year.

It's only when gak gets partisan... Obama and Democrats were never that enthused to actually work with their counter-parts.

Thus, the GOP became the stick on the mud in order to mitigate Obama/Democrats progressive agenda.

Therefore, Obama was relegated to using his pens & phone powah to effect change throughout the Executive branch. Which worked whilst Obama was in office.

Now? It all can be undone by Trumpo's use of his pens and phone powah.

That's why Progressives are losing their gak.

**Peregrine**

jasper76 wrote:
The way I read the tea leaves is that voters generally want a functional, non-obstructed government capable of accomplishing things, rather than the dysfunction we've had for the last eight years due to the Obama/GOP stalemate.

This theory would seem to have trouble explaining the fact that the republican obstructionism was rewarded with a major win in 2016.

**reds8n**

8 years.
Ouch.

No issues with the prosecution as such but 8 years ?!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html?_r=1

MERCED, Calif. — Jeff Marchini and others in the Central Valley here bet their farms on the election of Donald J. Trump. His message of reducing regulations and taxes appealed to this Republican stronghold, one of Mr. Trump’s strongest bases of support in the state.

As for his promises about cracking down on illegal immigrants, many assumed Mr. Trump’s pledges were mostly just talk. But two weeks into his administration, Mr. Trump has signed executive orders that have upended the country’s immigration laws. Now farmers here are deeply alarmed about what the new policies could mean for their workers, most of whom are unauthorized, and the businesses that depend on them.

it's like your actions have consequences.. who knew !?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5?il=0

In his first call as president with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call.

When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said.

Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said.

The White House declined to comment. It referred Reuters to the official White House account issued after the Jan. 28 call, which did not mention the discussion about New START.

It has not been previously reported that Trump had conveyed his doubt about New START to Putin in the hour-long call.

New START gives both countries until February 2018 to reduce their deployed strategic nuclear warheads to no more than 1,550, the lowest level in decades. It also limits deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers.

During a debate in the 2016 presidential election, Trump said Russia had "outsmarted" the United States with the treaty, which he called "START-Up." He asserted incorrectly then that it had allowed Russia to continue to produce nuclear warheads while the United States could not.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he supported the treaty during his Senate confirmation hearings.

During the hearings Tillerson said it was important for the United States to "stay engaged with Russia, hold them accountable to commitments made under the New START and also ensure our accountability as well."

Two of the people who described the conversation were briefed by current administration officials who read detailed notes taken during the call. One of the two was shown portions of the notes. A third source was also briefed on the call.

Reuters has not reviewed the notes taken of the call, which are classified.

The Kremlin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

CONCERNS OVER PHONE CALLS

The phone call with Putin has added to concerns that Trump is not adequately prepared for discussions with foreign leaders.

Typically, before a telephone call with a foreign leader, a president receives a written in-depth briefing paper drafted by National Security Council staff after consultations with the relevant agencies, including the State Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies, two former senior officials said.

Just before the call, the president also usually receives an oral "pre-briefing" from his national security adviser and top subject-matter aide, they said.

Trump did not receive a briefing from Russia experts with the NSC and intelligence agencies before the Putin call, two of the sources said. Reuters was unable to determine if Trump received a briefing from his national security adviser Michael Flynn.

In the phone call, the Russian leader raised the possibility of reviving talks on a range of disputes and suggested extending New START, the sources said.

New START can be extended for another five years, beyond 2021, by mutual agreement. Unless they agree to do that or negotiate new cuts, the world's two biggest nuclear powers would be freed from the treaty's limits, potentially setting the stage for a new arms race.

New START was ratified by the U.S. Senate in December 2010 by a vote of 71 to 26. Thirteen Republican senators joined all of the Senate’s Democrats in voting for the treaty, although Republican opponents derided it as naive.

The call with Putin was one of several with foreign leaders where Trump has turned to denounce deals negotiated by previous administrations on trade, acceptance of refugees and arms control.

In a phone call with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Trump questioned an agreement reached by the Obama administration to accept 1,250 refugees now being held by Australia in offshore detention centers.

Good times.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
bs. When gak had to get done, they all played ball... see the Omnibus funding bills every fething year.

You mean the funding bills that the republican party obstructed until the last possible moment, or even past the last possible moment, for partisan political gain?

#AlternativeFacts

Thus, the GOP became the stick on the mud in order to mitigate Obama/Democrats progressive agenda.

You mean Obama's center-left kind-of-progressive agenda. And that's the key difference here. Obama did things that conservatives disagreed with. Trump is doing things that go beyond the limits of competent governance. You'll note that when Trump picked someone who was qualified for the job even if he wasn't the person the democrats would have picked (Mattis) the confirmation process was pretty straightforward and a lot of democrats voted to approve him, even giving a special exception to one of the job requirements in the process. Contrast this with the republicans, who openly declared "Obama is not allowed to appoint a supreme court justice" before Obama had even announced a nominee.

That's why Progressives are losing their gak.

No, it's because Trump is doing his absolute best to win the "worst president in history" title and it's not even a month into his term. The real issue is not "progressives losing their gak", it's the fact that conservatives aren't outraged about things like the DeVos debacle.

**LordofHats**

I honestly think the only way to think any Republican (not just Trump any Republican) politician isn't serious about cracking down on illegal migrants and the businesses that hire them is to be blind, deaf, and dumb (alternatively some serious clinging

).

**jasper76**

Peregrine wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
The way I read the tea leaves is that voters generally want a functional, non-obstructed government capable of accomplishing things, rather than the dysfunction we've had for the last eight years due to the Obama/GOP stalemate.

This theory would seem to have trouble explaining the fact that the republican obstructionism was rewarded with a major win in 2016.

Well, it at least could be a little more complicated than that. At the top, I don't think the GOP won at all. I believe they were defeated utterly, even humiliated, as traditional GOP-style conservatism the form of Cruz, Rubio, Bush, et al. was rejected in favor of Trumpism, a pretty sharp break from conservatism. Remember Trump was the ultimate outsider, and the GOP establishment was firmly against his candidacy.

Downstream, I wonder if GOP politicians just rode the Trump wave in through party-line voting. Or perhaps people intentionally voted them inin order to give Trump a more united government to work with. Maybe they thought that obstructionism was bad, but progressivism was worse. Or maybe I'm way off the mark.

My point on this tangent has been about Presidential politics. I really do think that Trump enjoyed success in no small part because he ran against the obstructionistism in the last Congress (this was a talking point in the debates), and many saw in him a departure from the obstructionist and unproductive tactics employed by Mitch McConnell and others. Again, I may be off the mark. Probably a Trump voter would be best suited to confirm or deny my theory here.

**Kanluwen**

reds8n wrote:

8 years.
Ouch.

No issues with the prosecution as such but 8 years ?!

And zero years for the election officials who registered her, most likely.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html?_r=1

MERCED, Calif. — Jeff Marchini and others in the Central Valley here bet their farms on the election of Donald J. Trump. His message of reducing regulations and taxes appealed to this Republican stronghold, one of Mr. Trump’s strongest bases of support in the state.

As for his promises about cracking down on illegal immigrants, many assumed Mr. Trump’s pledges were mostly just talk. But two weeks into his administration, Mr. Trump has signed executive orders that have upended the country’s immigration laws. Now farmers here are deeply alarmed about what the new policies could mean for their workers, most of whom are unauthorized, and the businesses that depend on them.

it's like your actions have consequences.. who knew !?

Good. Farm industries get far too many subsidies anyways, considering most of the people like that are also "Rah rah rah don't let the <insert ethnic group here> just sit around and claim welfare!".

**whembly**

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
bs. When gak had to get done, they all played ball... see the Omnibus funding bills every fething year.

You mean the funding bills that the republican party obstructed until the last possible moment, or even past the last possible moment, for partisan political gain?

#AlternativeFacts

You mean the fact that the GOP tried to pass a traditional GOP budget, but were consistently shunned because it's easier for Democrats to use it as their talking points?

Thus, the GOP became the stick on the mud in order to mitigate Obama/Democrats progressive agenda.

You mean Obama's center-left kind-of-progressive agenda.

No. I mean solid, almost leftist progressive agenda. Far cry of any centristism...

And that's the key difference here. Obama did things that conservatives disagreed with.

True... thus the rise of the Tea Party and Democrats getting curbstomped at the mid-terms.

Trump is doing things that go beyond the limits of competent governance.

Remains to be seen...

You'll note that when Trump picked someone who was qualified for the job even if he wasn't the person the democrats would have picked (Mattis) the confirmation process was pretty straightforward and a lot of democrats voted to approve him, even giving a special exception to one of the job requirements in the process.

Good for them. Can't see how objectionable Mattis would be...

Contrast this with the republicans, who openly declared "Obama is not allowed to appoint a supreme court justice" before Obama had even announced a nominee.

Boy... this is a sore point eh? Yeah... I'm surprised The Turtle's 'The Biden Rule' gambit worked too.

That's why Progressives are losing their gak.

No, it's because Trump is doing his absolute best to win the "worst president in history" title and it's not even a month into his term.

Sure does seem like it... eh? At least they're showing that they're learning on the job and slowing down the EO rush... give 'em credit for that at least.

The real issue is not "progressives losing their gak", it's the fact that conservatives aren't outraged about things like the DeVos debacle.

Sure... DeVos is such a horrible candidate....

God forbid you'd want an agency head to has championed school choice (who was once praised by Cory Booker) and donated money to various causes... I mean, all this acrimony couldn't be about the National Teacher's Union lobbying against her... no siree.

**Vaktathi**

Wait, are we actually going to argue that all the opposition to devos is all just a ploy from a teachers union and not because she's a genuinely terrible candidate who had probably the most embarrassing confirmation hearing we've ever seen?

**whembly**

Vaktathi wrote:
Wait, are we actually going to argue that all the opposition to devos is all just a ploy from a teachers union and not because she's a genuinely terrible candidate who had probably the most embarrassing confirmation hearing we've ever seen?

Pretty much...

The Teacher's Union pressured the 2 GOP senators...that much was obvious.

This goes to show that the Democrat is going all in on obstructionism to placate their base... (now where did I hear that before... mmm?

)

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
You mean the fact that the GOP tried to pass a traditional GOP budget, but were consistently shunned because it's easier for Democrats to use it as their talking points?

#AlternativeHistory

Remains to be seen...

Not really. He's already gone beyond the bounds of competent governance.

Good for them. Can't see how objectionable Mattis would be...

And that's exactly the point. Mattis wasn't the guy the democrats wanted, but it was pretty clear that he does have the basic competence to do the job he was being appointed to do. And so he was considered fairly, and quickly confirmed (with many democrats voting to approve him). There was no blanket refusal to consider him just because he's Trump's guy. The obstructionism was saved for Trump's picks (like DeVos) who were obviously terrible choices and deserved to be rejected on their own merits (or lack thereof).

Obama's supreme court pick wasn't the guy the republicans wanted, but it was pretty clear that he does have the basic competence to do the job he was being appointed to do. But the republicans refused to consider him, on a blanket policy of "Obama is not allowed to appoint a justice" that had nothing to do with the merits of the individual pick.

Do you honestly not see a difference between the two situations?

Boy... this is a sore point eh? Yeah... I'm surprised The Turtle's 'The Biden Rule' gambit worked too.

Ah yes, more of that #AlternativeHistory. The "Biden Rule" was to delay the nomination until after the election, not until the next president took office. IOW, the current president would still get to do it, just in late november instead of in the middle of campaign season. Whether or not you agree with the "Biden Rule" it's incredibly dishonest to pretend that the republican obstructionism in 2016 was nothing more than a continuation of the same rule.

God forbid you'd want an agency head to has championed school choice (who was once praised by Cory Booker) and donated money do various causes... I mean, all this acrimony couldn't be about the National Teacher's Union lobbying against her... no siree.

Did you see her confirmation hearings? She's completely unqualified for the job even without considering her "abolish public schools in favor of MOAR JESUS" ideological positions. The campaign donations wouldn't be a fatal flaw if she was otherwise qualified, but when it's the only thing she seems to offer as a candidate for the job it makes a joke out of that whole "drain the swamp" thing.

**Dreadwinter**

whembly wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Wait, are we actually going to argue that all the opposition to devos is all just a ploy from a teachers union and not because she's a genuinely terrible candidate who had probably the most embarrassing confirmation hearing we've ever seen?

Pretty much...

The Teacher's Union pressured the 2 GOP senators...that much was obvious.

This goes to show that the Democrat is going all in on obstructionism to placate their base... (now where did I hear that before... mmm? )

Except for when they did not obstruct a very reasonable appointee that was put forward. In fact, they pushed that appointee through pretty quick. All we get from you is a "good for them". But when they try to stop what is considered an absolutely awful candidate by doing their jobs and due diligence, it is "OBSTRUCTION!" We have no better example of your political bias here.

Listen, I get that you think politics is a blood sport and as long as your team is drawing blood, you are all for it. I mean, you keep bringing up this "Biden Rule" even though we have proven that it is a bunch of gak, multiple times. This is an example of you bringing up the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over despite people shutting you down and showing you why you are wrong. But you have to start holding your "team" accountable for their actions instead of falling in line.

**whembly**

Guys how does the majority work?

I get that you're disappointed... I really do.

And yes, this *is* a political blood sport.

Always has been.

EDIT: you haven't proven diddly squat to refute the Biden Rule. Unless, you truly believe Biden was talking out of his ass...

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Guys how does the majority work?

I get that you're disappointed... I really do.

Ah the good old "get over it!" You mean how the Republican party just "go over" Obama's presidency?

And yes, this *is* a political blood sport.

Always has been.

Lol. I'll agree it hasn't always been chocolate and roses, but to act like the partisan arms race that has happened is normal ignores history to an arming degree.

And, do you honestly think that is a good thing? That parties put winning elections over the well-being of the nation and people is normal and acceptable?

EDIT: you haven't proven diddly squat to refute the Biden Rule. Unless, you truly believe Biden was talking out of his ass...

So then tell us, what is the "Biden Rule", and how does it relate to this instance? I'm interested to here

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
Guys how does the majority work?

Apparently when Your Team is in power the majority gets to do whatever they want, and anything less is excessive obstructionism.

EDIT: you haven't proven diddly squat to refute the Biden Rule. Unless, you truly believe Biden was talking out of his ass...

Oh FFS. Do you honestly think that nobody has ever looked up what the "Biden Rule" is, and what his actual words were? Biden said that the nomination should be postponed until after the election, not until the next president takes office. There's a huge difference between "we'll consider your nomination, but not until late november" and "we won't consider your nomination no matter what". And it's incredibly dishonest to keep acting like the two are equivalent.

**Prestor Jon**

Easy E 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.

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

Taxes are made way harder by people than they really are. Most people should just do a standard deduction and go from there. It is dead simple then. It takes less than an hour. Most people are simply buying/hiring people for convenience/security rather than need.

It is only complicated when the standard deduction can not be used, but that does not apply to the VAST majority of citizens. Therefore, simplifying the tax code is more smoke and mirrors to shift the burden.

Itemizing your deductions can be better than taking the standard deduction. I file our joint return and it's pretty simple, the W-2s from my wife and I, Itemized deductions and child care deduction. If I was single and renting the standard deduction would probably be the best way to go but with mortgage interest it's better to itemize.

**Compel**

Thank Bob for PAYE I never have to worry about filing one of those darned things.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Guys how does the majority work?

I get that you're disappointed... I really do.

Ah the good old "get over it!" You mean how the Republican party just "go over" Obama's presidency?

'I won'.

Don't like it? Engage the political process!

You should be participating, or clamoring for the next generation of Democrat politicians.

YES! HAVE YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE TEA PARTY! (would that be #TheResistence ???)

And yes, this *is* a political blood sport.

Always has been.

Lol. I'll agree it hasn't always been chocolate and roses, but to act like the partisan arms race that has happened is normal ignores history to an arming degree.

And, do you honestly think that is a good thing? That parties put winning elections over the well-being of the nation and people is normal and acceptable?

To be sure, the two parties are more polarized than before, so the issues are more apparent.

Here's the DW-nomiate scores in the last Congress, that I think i'll be much of the same in this Congress:

Spoiler:

So, we're going to see more of the same...

If the GOP don't do anything to Obamacare in the next two years, there's going to be some bloodletting that's for sure...

EDIT: you haven't proven diddly squat to refute the Biden Rule. Unless, you truly believe Biden was talking out of his ass...

So then tell us, what is the "Biden Rule", and how does it relate to this instance? I'm interested to here

Biden said:
"...it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
The Turtle™, used this to justify NOT have any hearings until after the November election by making it a campaign issue so that 'the voters can have a say'.

If you object to the Turtle to making it a campaign issue... by all means. Maybe this'll now be 'The Mitchell Rule' from hence forward. (as was a success)

Logically, had Clinton won I'm sure the GOP would've rather have Garland than whomever Clinton would've picked.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Peregrine wrote:
whembly wrote:
Guys how does the majority work?

Apparently when Your Team is in power the majority gets to do whatever they want, and anything less is excessive obstructionism.

But when your team is in power, everything is all right.

Right?

EDIT: you haven't proven diddly squat to refute the Biden Rule. Unless, you truly believe Biden was talking out of his ass...

Oh FFS. Do you honestly think that nobody has ever looked up what the "Biden Rule" is, and what his actual words were? Biden said that the nomination should be postponed until after the election, not until the next president takes office. There's a huge difference between "we'll consider your nomination, but not until late november" and "we won't consider your nomination no matter what". And it's incredibly dishonest to keep acting like the two are equivalent.

See my post above.