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.

**sebster**

Verviedi wrote:
"If you don't implement this plan, your plan is doomed to death spiral!"
"But your plan death spirals even harder than mine..."
"FAKE NEWS! Republicare will never fail!"

Yep, everything they complained about in the ACA they've doubled down on. Remember when Republicans complained that the ACA was rushed through without proper debate and analysis? Now they're trying to get their own bill voted for and passed in the House before the CBO has even costed the thing. Remember when Republicans complained that ACA was bad because it was developed behind closed doors? Now Republicans have written their bill in actual honest to god lock down mode, with negotiations so secret they weren't even publicly announced. Remember when Republicans said ACA was bad because there was no bi-partisanship? Now Republicans won't even give a copy of their final bill to the Democrats.

Republicans managed to do so many of the things they previously accused Obama of that I'm beginning to suspect a fair chunk of the Republican congress might be secret muslims from Kenya.

**Breotan**

sebster wrote:
...I'm beginning to suspect a fair chunk of the Republican congress might be secret muslims from Kenya.

That would be giving them more credit than they deserve.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
Additionally, Rand Paul is saying it's DOA at the Senate, notwithstanding what the Turtle wants...

Finally, Trump's HHS Sec Tom Price said:

Tom Price calls health care bill a "work in progress" and "an important step" but won't say it's the "administration's bill"

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 7, 2017

It turns out as well as being am incompetent policy writer and shameless liar, Paul Ryan is also a terrible politician. Because this bill was written in negotiation with the Trump administration, but then Trump left the final roll out to just Ryan alone. This meant that if the thing was popular Trump could claim credit, but if it sunk like a lead balloon it would be Ryan left standing there looking like an idiot, while Trump skips away denying any part in the process.

Midterm is going to get ugly...

You know how you've been fond of saying 'elections have consequences' lately? Well incompetence has consequences as well.

Just because it's used as justification during the slavery era doesn't render it a null & void philosophy today.

In fact, it's very much germane when discussing marijuana laws, sanctuary cities, etc...

I agree that state's rights have an important place in a federal system, even if they are frequently used as a shield for causes with much uglier real motivations. As a defender of state's rights, I would think it is in your best interest to attack as strongly as possible any instance of people discrediting state's rights by using it as a cover to defend the indefensible, yeah?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
You going to provide a source for that?

Roger Stone knew. On a tweet on August 21, Roger Stone stated "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel." On October 10 Stone tweeted again, "I have total confidence that @wikileaks and my hero Julian Assange will educate the American people soon"

Four days later after that second tweet wikileaks began releasing Podesta's emails.

Now, Roger Stone is not afraid of wild, baseless accusation. Sooner or later one of his wild claims is going to end up partially correct. But note the specifics here, the guy wasn't just saying wikileaks was gonna get Clinton, instead he knew it was going to come through Podesta. Roger Stone knew ahead of time.

Corey Lewandowski also knew. A week before the tapes were released he was a on a talkshow, and said "What we don't know is what Hillary Clinton has said in some of these speeches, because she refuses to release the audio. Do we have a bombshell in there and we'll find that out in a week from now? I don't know the answer.” A week later wikileaks made their release, including the speeches Lewandowski was referring to.

Of course, this doesn't mean Trump knew. It's possible he's been kept in the dark about what his hatchetmen have done to help his campaign. But it's clear at least some of his campaign staff knew what was going on.

**Breotan**

sebster wrote:
whembly wrote:
Midterm is going to get ugly...

You know how you've been fond of saying 'elections have consequences' lately? Well incompetence has consequences as well.

Neither party has figured this out yet despite repeated attempts by the voters to educate them.

**sebster**

Breotan wrote:
I swear to God, the Republicans are witless when it comes to optics. The only thing truly obvious is the Republicans never had a plan because they never expected Trump to win. Morons.

This isn't just about optics. The reason the Republican plan looks bad is because it is a bad plan. This is an issue of grossly incompetent policy written by an utterly dysfunctional political party.

Nor is it just about not expecting to win. It's about Republicans spending their time as a minority party doing nothing but telling lies and making impossible promises. Now in power, there is no party position on what they collectively want on any major issue, apart from possibly all the tax cuts they can manage.

**NinthMusketeer**

sebster wrote:
Breotan wrote:
I swear to God, the Republicans are witless when it comes to optics. The only thing truly obvious is the Republicans never had a plan because they never expected Trump to win. Morons.

This isn't just about optics. The reason the Republican plan looks bad is because it is a bad plan. This is an issue of grossly incompetent policy written by an utterly dysfunctional political party.

Nor is it just about not expecting to win. It's about Republicans spending their time as a minority party doing nothing but telling lies and making impossible promises. Now in power, there is no party position on what they collectively want on any major issue, apart from possibly all the tax cuts they can manage.

And shifting blame anywhere but themselves.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
The other was a plan based on Tom Price's or Rand Paul's plan that fully minimized federal intervention (ala, pre-ACA), but had specific new entitlements for those 20-30 million people who couldn't afford insurances.

Price directly worked with House Republicans in producing their bill. The House used Price's bill as their starting point, and then set about making something was a bit less stupid, and a bit less mean.

Instead of the House's 30% hike on insurance for people without continuous coverage, Price's plan would allow insurers to charge a 150% premium. Instead of the hike lasting 12 months, it lasted 18 months under Price's bill.

Price's bill tried to produce a high risk pool with a total subsidy of just $3 billion. He did this by pretending people who are so sick that they can't get normal coverage don't actually cost much. Even the House Republican bill has a subsidy in excess of $20 billion.

Price's bill also ignores the concept of a death spiral entirely. It allows for insurance plans that cover the absolute bare minimum, which will draw in people with minimal health needs, meaning more comprehensive plans will become much more expensive. The Republican House plan reduces the minimum requirements of ACA, but doesn't remove them entirely. And Price's plan removes the cap on age premium entirely, meaning insurance will be unaffordable for many older citizens. The House Republican plan is merely a less dreadful version of the same, as it expands the age premium to five times the base, instead of the three times in ACA.

Price's plan has tax incentives based just on age, with no limit for income. So a billionaire would receive the same tax credit as a man on $20k. This was the original plan with the House Republican bill as well, before they instead placed a cap on the tax credit. It's still plain fething weird that someone on $75k would get the same subsidy as someone on $7.5k, but at least billionaires won't be getting the subsidy like they would have in Price's plan.

Price's plan would drop the medicaid entirely, and expect these people to go get individual insurance. The new House plan reduces medicaid funding to the states, but at least it still exists in some format.

The basic reason the House plan sucks is because they started with Price's plan, and then reduced some of the craziest, meanest bits by a little bit. And now you're here wishing they'd try and pass the completely crazy version.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Neither party has figured this out yet despite repeated attempts by the voters to educate them.

Nah, the US has been plagued through its history by pork barreling and special interests, but gross incompetence has never really been the issue. A bill that gave loads of money to a particular group was almost always intended to give lots of money to that group. Now with the crazification of the Republican party basic policy incompetence is a real issue.

And this isn't just about Trump taking over the party. It isn't even really about spending 8 years shouting about Obama while doing no policy development at all. Both of those things are symptoms of a greater issue, that Republican positions on major issues are now unpopular to the point of being non-viable. Imagine if Trump or any Republican ran not on 'ACA is bad', but actually spent all of last year trying to say 'vote for me and I'll get rid of ACA and replace it with a version the reduces medicaid funding and insurance plan subsidies so that we can cut the ACA taxes on the rich.' Yeah. So Republicans don't develop legislation because legislation based on their beliefs would be a electoral disaster. Instead the plan becomes to shut up abuot what they'll do, and make appeals to specific voter groups based more on affinity than anything actual substance of what Republicans might offer.

This means that when they do win office the Republican party is very dependent on the work of think tanks to provide them with workable models they can turn in to legislation. This is another very big problem, because conservative policy creation is a disaster. The Heritage Foundation died as an independent think tank about a decade ago, having been in decline for about a decade before that. It now exists as a PR arm of the Republican party itself, all it does is produce whatever logic it can invent to defend what Republicans want to sell, and condemn whatever Democrats want to sell. Elsewhere the situation is as bad, with the Koch brothers pouring tens of millions in to research programs, they now make the market on right wing policy research. And of course, the Koch brothers aren't putting that money there to fund open and sophisticated debate, they make it very clear what conclusions all research must reach. As a result, if you want to produce right wing analysis on policy issues, you either tow the line on what the Koch brothers want, or you do your research without funding. No surprise what choice most people make.

That's how we've gotten to this point. There's a party that can't have internal debate because it's major policy positions are unelectable. And it's think tanks have been utterly corrupted by big money that comes with tight ideological strings. As a result there's a complete vacuum of thought about what Republicans might actually do once they win office. And the result of that is nonsense like this replacement ACA bill.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
And shifting blame anywhere but themselves.

Be interesting to see how Trump and Republican senators play this issue from here. They're already backing off from this bill, or even attacking it, trying to lay all blame for this on the House and Ryan. So do they now go quiet on the issue and hope no-one notices?

**LordofHats**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
any major issue, apart from possibly all the tax cuts they can manage.

And shifting blame anywhere but themselves.

**sebster**

In other news on how terrible Trump is, he's now got Whitehouse counsel building a case for him about his belief that he was wiretapped by Obama last year. They've been tasked with finding the evidence Trump says he already has. Meanwhile, FBI Director Comey attempted to make a public statement that the FBI has never tapped a political party's HQ, never would, and such a request could never come from the president... but the DoJ, run by Trump's appointee Jeff Sessions, quashed the statement. This all came about because Trump read a Breitbart article that made a bunch of accusations about Obama.

Also, Trump's got a silly habit of meeting with CEOs and claiming any new investment they were undertaking is because of Trump himself. He just did this with Exxon Mobil, praising their $20 billion investment program. This got a bunch of attention because the Whitehouse announcement directly plagiarized Exxon's own press release, but what got missed is that the plagiarized text itself states that these investments started in 2013. Either Trump is claiming that thanks to him Exxon started a new investment program 4 years before he became president, or no-one in his staff is even reading the stuff they're copying from Exxon. Either way, I hope this comes up every time Trump runs one of his statements claiming investment is returning to America because he's president.

And in other Trump is a shameless liar news, Trump tweeted "122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!". The claim was wrong, as while 121 gitmo detainees did return to fighting, 113 of them were released by GW Bush, only 8 by Obama. Trump refuses to amend his tweet or make a factual statement on the matter.

Finally, Republicans continue to pretend Trump is something other than a disastrous idiot. Congressional Republicans still stand by him, apart from some limited statements on single issues, like calling for Sessions to recuse himself from Russian investigations but not have him resign. And Trump remains popular among Republican voters, with 88% approving of him. And now 86% of Republicans trust Trump more than the media - this number has gone up in the last week.

**r_squared**

sebster wrote:
...Trump remains popular among Republican voters, with 88% approving of him. And now 86% of Republicans trust Trump more than the media - this number has gone up in the last week.

I don't think this is surprising really. Considering that virtually nothing he said during the campaign dissuaded his supporters, and he said some terrible things, now he's in office he's just saying things they want to hear, Obama bad, terrorist threats etc.

In fact, I firmly believe that even if America became a bankrupt, flaming garbage scow as a direct result of his actions, he would still be supported, and people would not believe the evidence of their own eyes, much less anything reported on the TV.

I wonder if he could be persuaded to prove his claim of shooting someone on fifth avenue, Steve Bannon would be my favorite.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

It's an old joke I stole from twitter but when is Trump taking action against AL-IKEA, the Swedish terrorist group?

The public have a right to know

**sebster**

r_squared wrote:
I don't think this is surprising really. Considering that virtually nothing he said during the campaign dissuaded his supporters, and he said some terrible things, now he's in office he's just saying things they want to hear, Obama bad, terrorist threats etc.

In fact, I firmly believe that even if America became a bankrupt, flaming garbage scow as a direct result of his actions, he would still be supported, and people would not believe the evidence of their own eyes, much less anything reported on the TV.

Lots of Republicans hated him while he wasn't their candidate, but after he won the primary they all fell in line and started pretending he wasn't awful.

There's a definite self deception to what's happening, with Republicans willing to pretend he's okay because the alternative is a Democrat winning.

There was something similar with Bush, who maintained popularity despite all his screw ups, until after 2004 and there were no more elections for Bush. His approval dropped below 20%. So after the 2020 election, basically, either because he's out of politics, or because he's in his second and last term. From there I could see Trump hitting single figures.

Iwonder if he could be persuaded to prove his claim of shooting someone on fifth avenue, Steve Bannon would be my favorite.

I'd love to see the Republican congress's answers to why they won't investigate.

**reds8n**

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/to-fund-border-wall-trump-administration-weighs-cuts-to-coast-guard-airport-security/2017/03/07/ba4a8e5c-036f-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.9eff78b2ce0b

The Trump administration, searching for money to build the president’s planned multibillion-dollar border wall and crack down on illegal immigration, is weighing significant cuts to the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies focused on national security threats, according to a draft plan.

The proposal, drawn up by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), also would slash the budget of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which provides disaster relief after hurricanes, tornadoes and other natural disasters. The Coast Guard’s $9.1 billion budget in 2017 would be cut 14 percent to about $7.8 billion, while the TSA and FEMA budgets would be reduced about 11 percent each to $4.5 billion and $3.6 billion, respectively.

The cuts are proposed even as the planned budget for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees all of them, grows 6.4 percent to $43.8 billion, according to the plan, which was obtained by The Washington Post. Some $2.9 billion of that would go to building the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, with $1.9 billion funding “immigration detention beds” and other Immigration and Customs Enforcement expenses and $285 million set aside to hire 500 more Border Patrol agents and 1,000 more ICE agents and support staffers.

The plan puts the administration in the unusual position of trading spending on security programs for other security priorities at the southern border, raising questions among Republican lawmakers and homeland-security experts.

“The Budget prioritizes DHS law enforcement operations, proposes critical investments in front line border security and funds continued development of robust cybersecurity defenses,” the draft said. “The Budget aggressively implements the President’s commitment to construct a physical wall along the southern border.”

Overall, funding for ICE would grow about 36 percent to $7.9 billion, while the budget for Customs and Border Protection would increase 27 percent to $14.2 billion.

Michael Short, a White House spokesman, cautioned Tuesday that the Trump administration is still early in the process of working on the budget, which the administration will send to Congress later this month. He and a DHS spokesman, David Lapan, referred other questions to the OMB, which did not respond to requests for comment.

“Trying to draw conclusions this early would be extremely premature,” Short said.

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R.-Calif.), who supported Donald Trump’s run for president and oversees the House Transportation subcommittee on the Coast Guard and maritime transportation, questioned whether OMB officials are on the same page as President Trump, citing the sea service’s roles in stopping illegal immigration and the flow of drugs into the United States from South America.

“OMB has always treated the Coast Guard like a little piggy bank that they can go after whenever they need money for anything else,” Hunter said. “If the president is serious about getting after the cartels and getting after drug networks, this makes no sense.”

The Coast Guard cuts include deactivating Maritime Security Response Teams, which carry out counterterrorism patrols in ports and sensitive waterways, and canceling a contract with Huntington Ingalls Industries to build a ninth national security cutter, with a potential savings of $500 million.

Rick “Ozzie” Nelson, a former Navy helicopter pilot and national security expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that the decisions would effectively sideline the service in missions in which it could be the most effective.

“If they’re not there to do it, who is there to do it?” Nelson said of port security. “We’re not going to put destroyers and frigates off the coast to protect those ports. That’s a Coast Guard mission and capability.”

At the TSA, the proposed budget cuts, first detailed by Politico, would eliminate four programs that cost the agency $187 million. The programs have been considered a vital piece of airport security and for preventing a repetition of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings after planes are aloft.

Training for what is known as the “armed pilot” program, begun after 9/11, would be eliminated at a savings of $20 million. The training was intended to prepare pilots and crews for an attempted armed takeover of an aircraft.

“If you were on one of the four hijacked planes on 9/11, you’d sure say it was important,” said former TSA administrator John S. Pistole. “To me, it’s a relatively small investment for the potential for the risk-mitigation value. It’s all about how much risk do you want to take on. I would advocate for a reduction in that program but not elimination.”

An additional $57 million would be saved by cutting a program that sends armed teams of highly trained, uniformed agents to sweep airports, train stations and bus terminals. Commonly known as the VIPR teams (for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response), they were deployed to Reagan National Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport, Amtrak’s Union Station and D.C.-area subway stations to guard against terrorist attacks during Trump’s inauguration.

The $45 million in grants that local law enforcement uses to patrol in and around airports also would be eliminated.

The fourth program slated for elimination uses specially trained TSA agents to watch passenger behavior in airports, and particularly as fliers approach checkpoints, to single out those who appear to behave oddly.

The budget proposal said $65 million also could be saved by eliminating that Behavior Detection Officer program. The value of the program was questioned by the Government Accountability Office in a 2013 report, but Pistole, who then headed the TSA, responded that it provided a “crucial layer of security” that brought 2,116 passengers to the attention of law enforcement in 2012, resulting in 30 boarding denials and 183 arrests.

At FEMA, a corner of the federal government whose budgets were beefed up after the 2001 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, the proposed cuts would slash some programs whose effectiveness has long come under criticism. Research into bio-surveillance threats and other research and development work that gets tens of millions of dollars in federal funding a year would take a 28 percent hit, examples of programs the budget proposal describes as “having failed to show meaningful results.”

But the spending plan — which could cut $361 million from FEMA’s $3.5 billion budget — also eliminates or reduces the federal commitment to helping states and local governments prepare for natural disasters through training, salaries and benefits for staff, coordination and state-of the-art equipment. These grants help communities prepare for emergencies so that local and state governments can coordinate and respond quickly.

Other programs would require localities and states to contribute a greater share than they do now.

[Trump to propose 10 percent spike in defense spending, major cuts to other agencies]

Emergency management officials noted that FEMA has for years promoted and refined a national response system that requires local communities to follow the same emergency response strategies. The cuts would undermine that progress, they said, and result in a less sophisticated response to emergencies.
“When you propose not just cuts but draconian cuts, your ability to respond to a disaster can cause lives to be lost and property to be damaged,” said Nick Crossley, emergency-management director in Hamilton County, Ohio, and first vice president of the International Association of Emergency Managers, which represents 4,000 local officials across the country.

He said pouring the money saved from FEMA into border security would be “catastrophic.”

“Defense and security at the border are important,” he said. “But you’re damaging the national system that makes us the strongest country when it comes to being prepared for disasters.”

Homeowners in flood-prone areas of the country also would be levied a surcharge on their flood insurance, according to the document, although the OMB has been asked to come up with a plan to limit the extra payment for homeowners with “lower-value” homes.

Homeowners in flood-prone areas of the country also would be levied a surcharge on their flood insurance, according to the document, although the OMB has been asked to come up with a plan to limit the extra payment for homeowners with “lower-value” homes.

stunning idea.

**Alpharius**

REMINDER: "FTFY", deliberately misquoting, etc. are considered violations of RULE #1.

**d-usa**

Maybe we should stop calculating the costs of his weekend trips to his own resorts in dollars, and report them in "feet of wall" instead.

**Prestor Jon**

Ahtman wrote:
Since everyone is talking about slavery might as well share this.

Old slave states also had highest rate of Trump supporters

Shocking just shocking.

The South has been reliably Republican for decades now. It was forseeable back in the 1960s with the Dixiecrats and Atwater got several states to flip for Reagan with his "southern strategy" in 1980 and was solidified when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress back in 1994. The former CSA states also heavily supported Bush, McCain and Romney so it was completely expected that they'd support Trump too.

**Ahtman**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Since everyone is talking about slavery might as well share this.

Old slave states also had highest rate of Trump supporters

Shocking just shocking.

The South has been reliably Republican for decades now. It was forseeable back in the 1960s with the Dixiecrats and Atwater got several states to flip for Reagan with his "southern strategy" in 1980 and was solidified when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress back in 1994. The former CSA states also heavily supported Bush, McCain and Romney so it was completely expected that they'd support Trump too.

Are you trying to say it isn't shocking?

**Prestor Jon**

Ahtman wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Since everyone is talking about slavery might as well share this.

Old slave states also had highest rate of Trump supporters

Shocking just shocking.

The South has been reliably Republican for decades now. It was forseeable back in the 1960s with the Dixiecrats and Atwater got several states to flip for Reagan with his "southern strategy" in 1980 and was solidified when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress back in 1994. The former CSA states also heavily supported Bush, McCain and Romney so it was completely expected that they'd support Trump too.

Are you trying to say it isn't shocking?

I'm agreeing with you that it's not shocking and I'm trying to point out that if that southern Republican support for Trump is tainted by racism then that should also extend to the previous Republican candidates that all got southern support. There seems to be a lot of impetus to find supportive evidence of racist support for Trump to build on the Trump=alt right=racist and Trump voter=alt right supporter=racist transitive property narratives. While racism exists in the south it's been there for centuries and southern states have supported Republican presidential candidates that were never tarred with the racist brush like Trump has been. In short southern states were likely to continue to vote Republican just like in previous elections so I question why its important to try to link that Republican support to racism this time when it wasn't an issue previously.

**Frazzled**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Since everyone is talking about slavery might as well share this.

Old slave states also had highest rate of Trump supporters

Shocking just shocking.

The South has been reliably Republican for decades now. It was forseeable back in the 1960s with the Dixiecrats and Atwater got several states to flip for Reagan with his "southern strategy" in 1980 and was solidified when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress back in 1994. The former CSA states also heavily supported Bush, McCain and Romney so it was completely expected that they'd support Trump too.

Are you trying to say it isn't shocking?

I'm agreeing with you that it's not shocking and I'm trying to point out that if that southern Republican support for Trump is tainted by racism then that should also extend to the previous Republican candidates that all got southern support. There seems to be a lot of impetus to find supportive evidence of racist support for Trump to build on the Trump=alt right=racist and Trump voter=alt right supporter=racist transitive property narratives. While racism exists in the south it's been there for centuries and southern states have supported Republican presidential candidates that were never tarred with the racist brush like Trump has been. In short southern states were likely to continue to vote Republican just like in previous elections so I question why its important to try to link that Republican support to racism this time when it wasn't an issue previously.

Every Republican President from Nixon on have been called racist and fascist/nazi. Thats old news if you have been around awhile.

Here's the usual charges:
*racist
*fascist
*heartless towards the poor.
*stupid, yet sneaky.

Addendum:
*Nixon was viewed as smart and crafty, but also racist, fascist, warmonger (despite getting us out of Vietnam).
*Reagan was viewed as all of these.
*Ford, was viewed more favorably, more kind of hapless, deer in the headlights.
*Bush I: Grandpa but he was castigated as out of touch when the election came around.
*Eisenhower: couldn't claim any of that: 1) America's #1 anti Nazi Derp!. 2) beloved war hero. 3) sent in troops to enforce federal actions on anti racism.

**WrentheFaceless**

Yet their actions while governing havent really disproven those claims, as their policies usually hurt the poor and minorities, and their claims of "small government' usually result in power grabs.

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Yet their actions while governing havent really disproven those claims, as their policies usually hurt the poor and minorities, and their claims of "small government' usually result in power grabs.

You are completely correct, Its completely unbiased to think all Republican presidents have been stupid racist fascists.

**WrentheFaceless**

Frazzled wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Yet their actions while governing havent really disproven those claims, as their policies usually hurt the poor and minorities, and their claims of "small government' usually result in power grabs.

You are completely correct, Its completely unbiased to think all Republican presidents have been stupid racist fascists.

Not so much the Presidents themselves, but those making the policies around them. They're just the figureheads of the gak going on around them.

Cept Trumpo, hes horrible all by himself

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
Yet their actions while governing havent really disproven those claims, as their policies usually hurt the poor and minorities, and their claims of "small government' usually result in power grabs.

You are completely correct, Its completely unbiased to think all Republican presidents have been stupid racist fascists.

Not so much the Presidents themselves, but those making the policies around them. They're just the figureheads of the gak going on around them.

Cept Trumpo, hes horrible all by himself

You're right, its not them, its the people they hire that are racist fascist idiots. Except Trump, he really is one.

**WrentheFaceless**

You're being strangely agreeable Fraz, I'm kinda worried.

**Frazzled**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
You're being strangely agreeable Fraz, I'm kinda worried.

GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

Does that help? It is always disconcerting when I agree... eerily disconcerting...

**BobtheInquisitor**

WrentheFaceless wrote:
You're being strangely agreeable Fraz, I'm kinda worried.

He's not agreeing. He is trying to make the accusations sound silly, despite not being able to argue against your points.

**Frazzled**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
You're being strangely agreeable Fraz, I'm kinda worried.

He's not agreeing. He is trying to make the accusations sound silly, despite not being able to argue against your points.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. You can't read my mind. I can't read my mind. There's not enough brain cells left to read.

After all, I am not a Republican.

**reds8n**

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/08/china-gives-green-light-trump-branded-massage-parlors-bars-escort/

China has granted preliminary approval for 38 new Trump trademarks, paving the way for President Donald Trump and his family to develop a host of branded businesses from hotels to insurance to bodyguard and concierge services, public documents show.

Trump's lawyers in China applied for the marks in April 2016, as Trump railed against China at campaign rallies, accusing it of currency manipulation and stealing US jobs. Critics maintain that Trump's swelling portfolio of China trademarks raises serious conflict of interest questions.

China's Trademark Office published the provisional approvals on 27 February and Monday......
.............If no one objects, they will be formally registered after 90 days. All but three are in the president's own name. China already registered one trademark to the president, for Trump-branded construction services, on 14 February.

If President Trump receives any special treatment in securing trademark rights, it would violate the U.S. Constitution, which bans public servants from accepting anything of value from foreign governments unless approved by Congress, ethics lawyers from across the political spectrum say. Concerns about potential conflicts of interest are particularly sharp in China, where the courts and bureaucracy are designed to reflect the will of the ruling Communist Party.

Dan Plane, a director at Simone IP Services, a Hong Kong intellectual property consultancy, said he had never seen so many applications approved so quickly. "For all these marks to sail through so quickly and cleanly, with no similar marks, no identical marks, no issues with specifications - boy, it's weird," he said.

.............The trademarks are for businesses including branded spas, massage parlors, golf clubs, hotels, insurance, finance and real estate companies, retail shops, restaurants, bars, and private bodyguard and escort services.

yeah.

of course.

When we said we were worried he might feth the world over this isn't quite what we meant.....

**skyth**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Since everyone is talking about slavery might as well share this.

Old slave states also had highest rate of Trump supporters

Shocking just shocking.

The South has been reliably Republican for decades now. It was forseeable back in the 1960s with the Dixiecrats and Atwater got several states to flip for Reagan with his "southern strategy" in 1980 and was solidified when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress back in 1994. The former CSA states also heavily supported Bush, McCain and Romney so it was completely expected that they'd support Trump too.

Are you trying to say it isn't shocking?

I'm agreeing with you that it's not shocking and I'm trying to point out that if that southern Republican support for Trump is tainted by racism then that should also extend to the previous Republican candidates that all got southern support. There seems to be a lot of impetus to find supportive evidence of racist support for Trump to build on the Trump=alt right=racist and Trump voter=alt right supporter=racist transitive property narratives. While racism exists in the south it's been there for centuries and southern states have supported Republican presidential candidates that were never tarred with the racist brush like Trump has been. In short southern states were likely to continue to vote Republican just like in previous elections so I question why its important to try to link that Republican support to racism this time when it wasn't an issue previously.

I would think that southern racists would support a Republican over a Democrat regardless of the specifics of the candidate. Especially with all the dog whistles that they tend to use.

**Verviedi**

Frazzled wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
WrentheFaceless wrote:
You're being strangely agreeable Fraz, I'm kinda worried.

He's not agreeing. He is trying to make the accusations sound silly, despite not being able to argue against your points.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. You can't read my mind. I can't read my mind. There's not enough brain cells left to read.

After all, I am not a Republican.

News to me.
Also, congratulations. You nearly broke my brain by agreeing with Wren.