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.
What strong signals are those? That if you are going to move jobs to Mexico then he'll help negotiate you a tax cut in exchange for not moving quite so many?
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.
What exact issues do you have with the refugee vetting process?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 15:45:14
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
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.
Fair enough. Apart from the cabinet picks though, none of that is results.
"Strong signals" and "Desire to improve" might lead to results (for better or worse) but at the moment it's just hot air. No matter if we are supporters or detractors of Trump, I think we can agree that his results so far on the immigration front hasn't been great, with that half-arsed and improperly researched EO that were quickly put on hold by the courts.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 15:48:03
A Town Called Malus wrote: What strong signals are those? That if you are going to move jobs to Mexico then he'll help negotiate you a tax cut in exchange for not moving quite so many?
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.
What exact issues do you have with the refugee vetting process?
I think that when thorough vetting of an individual is impossible, we should take the most cautious approach possible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 15:50:16
Fair enough. Apart from the cabinet picks though, none of that is results.
"Strong signals" and "Desire to improve" might lead to results (for better or worse) but at the moment it's just hot air. No matter if we are supporters or detractors of Trump, I think we can agree that his results so far on the immigration front hasn't been great, with that half-arsed and improperly researched EO that were quickly put on hold by the courts.
Yes, I think the temporary travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed. I am also deeply concerned that Trump shares Obama's penchant for Executive Orders. I do not think government by fiat is the way to go or how this country was intended to operate.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 16:01:30
So since Trump has started campaigning for 2020 already, then they should hold off on the Supreme Court nominee until the election is done in 2020 right? Will of the people and all that
sebster wrote: 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;
“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
Good article Sebs.
The article claims the Wisconsin and Minnesota are doing about the same. However, the slides then tell a very different picture. Since 2011, Minnesota's Median income has boomed while Wisconsin's has not. 2011 is also about the time Walker launched is new budget plan that impacted collective bargaining. So you can see that after his policies, his state's median income failed to materialize any new wage growth, while Minnesota's has been booming. In the graph, Jan 1st 2010 the Median was MN- 56K and WI 54K, so about even. In 2015 they are at MN $68K and Wi 55K. So all that union busting netted Wisconsin 1K, while Minnesota has netted 12K more as the Median. To say they are doing about the same after Walker's policies took effect is false. Minnesota has clearly out-performed WI in wage growth.
In addition, Wisconsin has not managed to close the Employment to Population gap where Minnesota started with a substantial lead. The gap has remained fairly consistent with both states ebbing and flowing at the same time.
Yet, for some reason our Federal government (and electorate) wants to follow the lead of states like Wisconsin in policy matters instead of states like Minnesota. There is a word for that.... and it isn't complimentary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 16:07:43
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
And now Trump, because he can't admit that he's a narcissistic piece of work, is doubling down on attacking Sweden. My respect for people who voted this joke into the White House is rapidly diminishing by the minute.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Mattis may be the only saving grace in his administration... and I'm not even joking.
However, the new Sec of VA... what makes you think he's a good pick? I know next to nothing about him and the fact that much of what ails the VA, he was in the executive team (wasn't he #2 behind the Sec during Obama tenure?).
My "not horrible" so far:
SCOTUS nomination.
I think he's splendid... but, he may turn out to be a partisan monster... I absolutely hate it that we all have to pucker up our bums with these things...
Sometimes, I wonder that we all need to accept the partisan nature of the SCOTUS... and if so, if it's truly partisan, shouldn't the # of jurists be increased to mitigate a polarized bench? Not sure what the magic number needs to be...
The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
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.
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
There's checks and balances and then there's "anything you're for we're automatically against just for its own sake and will shut down the government over it".
/stillbitteraboutlosingajobovertheshutdown.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 16:33:34
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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now Trump, because he can't admit that he's a narcissistic piece of work, is doubling down on attacking Sweden. My respect for people who voted this joke into the White House is rapidly diminishing by the minute.
Is he really attacking us though, or just expressing sympathy for the horrors apparently inflicted upon us. Swedens own Bowling Green Massacre #neverforget #yesterdayinsweden
We'd never known about the incident ourselves unless the great and powerful Trump had illuminated us.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 16:52:35
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
There's checks and balances and then there's "anything you're for we're automatically against just for its own sake and will shut down the government over it".
/stillbitteraboutlosingajobovertheshutdown.
I feel your pain. My state (Illinois) has not had a budget for going on 3 years. July 1st will be three. These types of political stunts hurt far more than they help. I lost my job because funding for mental health was cut. My job put a "1 and done" rule in place for mistakes, because they couldn't afford the HR hours to retrain a person. Of course I made a small clerical error that they said they would have just retrained me on had there been a budget. Always nice to hear that when bring fired after a 12 shift. They also made sure I knew I could get unemployment for it. Such nice people.....
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now Trump, because he can't admit that he's a narcissistic piece of work, is doubling down on attacking Sweden. My respect for people who voted this joke into the White House is rapidly diminishing by the minute.
You had respect for people who voted this joke in?
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
There's checks and balances and then there's "anything you're for we're automatically against just for its own sake and will shut down the government over it".
/stillbitteraboutlosingajobovertheshutdown.
It's pathetic that people keep using "Checks and balances" as a defense of the joke that has been Congress.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 17:22:20
Watching the state legislature talk about taking away the power of cities and counties to pass laws regulating protected groups. Party of small government indeed.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now Trump, because he can't admit that he's a narcissistic piece of work, is doubling down on attacking Sweden. My respect for people who voted this joke into the White House is rapidly diminishing by the minute.
It was *this* story on FNC that he may have seen... a documentary, here's a snippet:
Do we have to go through the whole Sweden rape thing yet again?
Edit: and this doesn't even address the whole POTUS pretending a documentary he watched last night was the same as an actual attack happening last night.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 17:53:07
d-usa wrote: Do we need to modify our intelligence briefings to cover which documentaries on cable news networks yesterday were incorrect?
I think they just need to distill it down to an episode of Blues Clues (I would say Dora the Explorer, but Trump would get hopelessly lost on the immigrant on the screen).
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
There's checks and balances and then there's "anything you're for we're automatically against just for its own sake and will shut down the government over it".
/stillbitteraboutlosingajobovertheshutdown.
It's pathetic that people keep using "Checks and balances" as a defense of the joke that has been Congress.
@Kanlewin: Seeing as you have called me pathetic in a roundabout way, let me ask a couple honest questions in reply.
Do you believe that Congress should serve as a check against the power of the executive branch, or do you think Executive power should be exercised unchecked?
Do you believe that Congress should only act as a check against the Executive Branch when they agree with your personal politics, or should they follow their own consciences as elected members of their constituencies?
Do you believe government by Executive Order is a healthy way to govern?
I'm just trying to go a feel for the angle you're coming from, and what you believe the relationship between Congress and the Executive should be as regards the checks and balances described in the Constitution.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 18:39:55
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
There's checks and balances and then there's "anything you're for we're automatically against just for its own sake and will shut down the government over it".
/stillbitteraboutlosingajobovertheshutdown.
I feel your pain. My state (Illinois) has not had a budget for going on 3 years. July 1st will be three. These types of political stunts hurt far more than they help. I lost my job because funding for mental health was cut. My job put a "1 and done" rule in place for mistakes, because they couldn't afford the HR hours to retrain a person. Of course I made a small clerical error that they said they would have just retrained me on had there been a budget. Always nice to hear that when bring fired after a 12 shift. They also made sure I knew I could get unemployment for it. Such nice people.....
And now you are seeing what a populist and attack rhetoric gets us, is Madigan clean? No, but this is mostly Rauner's fault
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
There's checks and balances and then there's "anything you're for we're automatically against just for its own sake and will shut down the government over it".
/stillbitteraboutlosingajobovertheshutdown.
I feel your pain. My state (Illinois) has not had a budget for going on 3 years. July 1st will be three. These types of political stunts hurt far more than they help. I lost my job because funding for mental health was cut. My job put a "1 and done" rule in place for mistakes, because they couldn't afford the HR hours to retrain a person. Of course I made a small clerical error that they said they would have just retrained me on had there been a budget. Always nice to hear that when bring fired after a 12 shift. They also made sure I knew I could get unemployment for it. Such nice people.....
Thats...awful, sorry to hear about that.
Mine was with a defense contractor, I had interviewed, they were gonna make an offer once final HR approval/background check came through, I was getting ready to potentially move, and then the 2013 shutdown hit and that whole thing just died in process.
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.
Vaktathi wrote: The use of EO's by Obama was spurred by Congress refusing to do...anything, it was resorted to when one branch of the government essentially ceased operating as intended, but he issued fewer than W did, who in turn issued fewer than Clinton, who in turn issued fewer than Reagan, so it's not like Obama had a special penchant for rule by fiat over other administrations.
Congress refusing to do what the Executive wants is part of the reason why we have a Congress to begin with. Checks and balances and all that.
There's checks and balances and then there's "anything you're for we're automatically against just for its own sake and will shut down the government over it".
/stillbitteraboutlosingajobovertheshutdown.
It's pathetic that people keep using "Checks and balances" as a defense of the joke that has been Congress.
@Kanlewin: Seeing as you have called me pathetic, let me ask a couple honest questions in reply.
I called your argument pathetic, not you. There's an important difference there.
Do you believe that Congress should serve as a check against the power of the executive branch, or do you think Executive power should be exercised unchecked?
You literally just asked the same question in two different ways.
Sure, Congress should serve as a check against the power of the executive branch. However Congress' power should not be uncheckable nor should people like yourself be allowed to make such ridiculous arguments as "Congress was just serving as a check to the Executive branch" when called to task on the grandstanding nonsense that the current Republican held Congress has made a habit of.
Do you believe that Congress should only act as a check against the Executive Branch when they agree with your personal politics, or should they follow their own consciences as elected members of their constituencies?
I think that they shouldn't "follow their own consciences" on anything. They were elected to represent their constituencies, not special interest groups or to pander for favors.
Look at the ridiculousness that just happened with the current confirmation "hearings"(read: "We don't need to actually know anything"). Representatives shut down their phone lines, ignored letters, emails and the like while they were getting calls to NOT confirm people.
You really want to pretend that is "following their own consciences as elected members of their constituencies"? Because if you do, let me know right now and I'll just throw you on Ignore.
Do you believe government by Executive Order is a healthy way to govern?
No, but I also don't believe in obstructionism for obstructionism's sake. I don't believe in supporting representatives who have gone out of their way to align themselves with a party that requires willfully misinforming people and fearmongering to stay in power.
And most of all? I don't believe that ANY member of the Republican Party who has bent the knee to McConnell, Trump, or made an appeal of "the media's against us" should be allowed in office.
They have proven time and time again that the truth and facts are anathema to them. They have no business being in government.
I'm just trying to go a feel for the angle you're coming from, and what you believe the relationship between Congress and the Executive should be as regards the checks and balances described in the Constitution.
No, you're trying to play a wonderful little game that several Conservatives...sorry "Libertarians" I know like to play.
It's called "Break down the argument and try to make the other side appear hypocritical".
It's a very common tactic in "Gotcha!" style of arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/20 18:44:44
Kanluwen wrote: nor should people like yourself be allowed to make such ridiculous arguments as "Congress was just serving as a check to the Executive branch" when called to task on the grandstanding nonsense that the current Republican held Congress has made a habit of.
Pray tell, what do you mean by "people like me"? People who believe in checks and balances in government, or something else? Do you think moderators should eliminate my posts here on OT because you find them ridiculous, or do you think I should not be allowed to make arguments you find ridiculous in general? And how exactly should I be disallowed to make such arguments?
Look at the ridiculousness that just happened with the current confirmation "hearings"(read: "We don't need to actually know anything"). Representatives shut down their phone lines, ignored letters, emails and the like while they were getting calls to NOT confirm people.
You really want to pretend that is "following their own consciences as elected members of their constituencies"? Because if you do, let me know right now and I'll just throw you on Ignore.
I won't try and stop you.
And most of all? I don't believe that ANY member of the Republican Party who has bent the knee to McConnell, Trump, or made an appeal of "the media's against us" should be allowed in office.
They have proven time and time again that the truth and facts are anathema to them. They have no business being in government.
You really believe that elected officials don't belong in government if they are Republican and support McConnell and/or Trump? Who then do you think should occupy the positions that such Republicans are elected to? Democrats? Republican you personally find to be acceptable? No-one?
No, you're trying to play a wonderful little game that several Conservatives...sorry "Libertarians" I know like to play.
It might surprise you to know that I do not identify as a Conservative or a Libertarian, not even a "sorry Libertarian", whatever that means.
Lastly, I suggest to you that you are reading things in my posts that aren't there. All of your ideas seem to spring from my expression that I did not like Obama's use of Executive Orders, and I do not like that Trump is also deciding to govern by Executive Order, and I believe the founders were wise when they set up a system of checks and balances.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 19:08:47
Kanluwen wrote: nor should people like yourself be allowed to make such ridiculous arguments as "Congress was just serving as a check to the Executive branch" when called to task on the grandstanding nonsense that the current Republican held Congress has made a habit of.
Pray tell, what do you mean by "people like me"? People who believe in checks and balances in government, or something else? Do you think moderators should eliminate my posts here on OT because you find them ridiculous, or do you think I should not be allowed to make arguments you find ridiculous in general? And how exactly should I be disallowed to make such arguments?
It's pretty easy to figure out "what I mean".
ANYONE who has defended the garbage that the Republican led budget shenanigans, the constant addition of riders onto bills that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, the constant demonizing of the Left's protests while supporting crap like Kim Davis and the Malheur Wildlife Refuge takeover.
Look at the ridiculousness that just happened with the current confirmation "hearings"(read: "We don't need to actually know anything"). Representatives shut down their phone lines, ignored letters, emails and the like while they were getting calls to NOT confirm people.
You really want to pretend that is "following their own consciences as elected members of their constituencies"? Because if you do, let me know right now and I'll just throw you on Ignore.
I won't try and stop you.
Of course not, because that would take an actual argument to defend rather than just repeating talking points and acting the victim.
And most of all? I don't believe that ANY member of the Republican Party who has bent the knee to McConnell, Trump, or made an appeal of "the media's against us" should be allowed in office.
They have proven time and time again that the truth and facts are anathema to them. They have no business being in government.
You really believe that elected officials don't belong in government if they are Republican and support McConnell and/or Trump? Who then do you think should occupy the positions that such Republicans are elected to? Democrats? Republican you personally find to be acceptable? No-one?
Anyone who can constantly repeat "9/11, 9/11, 9/11" while stalling the Zadrogo Bill needs to be removed from office immediately. Anyone who can constantly talk about "respecting the troops" while letting the VA get to the sorry state it was? Removed from office immediately.
And let's, again, stop with the pretense that anything beyond "safe" voter redistricting keeps these schmucks in office.
No, you're trying to play a wonderful little game that several Conservatives...sorry "Libertarians" I know like to play.
It might surprise you to know that I do not identify as a Conservative or a Libertarian, not even a "sorry Libertarian", whatever that means.
It's a witty way of saying that many Conservatives, when called to task for supporting the circus that is their party, immediately attempt to correct you with "I'm a Libertarian".
Lastly, I suggest to you that you are reading things in my posts that aren't there. All of your ideas seem to spring from my expression that I did not like Obama's use of Executive Orders, and I do not like that Trump is also deciding to govern by Executive Order, and I believe the founders were wise when they set up a system of checks and balances.
The only criticisms you have made in this thread have been of Obama. Your arguments centrally go against the fact that he used Executive Orders to get around an obstructionist Congress and/or House.
I have not heard one criticism from you of the Republicans that refused to even CONSIDER Merrick Garland for the SCOTUS vacancy. Not one criticism from you of the budget grandstanding to try and "force" the ACA to have the riders that they wanted on it.
So yes, my "ideas seem to spring from your expression that you did not like Obama's use of Executive Orders". Because you have given me no other context for those ideas to spring from.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/20 19:28:11
3000
4000 
