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.

**Spinner**

Today I learned that state government isn't a beauracracy.

**whembly**

Verviedi wrote:
The issue arises when the way that a state "sees fit" is straight up wrong, or influenced by polluting corporations.

Lot's of what if'ing there.

But lets say there is a problem... guess what, you have an easier time petitioning your state legislatures to affect change, than you do to the EPA.

**Verviedi**

State legislatures are rather corrupt. I doubt you would manage that unless your last name is Koch.

**Co'tor Shas**

I'm sorry Whem, but history has shown that state governments to be less than trustworthy about environmental protections. And if the states won't protect it, it goes to the feds. The federal government often sets standards, and this is exactly the same.

And, honestly, state governments are the last place you want to entrust anything. If you think that the federal government is incompetent, you have obviously never seen state governments in action.

Also, I love how your solution to a federal agency fething up is to make it legal for corporations to do that regularly.

**WrentheFaceless**

So the state controlls their own infrastructure which makes sense, but they get federal funding to do it, and its within the national interest to have all the states have safe, well maintained roads and bridges that arent falling a part, and the general upkeep varies from state to state due to those states.

I dont see why letting the states control an arguably national interest service. Would make sense for the federal to oversee highways and bridges, at least that would make their upkeep (or lack there of) consistent.

The states cant do everything themselves, especially the ones that cant even keep themselves self sufficient as far as tax dollars go

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm sorry Whem, but history has shown that state governments to be less than trustworthy about environmental protections. And if the states won't protect it, it goes to the feds. The federal government often sets standards, and this is exactly the same.

I disagree.

And, honestly, state governments are the last place you want to entrust anything. If you think that the federal government is incompetent, you have obviously never seen state governments in action.

We're a federation of states, which you seem to abhor. Makes sense based on your views of the Electoral College, so at least you're consistent.

Also, I love how your solution to a federal agency fething up is to make it legal for corporations to do that regularly.

How on earth did you land on that conclusion?

**Ensis Ferrae**

Just Tony wrote:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Just Tony wrote:
Why not have tax payer funded tubal ligations? I think it'd be a more long term solution and be less controversial.

I think you cannot have this, simply because even with the best drafted bill for it, this will ALWAYS veer into, or be used for eugenics purposes. Now, that's not to say there's something inherently wrong with eugenics, but when a government is involved, I think it's safe to say it's used in very negative ways.

ELECTIVE socialist funded tubal ligations are eugenically driven? I simply don't have the words...

Moving goalposts much? You did not state elective in your initial comment.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
I disagree.

OK, and?

We're a federation of states, which you seem to abhor. Makes sense based on your views of the Electoral College, so at least you're consistent.

Which doesn't have to do with anything. Federal laws and regulations exists no matter how much you wish they didn't. And if state governments won't protect it's citizens, than it is up to the federal government to do so. And things like waste-water dumping and environmental protection effect all states, and should be under the purview of the federal govenrment as there are not magical barriers that stop pollution going from one state to another.

How on earth did you land on that conclusion?

EPA accidentally dumping waste-water into a steam = Bad! Incompetent!

Trump admin making it so corporations can legally dump waste water into steam? Perfectly fine.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
I disagree.
OK, and?

States are better equipped to manage their environment.

We're a federation of states, which you seem to abhor. Makes sense based on your views of the Electoral College, so at least you're consistent.

Which doesn't have to do with anything. Federal laws and regulations exists no matter how much you wish they didn't. And if state governments won't protect it's citizens, than it is up to the federal government to do so. And things like waste-water dumping and environmental protection effect all states, and should be under the purview of the federal govenrment as there are not magical barriers that stop pollution going from one state to another.

It has everything to do with federalism.

People don't generally gak were they live and eat, so the concerns on good environmental practices starts at local/state level.

How on earth did you land on that conclusion?

EPA accidentally dumping waste-water into a steam = Bad! Incompetent!

You saying it was a good thing? Or, you're handwaving this away because you believe the good the EPA does outweighs any oops?

Trump admin making it so corporations can legally dump waste water into steam? Perfectly fine.

How do you figure?

Are you not aware that the state have their environmental regulations? They're own oversight department? You do know they exist... right?

Because if you do, what makes you think they won't enforce their own state laws?

**Verviedi**

Again, because state governments cannot be trusted to resist corporate influence.

**A Town Called Malus**

Just Tony wrote:
Hell, my wife and I are proof that you can have a tubal ligation reversal and have kids. Why not have tax payer funded tubal ligations? I think it'd be a more long term solution and be less controversial.

Because reversing a tubal ligation is very invasive surgery which is not even guaranteed to succeed and, even if it does, the resulting scar tissue could increase the risk of ectopic pregnancy. So by all means attempt that but you either have to inform people that they are undergoing surgery which is for a large number of cases irreversible, which will drastically reduce your uptake of people, or face a huge onslaught of lawsuits when peoples reversals are unsuccessful.

In medicine tubal ligation is considered a permanent procedure for these exact reasons.

**jmurph**

Verviedi wrote:
Again, because state governments cannot be trusted to resist corporate influence.

But that's not how federalism works. Sure, some states may totally screw things up. But that's a problem for the state's voters; it doesn't give the feds automatic jurisdiction. There are certain cases where failure by the state government may trigger federal intervention, but the policy that was originally offered was one that preempts state action in the first place regardless of how well a state may be handling the lands. The feds don't have jurisdiction over these lands unless granted by federal statute. Keep in mind that this only affects a corner case where the previous admin had interpreted the law as giving the feds authority. This admin is taking a more restrictive reading.

Since it relies on legal interpretation, it should actually be less controversial than the previous administration declining to enforce very clearly written federal drug laws regarding marijuana. Both of these underscore the problem with selective law enforcement based on politics and how power bleeding is a bad thing with separation of powers.

**Prestor Jon**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
So the state controlls their own infrastructure which makes sense, but they get federal funding to do it, and its within the national interest to have all the states have safe, well maintained roads and bridges that arent falling a part, and the general upkeep varies from state to state due to those states.

I dont see why letting the states control an arguably national interest service. Would make sense for the federal to oversee highways and bridges, at least that would make their upkeep (or lack there of) consistent.

The states cant do everything themselves, especially the ones that cant even keep themselves self sufficient as far as tax dollars go

The states have always been responsible for the maintenance of the Interstate Highway System. Interstates are federally funded but state maintained. The US numbered highway system has always been built and maintained by state and local govts since it's inception in 1926. US highways were built by the states and municipalities with matching funds contributed by the Federal govt. The Interstates were built with 90% Federal funding and 10% contributed by the states. The states maintain the Interstates because they are already maintaining the state and local roads so they have the infrastructure in place and the revenue streams to fund it. If the Federal govt were to take over the maintenance of the Interstates in the lower 48 states they would have to pay for the creation of maintenance depots, assets, equipment and personnel that would duplicate the state facilities already in place and doing the work. The portions of the interstates and their right of way rights are owned by the state they reside in and the state collects fuel taxes to pay for their maintenance. 70% of the costs of maintenance are paid for by user fees like that so the majority of the maintenance is paid for by the people residing in the state and travelling through the state and collected by the state. It doesn't make sense for the state to transfer that money back to the Federal govt only to have the Feds spend back in that state on the costs of maintaining the sections of the interstate that are already owned b the state.

We have a federalist system. All of our levels of govt and agencies and systems they've created are built upon that foundation. Problems arise when people want to use Federal agencies that have very limited jurisdiction and power to solve problems that are already the responsibility of the state and local authorities. Flipping the system on its head and trying to make it work backwards is incredibly impractical and wasteful. There is no mechanism in place or legal authority that would give a Federal agency like the EPA jurisdiction and responsibility for the little creek that runs through my neighborhood. Making a Federal agency that doesn't have the resources or authority to control that creek be responsible for the cleanliness of the water in it makes no sense. If you think your local bodies of water aren't adequately protected from pollution you need to make it an issue with your municipal and state govt because they have far more authority to control that pollution than the EPA ever will.

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
States are better equipped to manage their environment.

It's not environmental management we're talking about here, it's basic standards. It's like saying that there is no reason for a federal minimum wage because states can just make their own. The feds set the standards and rules that cover everything, states cover the state-specific stuff.

It has everything to do with federalism.

People don't generally gak were they live and eat, so the concerns on good environmental practices starts at local/state level.

Mining CEOs tend not to live in Bumfeth Utah.

And, again, it requires communities actual standing up to these big cooperation, which they don't. Partially because they don't want to hurt themselves
(if only one community bans it, the company will just do it somewhere else), partially because it's really hard to stand up to these corporation, and partially because of the idea of "Government is Bad!" "All regulations are evil!" that the republican party and large corporations have sold. This isn't about the federal government doing something the states can do, this is about the federal government doing something the states refuse to do.

You saying it was a good thing?

Of course it wasn't, it was a mistake.

Or, you're handwaving this away because you believe the good the EPA does outweighs any oops?

Don't be fething dumb. "A federal agency made a mistake, better toss it all!"
This is not exactly a common thing. Of course the good that the EPA has done and continues to do out-ways them making one mistake. It's like saying we should disband the military because of the Yemen feth-up. They made a mistake, like any other agency ever. I guess you shoot your kids when they get a 99 on their spelling test?

How do you figure?

Well you are defending this decision are't you?

Are you not aware that the state have their environmental regulations? They're own oversight department? You do know they exist... right?

Because if you do, what makes you think they won't enforce their own state laws?

And that worked out so well in Flint?

It's not that they don't enforce the laws, it's that they don't put them there in the first place.

**feeder**

whembly wrote:

States are better equipped to manage their environment.

Okay. EPA is disbanded. Utah starts really givin 'er and just feths the Colorado river all to hell. Arizona doesn't like this. What is Arizona supposed to do?

**Frazzled**

feeder wrote:
whembly wrote:

States are better equipped to manage their environment.

Okay. EPA is disbanded. Utah starts really givin 'er and just feths the Colorado river all to hell. Arizona doesn't like this. What is Arizona supposed to do?

Sue them. While they are at it, shut off California's water for giggles. Hold Hollywood hostage.

**WrentheFaceless**

Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
whembly wrote:

States are better equipped to manage their environment.

Okay. EPA is disbanded. Utah starts really givin 'er and just feths the Colorado river all to hell. Arizona doesn't like this. What is Arizona supposed to do?

Sue them. While they are at it, shut off California's water for giggles. Hold Hollywood hostage.

Not much of a threat at the moment, California's good on water.

**feeder**

Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
whembly wrote:

States are better equipped to manage their environment.

Okay. EPA is disbanded. Utah starts really givin 'er and just feths the Colorado river all to hell. Arizona doesn't like this. What is Arizona supposed to do?

Sue them.

For what? Under what law? there is no federal oversight or standard.

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
feeder wrote:
whembly wrote:

States are better equipped to manage their environment.

Okay. EPA is disbanded. Utah starts really givin 'er and just feths the Colorado river all to hell. Arizona doesn't like this. What is Arizona supposed to do?

Sue them. While they are at it, shut off California's water for giggles. Hold Hollywood hostage.

Not much of a threat at the moment, California's good on water.

Er...check again. A substantial portion of SC's water comes from out of state. Shut off the tap and SC doesn't have enough water in days. Tee Hee.

"Send us the Spruce Goose or no Water. EMBARGO!"
-Master Blaster on how he got his new airplane.

**Vaktathi**

Oh look...lets double down on failed policies when the problems we're addressing are at all time lows anyway...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeff-sessions-outline-priorities

Sessions, a hearty supporter of the war on drugs in the past, has also signaled that the federal government could crack down on marijuana use, saying, "experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think.”

So...anonymous unlisted sources again...

Oh...and we'll conveniently forget states rights in this instance.

“Yes, incarceration is painful for the families of inmates, and every conviction represents a failure on multiple levels of society,” he said, “but the costs of rising crime are even more severe."

So...that crime is at historic lows, we have widespread problems with incarceration issues and prison overcrowding, so the option we're going to take is to double down on the one that fails to address the problem we identified and exacerbates existing problems.

He's going full "better a thousand innocents imprisoned than a guilty man go free"...yay...

**A Town Called Malus**

Co'tor Shas wrote:

And, again, it requires communities actual standing up to these big cooperation, which they don't.

Hey now, all those people protesting the DAPL were, surely that public outcry against something which could affect their local environment would surely have stopped that particular thing happening.

Oh... wait...

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Frazzled wrote:
A little legacy behavior left over from my stalker days.

What? You used to be a stalker, Frazz?

**whembly**

Vaktathi wrote:
Oh look...lets double down on failed policies when the problems we're addressing are at all time lows anyway...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeff-sessions-outline-priorities

Sessions, a hearty supporter of the war on drugs in the past, has also signaled that the federal government could crack down on marijuana use, saying, "experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think.”
So...anonymous unlisted sources again...

Oh...and we'll conveniently forget states rights in this instance.

“Yes, incarceration is painful for the families of inmates, and every conviction represents a failure on multiple levels of society,” he said, “but the costs of rising crime are even more severe."
So...that crime is at historic lows, we have widespread problems with incarceration issues and prison overcrowding, so the option we're going to take is to double down on the one that fails to address the problem we identified and exacerbates existing problems.

He's going full "better a thousand innocents imprisoned than a guilty man go free"...yay...

Unfortunately, it's the law of the land... as it's not a state's right thing. (It should be imo).

If you don't want this administration (or any future administration) to have to invoke some sort of "prosecutorial discretion" on whether or not to enforce the laws on the book...

Then, the appropriate response is to get Congress to change the DEA classification on the chronic... not, "pucker up" and hope the AG won't enforce the law as written.

**Just Tony**

Verviedi wrote:
whembly wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Why. Why do these misanthropic bastards feel the need to destroy our environment like this? You can't eat or drink money.

Why do you feel the need to give the EPA jurisdiction over streams/puddles on non-federal land?

Because the states can't be trusted to not allow people to dump horrific crap into them.

Yet the federal government can?

**Vaktathi**

whembly wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Oh look...lets double down on failed policies when the problems we're addressing are at all time lows anyway...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeff-sessions-outline-priorities

Sessions, a hearty supporter of the war on drugs in the past, has also signaled that the federal government could crack down on marijuana use, saying, "experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think.”
So...anonymous unlisted sources again...

Oh...and we'll conveniently forget states rights in this instance.

“Yes, incarceration is painful for the families of inmates, and every conviction represents a failure on multiple levels of society,” he said, “but the costs of rising crime are even more severe."
So...that crime is at historic lows, we have widespread problems with incarceration issues and prison overcrowding, so the option we're going to take is to double down on the one that fails to address the problem we identified and exacerbates existing problems.

He's going full "better a thousand innocents imprisoned than a guilty man go free"...yay...

Unfortunately, it's the law of the land... as it's not a state's right thing. (It sure be imo).

If you don't want this administration (or any future administration) to have to invoke some sort of "prosecutorial discretion" on whether or not to enforce the laws on the book...

Then, the appropriate response is to get Congress to change the DEA classification on the chronic... not, "pucker up" and hope the AG won't enforce the law as written.

I dont disagree on many of these counts, and failing to reclassify Marijuana is one of the biggest failings I attribute to the Obama administration, but as long as AG is engaging in prosecutorial discretion, this is some pretty absurd stuff to gp out of their way to double down on for any reason but "I'm mr tuff guy bossman" reasons.

**whembly**

Vaktathi wrote:
whembly wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Oh look...lets double down on failed policies when the problems we're addressing are at all time lows anyway...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeff-sessions-outline-priorities

Sessions, a hearty supporter of the war on drugs in the past, has also signaled that the federal government could crack down on marijuana use, saying, "experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think.”
So...anonymous unlisted sources again...

Oh...and we'll conveniently forget states rights in this instance.

“Yes, incarceration is painful for the families of inmates, and every conviction represents a failure on multiple levels of society,” he said, “but the costs of rising crime are even more severe."
So...that crime is at historic lows, we have widespread problems with incarceration issues and prison overcrowding, so the option we're going to take is to double down on the one that fails to address the problem we identified and exacerbates existing problems.

He's going full "better a thousand innocents imprisoned than a guilty man go free"...yay...

Unfortunately, it's the law of the land... as it's not a state's right thing. (It sure be imo).

If you don't want this administration (or any future administration) to have to invoke some sort of "prosecutorial discretion" on whether or not to enforce the laws on the book...

Then, the appropriate response is to get Congress to change the DEA classification on the chronic... not, "pucker up" and hope the AG won't enforce the law as written.
I dont disagree on many of these counts, and failing to reclassify Marijuana is one of the biggest failings I attribute to the Obama administration, but as long as AG is engaging in prosecutorial discretion, this is some pretty absurd stuff to gp out of their way to double down on for any reason but "I'm mr tuff guy bossman" reasons.

I don't disagree with you on that at all...

Hopefully, the constituencies from the Chronic-legal states pressure their congressional dudes & dudettes to push this DEA change...

**Kilkrazy**

timetowaste85 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
No-one is upset or up in arms. We're just laughing at him for being an idiot.

Guess we're reading different articles. I'm reading from the news page I get by "swiping right" on my phone. ...

There's your problem right there. The GOP got itself into this mess by a consistent series of moves to the right and you've just continued the trend.

**Dreadwinter**

Frazzled wrote:
angelofvengeance wrote:
This just in... oh boy... this is gonna be a gak show...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/28/trump-sign-orders-waters-rule-black-colleges/98512864/

WASHINGTON — President Trump's newest executive orders will target a water protection rule and elevate an initiative on historically black colleges and universities into the White House.

Trump will sign the executive orders in back-to-back signing ceremonies at the White House on Tuesday. The first will seek to undo the Waters of the United States rule, an Obama administration regulation that sought to reinterpret the Clean Water Act to extend federal protections to smaller rivers and streams.

The plan of attack is similar to an earlier Trump order aimed at a consumer protection regulation called the Fiduciary Duty rule. Because the rule was finalized in 2015, the Trump administration will have to start the regulatory process from the beginning to remove it from the books. The executive order will instruct the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to do just that, asking them to reconsider whether federal jurisdiction extends to non-navigable streams, according to a senior administration official who helped draft the order. The official spoke on condition of anonymity Monday under ground rules set by the White House.

But unlike the Fiduciary Duty Rule, which was scheduled to go into effect April 10, the Waters of the United States rule has already been blocked by a federal appeals court in Cincinnati. The executive order will also ask the Justice Department to put that appeal on hold while the administration reconsiders the rule, the official said.

Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, did not sound optimistic the rule would survive.

"If this were an objective review, I think that would be fine," he said. "If this is a review that the Trump administration has already decided what the outcomes going to be, that's not good."

A second executive order will move the federal initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities into the White House Domestic Policy Council from the Department of Education, where it was housed under the Obama administration.

Since President Jimmy Carter in 1980, every president has signed an executive order reorganizing the initiative. "We think that those HCBU initiatives before lost track because they didn’t have the fuill force of the White House behind them," said another senior administration official who would not be named under White House rules.

The new order comes the day after Trump hosted the presidents of historically black colleges at the White House — cramming 64 of them into the Oval Office for a meeting. “"I don't think we've ever had this many people in the Oval Office,” Trump said to laughter. “This could be a new record, forever. "I don't think we've ever had this many people in the Oval Office,” Trump said. “This could be a new record, forever."

Later, Vice President Pence met with the college presidents. "This administration is committed to making sure our historically black college and universities get the credit and attention they deserve," he said.

Whats the issue? Live by the EO die by the EO.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cause people dump horrific crap into them and cause harm to local folks and wildlife.

Then thats a state issue. Next question?

No it's not, because the effects of dumping can easily cross state lines by leaking in to drinkable groundwater. Next question?

**Kilkrazy**

whembly wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
There's a lot of waste in the military itself aside from congress as well, often stuff like spare parts. For example, when armories need stocks of new parts for guns, they don't just go back to the original manufacturer, but they put it out for competitive bid and go with the lowest bidder out of dozens of random machine shops. Well, then they come in out of spec or poorly heat treated or whatnot, and don't work or break or wear out way too early and cause additional failures and expenses and weapons fatigue. From AR15 bolt cam pins to M9 locking blocks and magazines all sorts of other parts that end up destroying weapons over time and degrading people's trust in their weapons systems due to poor reliability from said parts.

Frazzled wrote:

Non citizens disenfranchising Americans by voting in Ohio:
http://kxan.com/2017/02/27/investigation-found-385-non-us-citizens-registered-to-vote-82-cast-illegal-ballots-in-ohio/
82 out of 5,607,641 ballots cast.

Not saying it shouldn't be looked into, it absolutely should and a stop put to it, but 1 in ~70,000 ballots doesn't seem like it's backing up any of the accusations leveled by the GOP or the current administration of widespread voter fraud by the millions turning the tide of elections.

Remember the year 2000?

Bush's victory margin over Gore in Florida was 537 votes.

I should think it's in everyone's best interest to look into these things and advocate for pragmatic changes to mitigate this issue.

I agree. At the same time, the ballot paper designs should be fixed to avoid giving people extra votes by placing them at or near the top of the paper. This would be pretty easy to do.

**Vaktathi**

whembly wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
whembly wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Oh look...lets double down on failed policies when the problems we're addressing are at all time lows anyway...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeff-sessions-outline-priorities

Sessions, a hearty supporter of the war on drugs in the past, has also signaled that the federal government could crack down on marijuana use, saying, "experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think.”
So...anonymous unlisted sources again...

Oh...and we'll conveniently forget states rights in this instance.

“Yes, incarceration is painful for the families of inmates, and every conviction represents a failure on multiple levels of society,” he said, “but the costs of rising crime are even more severe."
So...that crime is at historic lows, we have widespread problems with incarceration issues and prison overcrowding, so the option we're going to take is to double down on the one that fails to address the problem we identified and exacerbates existing problems.

He's going full "better a thousand innocents imprisoned than a guilty man go free"...yay...

Unfortunately, it's the law of the land... as it's not a state's right thing. (It sure be imo).

If you don't want this administration (or any future administration) to have to invoke some sort of "prosecutorial discretion" on whether or not to enforce the laws on the book...

Then, the appropriate response is to get Congress to change the DEA classification on the chronic... not, "pucker up" and hope the AG won't enforce the law as written.
I dont disagree on many of these counts, and failing to reclassify Marijuana is one of the biggest failings I attribute to the Obama administration, but as long as AG is engaging in prosecutorial discretion, this is some pretty absurd stuff to gp out of their way to double down on for any reason but "I'm mr tuff guy bossman" reasons.

I don't disagree with you on that at all...

Hopefully, the constituencies from the Chronic-legal states pressure their congressional dudes & dudettes to push this DEA change...

I expect we will see such activity, particularly given the heaps of revenue its generating that few are complaining about having to pay.