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.
cuda1179 wrote: Can we all stop pretending that Gerrymandering is something that only Republicans do? Both sides do this and it's despicable.
I don't think anyone is disputing that, but rather simply acknowledging that the current state of Gerrymandering is heavily in the Republican's favor.
Also, what would it take for an incumbent President to NOT receive the nomination of his own party for a reelection? Let's just say, hypothetically, Republicans realize that Trump is a giant pile of poo. They back someone else (preferably a sane person with qualifications) and the Democrats do the same. Would we have a three-way race?
If I'm not mistaken, the incumbent president doesn't just get to automatically be the nominee, they're just traditionally not often challenged because they've got too big an incumbent advantage to risk in a general an aren't unpopular enough within their own party to challenge. If this occurred, then Trump would face a primary challenge and would have to defend his election slot during the primary season, and, if defeated, would have to run as an independent to retain the office.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
cuda1179 wrote: Can we all stop pretending that Gerrymandering is something that only Republicans do? Both sides do this and it's despicable.
Both sides do it, but right now Republicans are gaining a much greater advantage. After all you just have to look at the House elections. In 2008 Democrats won the total vote in the house by 13 million, they barely gained any seats at all. In 2012 Democrats won the total vote by more than a million votes, and Republicans still maintained a majority of more than 30 seats.
That said, this isn't because Republicans are somehow dirtier, or smarter about how they are dirty. Everyone knows how to draw a line to put all your opponent's voters in a single seat or two. This issue is more that it is easier to gerrymander urban areas, and many urban areas naturally gerrymander themselves, particularly in the inner city.
All that said, the next census is 2020, and so whoever does well in the next election will get the power to pick and choose who gets disenfranchised next time around.
Also, what would it take for an incumbent President to NOT receive the nomination of his own party for a reelection?
This was all the rage for a while there. Reagan ran against Ford in '76. Ted Kennedy ran against Carter in '80. Buchanan ran against Bush in '92.
Notice that in each case the challenger lost and the incumbent remained, but also in every case the incumbent then went on to get absolutely smashed in the general election. Those are also the only three incumbents who lost an election going back to Hoover. So what you see is a pattern where a beleaguered incumbent is seen as very likely to lose in the general, so an opportunist in the party takes a shot at 'okay he is the president but I have a chance of being the next president'. Pretty likely Trump will be in that boat in 2020
Let's just say, hypothetically, Republicans realize that Trump is a giant pile of poo. They back someone else (preferably a sane person with qualifications) and the Democrats do the same. Would we have a three-way race?
There's nothing hypothetical about Republicans realising Trump is a giant pile of poo. That's known. The only issue is whether Republicans continue to pretend it ain't so, right now because he can deliver their legislative agenda, and down the track because Republicans might lose more by challenging him (win or lose the primary) than if they just let him run again.
If Trump was ousted, then loyalty certainly wouldn't cause him refuse to run. He doesn't give a gak about the Republican party. But I doubt any major Republican will run another campaign. Afterall, if they didn't do it in 2016, what's changed?
Also, there's a chance Trump might not even chase a second term. He might just declare victory and walk away. Afterall, I don't think the job has given him anything like the ego boost he was hoping for. He seems a bit shocked about all the work people keep asking him to do. And hey, if he retires early and keeps his 100% winning record
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
And funny thing is...Some of that money goes to Trump's business. Well only thing he cares is lining up his own pockets with money so no surprises there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So, does anyone have a clue what happened in Sweden the day before yesterday according to Trump's speech yesterday? I certainly don't, and no one else seems to either.
Lots! There was technical issues with song contests singer which almost prevented him(or was it her?) winning the contest! The horror! The horror! Or howabout moose trying to mate with statue of moose? Imagine his dissapointment when he realized it wasn't the real deal! Oh the horror of it! Worth for president of the united states to comment on it!
I think few would want her to. Much like Romney, McCain, Gore, etc, those bolts have been shot.
So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.
Standard Disclaimer: Because I think Clinton was a bad candidate, does not mean I think Trump was a good one.
She was good candinate only in comparison to Trump who was so horrible candinate that virtually anybody would be preferable to him. Frankly wouldn't be sure which one I would have prefered. Trump or Hussein...Would have been tough one. With Trump vs Clinton? Easy. Clinton. For all her faults she was still lightyears ahead of Trump who's obvious disaster.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 06:50:51
I think there's a good chance Trump will get bored of the demands of the job within a year or two, declare his job is done, and resign in favour of Pence.
This is an interesting piece looking at a couple of natural experiments in fiscal policy. Kansas and Wisconsin have put in place low tax, free market policies to try and drive growth. In Kansas Gov. Brownback even called it the great experiment. So people have naturally looked at other similar states, to see if either state managed to produce high levels of growth.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-10/still-seeking-growth-from-tax-cuts-and-union-busting
Comparing Kansas and Nebraska;
“ Kansas lagged its northern neighbor in job growth. Kansas continues to lag Nebraska in terms of the percentage of residents with jobs, as it’s done for the past 25 years. And in terms of median income, the Brownback years haven’t done much to reverse the lead that Nebraska opened up in the mid-2000s”
“So Brownback’s big experiment looks as if it has done very little to boost the state’s economy. Its only real effect has been on the state’s finances -- the tax cuts have created a large and growing state deficit.”
Comparing;
“Lots of progressives like to claim that Minnesota is beating its neighbor, while free-marketers claim the opposite. But a sober comparison shows that the two have done about the same. Noah Williams of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has a set of slides comparing the two along a wide range of economic outcomes -- employment, income, urbanization, dynamism and population changes. On all the measures that Williams looks at, the states have performed very similarly since Walker came to power.”
The article concludes;
“So the big conclusion here is that free-market policy reforms just don’t seem to have a huge impact. Along every dimension of comparison, the two free-market states look similar to their more interventionist neighbors. A reasonable hypothesis is that tax rates, anti-union laws and other state-level economic policies just aren’t nearly as powerful or important as people in the political arena make them out to be. Other factors beyond the control of politicians -- economic geography, for example, or the rise and fall of specific industries -- are probably more important.”
This doesn’t mean lower taxes or less intervention is wrong. Obviously we all want to pay less tax. But I think it does show that selling these kinds of reforms on the promise that they will drive growth that will spread the benefits from the tax cuts evenly, or that such growth will prevent a deficit are plainly wrong.
Of course, this happens to be exactly what the federal Republican party is trying to sell you on right now.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there's a good chance Trump will get bored of the demands of the job within a year or two, declare his job is done, and resign in favour of Pence.
There are a lot of parallels between Trump and Palin. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 08:55:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there's a good chance Trump will get bored of the demands of the job within a year or two, declare his job is done, and resign in favour of Pence.
- Trump will never get through the debates
- Trump will never get the nomination
- Trump will never win
- Trump will quit
Trump will unify the country.
Trump will provide solid governance, and leadership.
Trump is a respected world leader.
Trump will make America great again.
We all have our fantasy wish lists.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: I think there's a good chance Trump will get bored of the demands of the job within a year or two, declare his job is done, and resign in favour of Pence.
- Trump will never get through the debates
- Trump will never get the nomination
- Trump will never win
- Trump will quit
I agree with that. It's pure wishlisting to think that will happen - and we shouldn't rely on wishlisting, ever. After all, we all know how it ended with these four "statements" said before.
Fact is, Trump is there and the rest of the world will have to deal with him, like it or not.
According to insiders, his weird ass rally this weekend was pretty much aranged simply because he was bored and hates not having cheering crowds telling him he's awesome.
I think that may be an example of hindsight bias, i.e. that since Trump now can be seen to have succeeded so far, he will continue to succeed. However all political careers end in failure, it is only a question of when.
Trump's success in the campaign phase helps explain why he is still basically operating in campaign mode, like last weekend's rally.
The problem for him is that being president is not the same as campaigning for the election. As Trump can't actually cope with the real job, he is deflecting things on to continued campaigning, government by Tweet, and blaming internal enemies such as the press and the security services.
Can the US government operate successfully in that mode?
As time goes on and Trump exits his 100 days honeymoon, I should think even hardcore supporters will begin to desert him if his style of government is unsuccessful.
Of course the point there is that the hardcore Trumpers think he is being successful at the moment. Maybe they will still think he is successful if in three months time all he has done is sign a bunch of difficult to carry out EOs and blame all his problems on the media and security services.
As time goes on and Trump exits his 100 days honeymoon, I should think even hardcore supporters will begin to desert him if his style of government is unsuccessful.
Of course the point there is that the hardcore Trumpers think he is being successful at the moment. Maybe they will still think he is successful if in three months time all he has done is sign a bunch of difficult to carry out EOs and blame all his problems on the media and security services.
Sure, but I wouldn't just count on Trump or his supporter's good will alone. The lesson from this election is that people really should be careful about what they think would happen, and then be left completely stunned when it didn't go as they expected.
Some things may happen in the future, or not. Other things may happen no one thought it would be possible. We are in a Age of Uncertainty - maybe for the best, maybe for the worst.
The only thing for sure is that just staying outside of this and doing nothing while wishing everything will kinda solve itself, isn't the way to do things now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 11:25:51
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Turns out Trump based his comments about Sweden on a "documentary" (and I use that word quite wrongly) broadcast by Fox News.
Lügenpresse indeed...
Mmm. The almighty leader of the free world can't see the difference between 'this thing happened last night' and 'I saw something on TV about this thing last night'.
Gotta love a president that demonizes "fake news", and then in the same press conference quotes the same stuff as gospel.
What the hell, man?
And why is our president still holding campaign rallies? You were awesome at it, granted. You have to move on and be president!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 12:15:51
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
As part of my broader "don't just bitch about gak on the internet" campaign, I spend one day a year as Nurse of the Day for the Oklahoma legislature. I spend part of the day sitting in the first aid station with the paid staff handing out Tylenol (although a couple years ago I got to send a legislature off to the hospital with chest pain after a more heated session in the state House). But one of the main benefits of being Nurse of the Day is that you are granted the "full privilege of the floor" for the House and the Senate, which means that I get access to the chambers during the session and get to spend the day lobbying for issues related to public health and the profession of nursing in Oklahoma. It's always a fun day and it's always good to sit in on committees and hearings and watch the debates from the floor while trying to push legislation that is important to us nurses in this state.
I have mentally prepared myself for spending the day in our Republican controlled legislature and for the third year in a row I have managed to dress for the occasion:
I just hope that none of the Senators try to tell me the story of Darth Trumpus the Yellow.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
jasper76 wrote: So if few would want her to run again, maybe it's time to stop pretending she was such a good candidate.
You've tried this argument before, I've explained its failing before. Then you spring up again, repeating the argument. fething groundhog day...See the difference? Okay, so now you can stop asking that question?...it does mean you can stop asking your question
Dude. With all due respect, get over yourself. Just because you have provided a response to a question, it does not follow at all that your answer was satisfying, and that I am not interested in what other people besides yourself have to say.
jasper76 wrote: I think many if not most people in this country want a smaller, more efficient, less wasteful federal government, and don't want morality being legislated from either the right or the left.
The problem is this is rhetoric, not reality. Everyone wants smaller government, except for where government benefits them personally. Go ask a farmer if he wants small government, and of course he'll say yes, but not to his corn subsidies. Go ask a 55 year old if he'd like smaller government, and see if he still agrees after you tell him smaller government means no medicare when he retires, and no government guaranteeing his social security. There's always a crop of young libertarians on college, ask them how many of them went and took out personal loans for their tuition, instead of government underwritten sutdent loans. See how long the small business owner remains in support of your small government proposal after you tell him it means his accelerated depreciation tax write off will have to go.
This isn't to say government can't be smaller, there are plenty of areas in which can argue very effectively that government should reduced or removed entirely. The issue is that government isn't just about big and small, but about the details of each individual thing it does. 'Smaller government' doesn't actually mean anything. 'Private retirement plans', no more agricultural subsidies, no government loans for college, no more line item tax incentives... those are smaller government proposals that actually mean something, and they are much harder things to sell.
Just because individuals or interest groups want goodies at the expense of the tax payer does not necessarily make those goodies good policy.
It would be awesome if I could deduct my 40K hobby expenses from my taxes. I'd like that alot. But it doesn't mean that it would be good policy for the taxpayers to subsidize my hobby.
Kindly note that I am not attacking your line items specifically, but making a general point. Some of your examples, I actually support, at least in principle.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 14:01:50
Kilkrazy wrote: I think that may be an example of hindsight bias, i.e. that since Trump now can be seen to have succeeded so far, he will continue to succeed. However all political careers end in failure, it is only a question of when.
Trump's success in the campaign phase helps explain why he is still basically operating in campaign mode, like last weekend's rally.
The problem for him is that being president is not the same as campaigning for the election. As Trump can't actually cope with the real job, he is deflecting things on to continued campaigning, government by Tweet, and blaming internal enemies such as the press and the security services.
Can the US government operate successfully in that mode?
As time goes on and Trump exits his 100 days honeymoon, I should think even hardcore supporters will begin to desert him if his style of government is unsuccessful.
Of course the point there is that the hardcore Trumpers think he is being successful at the moment. Maybe they will still think he is successful if in three months time all he has done is sign a bunch of difficult to carry out EOs and blame all his problems on the media and security services.
Trump supporters will believe he is successful regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe. Any doubts will be slogged off on the biased media and fake news. This is the current platform- total snake oil. Since these politics are now so tied into identity, Trumpsters absolutely cannot admit the truth or risk seeing themselves as manipulated dupes.
Fortunately, Trump's hard core base is relatively small. What is more dangerous is that the GOP, and conservatives as a whole, have largely traded any shred of intellectual honesty and integrity for political expediency. They are playing a dangerous game and it will remain to be seen if a splinter faction (such as McCain) will grow to oppose Trump if his popularity continues to remain low.
McCain is not a splinter faction at all. He is just as spineless as every other Republican. He voted yes for DeVos, and accepted every one of Trump's other putrid cabinet candidates (Mattis is of course excluded from the "putrid" adjective).
McCain talks a big game, but he does not act accordingly. I'll respect him when his party line vote percentage is less than 90%.
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
Trump supporters will believe he is successful regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe. Any doubts will be slogged off on the biased media and fake news. This is the current platform- total snake oil. Since these politics are now so tied into identity, Trumpsters absolutely cannot admit the truth or risk seeing themselves as manipulated dupes.
On the other side of the coin, hardcore Trump detractors will believe he is a failure regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe.
Trump supporters will believe he is successful regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe. Any doubts will be slogged off on the biased media and fake news. This is the current platform- total snake oil. Since these politics are now so tied into identity, Trumpsters absolutely cannot admit the truth or risk seeing themselves as manipulated dupes.
On the other side of the coin, hardcore Trump detractors will believe he is a failure regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe.
We'll see if that's true as soon as he does something that doesn't fail.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Indiewire
It’s Official: Trump Wants to Kill PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts
The programs on the chopping block amount to 0.0625% of the budget.
Michael Nordine
Feb 19, 2017 4:44 pm
@slowbeard
Confirming what many have feared for months, the White House budget office has included both the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on a drafted list of programs to be put on the chopping block by the Trump administration.
READ MORE: Independent Movie Theatres Nationwide Will Screen ‘1984’ to Protest Donald Trump
A report in the New York Times notes that the list has yet to be finalized and could still change. It also calculates the total financial impact of defunding such programs as AmeriCorps and the Legal Services Corporation: $2.5 billion, or 0.0625% of a projected $4 trillion budget. “It’s sad in a way because those programs aren’t causing the deficit,” Steve Bell, formerly a staff director of the Senate Budget Committee and now part of the Bipartisan Policy Center, told the Times. “These programs don’t amount to a hill of beans.”
“The public wants to see agencies like the N.E.A. continue,” said Robert L. Lynch, head of the nonprofit group Americans for the Arts. “There is always a debate, but there has been agreement among Republicans and Democrats that funding for the arts is a good thing, and it has been kept in place.”
READ MORE: ‘The House That Jack Built’ Director Lars von Trier Says His Serial Killer Thriller Parallels Donald Trump’s Rise
The move is no doubt motivated the by Republicans’ well-known fiscal conservatism: Trump’s three consecutive weekend visits to Mar-a-Lago are a steal at just $10 million in taxpayer dollars, for instance, and the First Lady’s decision to live in Trump Tower rather than the White House is only estimated to cost twice the NEA’s budget per year.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 13:55:42
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
Trump supporters will believe he is successful regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe. Any doubts will be slogged off on the biased media and fake news. This is the current platform- total snake oil. Since these politics are now so tied into identity, Trumpsters absolutely cannot admit the truth or risk seeing themselves as manipulated dupes.
On the other side of the coin, hardcore Trump detractors will believe he is a failure regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe.
We'll see if that's true as soon as he does something that doesn't fail.
I think the Washington Post Editorial Board has taken a good tact here, especially given Trump's obvious obsession with how he is perceived by the media. They don't hold back when Trump is doing things they don't like, and they run their editorials accordingly. But when he does something they do like, they run an editorial praising him for it.
Verviedi wrote: McCain is not a splinter faction at all. He is just as spineless as every other Republican. He voted yes for DeVos, and accepted every one of Trump's other putrid cabinet candidates (Mattis is of course excluded from the "putrid" adjective).
McCain talks a big game, but he does not act accordingly. I'll respect him when his party line vote percentage is less than 90%.
Wake me up when McCain does anything of substance.
Verviedi wrote: McCain is not a splinter faction at all. He is just as spineless as every other Republican. He voted yes for DeVos, and accepted every one of Trump's other putrid cabinet candidates (Mattis is of course excluded from the "putrid" adjective).
McCain talks a big game, but he does not act accordingly. I'll respect him when his party line vote percentage is less than 90%.
Wake me up when McCain does anything of substance.
At least he goes against party lines when it comes to torture so give him some credit on that
Fine. This is me giving him credit for not being a soulless Rand-Jesus automaton. It's the world's smallest participation trophy. Congratulations, McCain, you agree with the majority of the rational populace on one issue.
Peregrine - If you like the army buy it, and don't worry about what one random person on the internet thinks.
I lost alot of respect for McCain when he endorsed Trump after Trump denigrated him specifically and publicly. I'm not saying he needed to endorse Johnson or Clinton or anyone else, but have some self-respect, man!
Trump supporters will believe he is successful regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe. Any doubts will be slogged off on the biased media and fake news. This is the current platform- total snake oil. Since these politics are now so tied into identity, Trumpsters absolutely cannot admit the truth or risk seeing themselves as manipulated dupes.
On the other side of the coin, hardcore Trump detractors will believe he is a failure regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe.
Has there been any results of the Trump administration so far, that you feel should have been met with praise?
.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 15:20:32
Trump supporters will believe he is successful regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe. Any doubts will be slogged off on the biased media and fake news. This is the current platform- total snake oil. Since these politics are now so tied into identity, Trumpsters absolutely cannot admit the truth or risk seeing themselves as manipulated dupes.
On the other side of the coin, hardcore Trump detractors will believe he is a failure regardless of his results because that is what they want to believe.
Has there been any results of the Trump administration so far, that you feel should have been met with praise?
.
I think some of his cabinet picks were very good, particularly DoD and Homeland Security. I believe the strong signals he's sent to US businesses that have become accustomed to abandoning US labor are a positive. I believe the ejection of Michael Flynn is a positive, but I suppose that's a wash because he never should have been appointed in the first place.
And I'm interested to see if his administration is able to come up with solid improvements to our immigration and refugee vetting practices. I think his desire to improve our practices in this area is appropriate to the modern threats our nation is facing from terrorism and the spread of anti-American ideology.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 15:33:25
