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.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Does President Trump actually have much to worry about whatever he did regarding Russia, Stormy Daniels or anything else?

Doesn't his position as President allow him to issue himself a pardon for anything (federal) he ever did? It's not something a normal politician would ever contemplate as they'd be killing any chance of future party support (and quite possibly burying their party for the foreseeable future too)

but since he seems to basically just care about himself (and whoever agrees with him at the time) he wouldn't care that much, and it might even think it was the perfect way to sign off on his presidency?

This is why there's speculation that Cohen had state charges brought against him rather than federal.

liberals who will exult over the fall of Trump will be weeping fresh tears when they realize how much more evil Pence is.

Well... Trump is speaking now...

We're striking Syria.

See that's why Reagan was so much better. He would have fired Rosenstein first.

 Frazzled wrote:
See that's why Reagan was so much better. He would have fired Rosenstein first.

eh? Care to elaborate??

EDIT: also... Trump was pretty harsh on Russia. Man Russia isn't getting their money's worth...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
UK is joining...

Breaking News
✔
@BreakingNews
6m
Replying to @BreakingNews and 2 others
British PM May: "This evening I have authorized British armed forces to conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use." http://nbcnews.to/2queVq7

The French joining too...

 Frazzled wrote:
See that's why Reagan was so much better. He would have fired Rosenstein first.

Still one of the most over-hyped presidents of all time, honestly I would rank him low on the overall presidential rankings

 thekingofkings wrote:
liberals who will exult over the fall of Trump will be weeping fresh tears when they realize how much more evil Pence is.

Evil, but perhaps marginally competent at least. Pence is a , but he's a who might be capable of running the basic functions of government and not accidentally starting a war over twitter.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
See that's why Reagan was so much better. He would have fired Rosenstein first.

Still one of the most over-hyped presidents of all time, honestly I would rank him low on the overall presidential rankings

I am sure you would what with the current state of school's teaching history.

The current political polarization has its roots in Reagan. So often he is either a great president or a terrible president as a matter of perception. Really he was a good president. Not great, not average, but good. He did some stuff that was bad, some stuff that didn't work out, but also stuff that was good and did work out. The '81 tax cuts are a good example of the former while the '86 cuts a good example of the latter. But so many Americans prefer to ignore the good or ignore the bad because it fits their narrative better.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
See that's why Reagan was so much better. He would have fired Rosenstein first.

Still one of the most over-hyped presidents of all time, honestly I would rank him low on the overall presidential rankings

I am sure you would what with the current state of school's teaching history.

Nah I think most people that don't have their heads up the asses of the GOP and Saint Ronny see that

 whembly wrote:
Well... Trump is speaking now...

We're striking Syria.

Here's hoping we're all still here in the morning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The current political polarization has its roots in Reagan. So often he is either a great president or a terrible president as a matter of perception. Really he was a good president. Not great, not average, but good. He did some stuff that was bad, some stuff that didn't work out, but also stuff that was good and did work out. The '81 tax cuts are a good example of the former while the '86 cuts a good example of the latter. But so many Americans prefer to ignore the good or ignore the bad because it fits their narrative better.

Today's conservatives also like to forget that Reagan promoted quite a few ideas and policies that would be considered too liberal today.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
liberals who will exult over the fall of Trump will be weeping fresh tears when they realize how much more evil Pence is.

Evil, but perhaps marginally competent at least. Pence is a , but he's a who might be capable of running the basic functions of government and not accidentally starting a war over twitter.

He is very "competent" and that's what is scary, he will be able to get away with stuff Sir Cheeto can't.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The current political polarization has its roots in Reagan. So often he is either a great president or a terrible president as a matter of perception. Really he was a good president. Not great, not average, but good. He did some stuff that was bad, some stuff that didn't work out, but also stuff that was good and did work out. The '81 tax cuts are a good example of the former while the '86 cuts a good example of the latter. But so many Americans prefer to ignore the good or ignore the bad because it fits their narrative better.

Today's conservatives also like to forget that Reagan promoted quite a few ideas and policies that would be considered too liberal today.

Oh I'm sure Reagan would roll over in his grave if he could see the party today, which I find suitably ironic.

 thekingofkings wrote:
He is very "competent" and that's what is scary, he will be able to get away with stuff Sir Cheeto can't.

If he was on his own, yes, it would be a dangerous risk balancing the lower chance of screwing things up through sheer incompetence vs. the higher chance of successfully implementing his anarcho-capitalist Christian theocracy. But he wouldn't be on his own in this hypothetical scenario, he'd be the vice president of someone who just got impeached for being utterly terrible. That's some pretty serious guilt by association for him. Pence might survive the impeachment process, probably to maintain a degree of stability, but he'd be on a short leash.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
He is very "competent" and that's what is scary, he will be able to get away with stuff Sir Cheeto can't.

If he was on his own, yes, it would be a dangerous risk balancing the lower chance of screwing things up through sheer incompetence vs. the higher chance of successfully implementing his anarcho-capitalist Christian theocracy. But he wouldn't be on his own in this hypothetical scenario, he'd be the vice president of someone who just got impeached for being utterly terrible. That's some pretty serious guilt by association for him. Pence might survive the impeachment process, probably to maintain a degree of stability, but he'd be on a short leash.

would sure as hell hope so, right now its "better the clown you know, then the devil you can pretty much guess at"

So, My understanding of things, was that Trump was the Peaceful option we could of elected in 2016. No way he was going to start bombing people who weren't directly effecting the US... Nope.

Just... Ugh. I'm disgusted with today.

What in the world gave you the idea trump would be "peaceful"? The twitter rants? The (failed) business man persona? The personal attacks on everyone around him?

 Wolfblade wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
USPS need serious reforms... and not sure if that entity really can survive in it's current state.

The problems with the USPS are politically-motivated externalties, not a fundamental problem with the USPS.

You sure?

...seem to remember reading that USPS operating costs + non-operation costs like Pensions and the like perpetually puts them in the red every year.

**I'll update this when I find the sauce...**

No, you're def right about them being in the red every year, as IIRC, the last thing I remember about it was they had a 10 years of straight losses as of Nov. 2016.

If I remember correctly, the US Government gives the Post Office something like $19.5 Billion in subsidies every year. There are something like 300,000 vehicles in use by the Post Office, not a one of them has a license plate or is registered. They don't pay fuel taxes (what is the average now $.47 per gallon?), and they don't pay property taxes on any of their locations. If they had to pay for all these things no way they could ever afford to stay in business on their own.

Looks like Cohen was just caught in another lie (in addition to the bank fraud he committed)

Ash87 wrote:
So, My understanding of things, was that Trump was the Peaceful option we could of elected in 2016. No way he was going to start bombing people who weren't directly effecting the US... Nope.

Just... Ugh. I'm disgusted with today.

This is what happens when you elect a con man. We all knew this was going to happen, but people wanted to believe the con man's lies and so here we are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If I remember correctly, the US Government gives the Post Office something like $19.5 Billion in subsidies every year. There are something like 300,000 vehicles in use by the Post Office, not a one of them has a license plate or is registered. They don't pay fuel taxes (what is the average now $.47 per gallon?), and they don't pay property taxes on any of their locations. If they had to pay for all these things no way they could ever afford to stay in business on their own.

Of course the real question is why a government service is being held to the standards of a for-profit business in the first place. It's like looking at the fire department's budget and complaining about how the government has to subsidize their operations and they'd never survive as an independent business.

 Peregrine wrote:

Ash87 wrote:
So, My understanding of things, was that Trump was the Peaceful option we could of elected in 2016. No way he was going to start bombing people who weren't directly effecting the US... Nope.

Just... Ugh. I'm disgusted with today.

This is what happens when you elect a con man. We all knew this was going to happen, but people wanted to believe the con man's lies and so here we are.
.

Look at the bright side, at least he's not at Obama levels of hypocrisy on the subject yet. Which still makes him better than the alternative choice we had, since Hillary supported those actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If I remember correctly, the US Government gives the Post Office something like $19.5 Billion in subsidies every year. There are something like 300,000 vehicles in use by the Post Office, not a one of them has a license plate or is registered. They don't pay fuel taxes (what is the average now $.47 per gallon?), and they don't pay property taxes on any of their locations. If they had to pay for all these things no way they could ever afford to stay in business on their own.

Of course the real question is why a government service is being held to the standards of a for-profit business in the first place. It's like looking at the fire department's budget and complaining about how the government has to subsidize their operations and they'd never survive as an independent business.

Well, if there was multiple "private" fire stations that were all clamoring to put out fires faster and cheaper than the government ones, yes I would be saying just that. Let's also drop the pretenses that the PO can't be criticized. They have A LOT of waste that only exists because of their lack of accountability. Everything from locations that shouldn't exist to employees that are nearly immune to firing, to job performance that would make even a layman efficiency expert cringe.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Ash87 wrote:
So, My understanding of things, was that Trump was the Peaceful option we could of elected in 2016. No way he was going to start bombing people who weren't directly effecting the US... Nope.

Just... Ugh. I'm disgusted with today.

This is what happens when you elect a con man. We all knew this was going to happen, but people wanted to believe the con man's lies and so here we are.
.

Look at the bright side, at least he's not at Obama levels of hypocrisy on the subject yet. Which still makes him better than the alternative choice we had, since Hillary supported those actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If I remember correctly, the US Government gives the Post Office something like $19.5 Billion in subsidies every year. There are something like 300,000 vehicles in use by the Post Office, not a one of them has a license plate or is registered. They don't pay fuel taxes (what is the average now $.47 per gallon?), and they don't pay property taxes on any of their locations. If they had to pay for all these things no way they could ever afford to stay in business on their own.

Of course the real question is why a government service is being held to the standards of a for-profit business in the first place. It's like looking at the fire department's budget and complaining about how the government has to subsidize their operations and they'd never survive as an independent business.

Well, if there was multiple "private" fire stations that were all clamoring to put out fires faster and cheaper than the government ones, yes I would be saying just that.

How much do the government ones cost you? Also, faster is a good thing but by no means is cheaper a good thing when it comes to fighting fires and saving lives. If they don't have the proper training, proper gear, or even people on duty your life/house could be in danger.

Its Christmas and all of the private fire stations are off for Christmas. Because you know, they are private. Hope your garden hose has good pressure!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Ash87 wrote:
So, My understanding of things, was that Trump was the Peaceful option we could of elected in 2016. No way he was going to start bombing people who weren't directly effecting the US... Nope.

Just... Ugh. I'm disgusted with today.

This is what happens when you elect a con man. We all knew this was going to happen, but people wanted to believe the con man's lies and so here we are.
.

Look at the bright side, at least he's not at Obama levels of hypocrisy on the subject yet. Which still makes him better than the alternative choice we had, since Hillary supported those actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If I remember correctly, the US Government gives the Post Office something like $19.5 Billion in subsidies every year. There are something like 300,000 vehicles in use by the Post Office, not a one of them has a license plate or is registered. They don't pay fuel taxes (what is the average now $.47 per gallon?), and they don't pay property taxes on any of their locations. If they had to pay for all these things no way they could ever afford to stay in business on their own.

Of course the real question is why a government service is being held to the standards of a for-profit business in the first place. It's like looking at the fire department's budget and complaining about how the government has to subsidize their operations and they'd never survive as an independent business.

Well, if there was multiple "private" fire stations that were all clamoring to put out fires faster and cheaper than the government ones, yes I would be saying just that.

How much do the government ones cost you? Also, faster is a good thing but by no means is cheaper a good thing when it comes to fighting fires and saving lives. If they don't have the proper training, proper gear, or even people on duty your life/house could be in danger.

Its Christmas and all of the private fire stations are off for Christmas. Because you know, they are private. Hope your garden hose has good pressure!

I forgot about how that Post office is open 24-7-365........ Oh, wait, you mean they are closed 65 days per year, MORE than their competitors. Darn.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Look at the bright side, at least he's not at Obama levels of hypocrisy on the subject yet. Which still makes him better than the alternative choice we had, since Hillary supported those actions.

...

Are you serious? Why are you still making excuses for the con man?

Well, if there was multiple "private" fire stations that were all clamoring to put out fires faster and cheaper than the government ones, yes I would be saying just that. Let's also drop the pretenses that the PO can't be criticized. They have A LOT of waste that only exists because of their lack of accountability. Everything from locations that shouldn't exist to employees that are nearly immune to firing, to job performance that would make even a layman efficiency expert cringe.

That's a rather impressive straw man you just built there. Nowhere did I say that the USPS can't be criticized or improved, I only said that judging a government service as if it was a for-profit business is an absurd standard. Things like the USPS not paying property taxes are not valid complaints.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Ash87 wrote:
So, My understanding of things, was that Trump was the Peaceful option we could of elected in 2016. No way he was going to start bombing people who weren't directly effecting the US... Nope.

Just... Ugh. I'm disgusted with today.

This is what happens when you elect a con man. We all knew this was going to happen, but people wanted to believe the con man's lies and so here we are.
.

Look at the bright side, at least he's not at Obama levels of hypocrisy on the subject yet. Which still makes him better than the alternative choice we had, since Hillary supported those actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If I remember correctly, the US Government gives the Post Office something like $19.5 Billion in subsidies every year. There are something like 300,000 vehicles in use by the Post Office, not a one of them has a license plate or is registered. They don't pay fuel taxes (what is the average now $.47 per gallon?), and they don't pay property taxes on any of their locations. If they had to pay for all these things no way they could ever afford to stay in business on their own.

Of course the real question is why a government service is being held to the standards of a for-profit business in the first place. It's like looking at the fire department's budget and complaining about how the government has to subsidize their operations and they'd never survive as an independent business.

Well, if there was multiple "private" fire stations that were all clamoring to put out fires faster and cheaper than the government ones, yes I would be saying just that.

How much do the government ones cost you? Also, faster is a good thing but by no means is cheaper a good thing when it comes to fighting fires and saving lives. If they don't have the proper training, proper gear, or even people on duty your life/house could be in danger.

Its Christmas and all of the private fire stations are off for Christmas. Because you know, they are private. Hope your garden hose has good pressure!

I forgot about how that Post office is open 24-7-365........ Oh, wait, you mean they are closed 65 days per year, MORE than their competitors. Darn.

I was going to try and write something snarky here. But honestly, I don't even know what you are getting at with this. I am legitimately confused. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Look at the bright side, at least he's not at Obama levels of hypocrisy on the subject yet. Which still makes him better than the alternative choice we had, since Hillary supported those actions.

...

Are you serious? Why are you still making excuses for the con man?

.

Are you saying that it isn't true, because it certainly is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[
I was going to try and write something snarky here. But honestly, I don't even know what you are getting at with this. I am legitimately confused. This makes absolutely no sense to me.

You are the one that implied that a Private business was more likely to abandon customers or be unavailable to them. FYI, there are districts with private fire departments and they do just fine.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Are you saying that it isn't true, because it certainly is.

What is true? That Clinton was willing to use the military to intervene in other countries? I don't think anyone is going to dispute this, the issue is people defending Trump after he blatantly lied about opposing any potential war and then promptly started one as soon as it was convenient. And now we have the absurdity of you defending the con man, because apparently honestly supporting the use of the military is worse than taking the same actions but lying about it long enough to get elected.

The US Postal Service is an awkward institution in large part because it is a constitutional obligation. The government has to provide mail service per the Postal Clause (it's actually one of the only government institutions explicitly brought into existence by the Constitution), and even setting aside the constitutional issue it provides an essential service that is horribly undervalued today but still essential. People need a way to move gak from point a to point b. The struggles of the postal service are largely the result of idiotic mismanagement, underfunding, and just horribly goal setting.

The goal should not be for USPS to be "competitive" with privately owned deliverers. USPS should be refocused on doing something isn't profitable for private industry but still needs to be done; general mail. Let UPS and FedEx or whoever mail all the boxes. They're better at it and more effective, but neither of them gain much from more general paper mail service. Additionally USPS provides an essential function of mailing services at all; management of mailing protocol which is only getting more complicated with rising population. They're literally running out of road names in some zip codes! Gotta fix that gak XD

Let's not forget that UPS/FedEx/etc often use USPS for final delivery of their boxes.

 Peregrine wrote:
[
That's a rather impressive straw man you just built there. Nowhere did I say that the USPS can't be criticized or improved, I only said that judging a government service as if it was a for-profit business is an absurd standard. Things like the USPS not paying property taxes are not valid complaints.

Maybe I want to compare the Post office to a private company is because of the 1971 Postal Reorganization Act, which eliminated the old Post Office Department, replaced it with the US Postal Service. The act was intended to make the USPS self-financing from its own revenues, and to make it an independent, non-political public service. In essence the Post office was SUPPOSED to be run like a for-profit business.