Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 369441 times)

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1100 on: February 27, 2018, 12:25:55 PM »

I'm not really a China optimist. Their sheer size and competent enough government makes them a possible peer competitor, but they are going to have major demographic short-comings in the not so distant future. The US will hold up substantially better than China's coming graying.

China also has a shit geopolitical situation around its borders. They are going to permanently have a huge US presence in the area, which is just going to scale up as China becomes more powerful. They simply can't compete with high-end US tech and it's probably going to be a few decades before they can. Even then, practically everyone around China has spent a LOT of money trying to kill Chinese people, and most of them have defense budgets that definitely account for the whole "rising China" meme.

Russia in particular is not China's friend and is just as likely to turn against China as it is against the US.

China is expending some soft power, but meh. Soft power has limits, especially when you don't have hard power to back it up. If I am a third world nation, I am still very concerned about what Europe and the US think, because they have a LOT more influence, AND a lot of guns to back it up. Like Iran? Yeah, I think if it just came down to China exerting some influence, Iran wouldn't care, but those Western sanctions bite, and the threat of war with the US is really intimidating. Unless you are a superpower like Russia or China, your military is basically a speed-bump and will be dismantled very quickly if you piss off Congress badly enough.

Bunch of nonsense.   Here's a rebuttal.

Their sheer size and competent enough government makes them a possible peer competitor,

China isn't a possible peer competitor, it's already a peer competitor.   China has more international trade than the US and the Chinese GDP will exceed that of the US within the next decade.

They are going to permanently have a huge US presence in the area,

Well they might if you guys could get your national debt under control.   The way Merica is going you won't be able to fund the once vaunted US military.

They simply can't compete with high-end US tech

BS.  China doesn't innovate as well as the US, but they make up for it by copying US ideas and technology at an incredible rate.

it's probably going to be a few decades before they can.

That was twenty years ago.   Guess what?   It's been  a few decades.

Soft power has limits, especially when you don't have hard power to back it up.

Especially when the national leader of your opposition is a artist of the deal.   Trump's doing a great job of out-soft powering China don't you think?

If I am a third world nation, I am still very concerned about what Europe and the US think, because they have a LOT more influence, AND a lot of guns to back it up.

Ooo, scary.   How's that working with the Iran and the Norks so far?

The sooner Mericans wake up and stop screwing around with internecine politics the better.

China is not a peer competitor in anything except in CO2 production and lead poisoning. They are relevant only in their own backyard or other places where there is no competing influence, IE, places no one cares about.

Regarding North Korea: a great example of how China has little influence. They can't even keep their own client state in-line, which is directly jeopardizing Chinese security. Regarding the Middle East: Iran, a third-tier nation under massive sanctions, has more influence than China.

The Chinese-Indian border standoff is probably another good example of how limited Chinese influence and soft power really is, particularly when you contrast with their fortification of the South China Sea. China doesn't even feel comfortable bullying India, and you think they are a peer competitor with America?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12039
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1101 on: February 27, 2018, 12:27:39 PM »
Quote
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.



So if I object to gun ownership on moral grounds I'm exempt?

I'd be interested to compare statistics between those cities and similar cities without the requirement (certainly gun-related measures, but broader stuff too).

What if you don't object to maintaining firearms on the basis of belief or religious doctrine though, but just don't want to spend your money on one?

what if someone shoots me with their government mandated firearm? can i sue the government?

Are you a straight white Christian, or one of those trouble makers?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1102 on: February 27, 2018, 12:31:51 PM »
Lets arm our teachers! And give them bonus if they carry their weapons to school. 

Heck, we should just make it a law that everyone is required to carry weapons everywhere so we can take care of ourselves when there is mass shooting <facepalm>


This story is pretty sad for lack of better words to describe it. I wonder if he is human or robot...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/politics/trump-talking-points.html


You're being sarcastic but this idea (making it mandatory by law that everyone is armed) is a serious proposal from the gun folks.

No, it is not. It might be from trump, but... well, he's trump.


Yes, it is. There are at least five municipalities in the US that have passed mandatory gun ownership ordinances. i.e. You must own a gun and ammunition (usually per household). How is that not a serious proposal when the gun folks have actually enacted the legislation?

I intended my comment to be applied to the arming all teachers thing.  And aside from a few municipalities, I have not heard anyone suggesting this on a national scale, and wouldn't support it if they did.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1103 on: February 27, 2018, 12:35:57 PM »
Quote
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

So if I object to gun ownership on moral grounds I'm exempt?

I'd be interested to compare statistics between those cities and similar cities without the requirement (certainly gun-related measures, but broader stuff too).

What if you don't object to maintaining firearms on the basis of belief or religious doctrine though, but just don't want to spend your money on one?

My frugal life philosophy means I do not purchase things that won't enrich my life. Owning a gun won't enrich my life (which isn't a commentary on anyone else's life, BTW), ergo gun ownership is against my beliefs.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1104 on: February 27, 2018, 12:38:43 PM »
I'm honestly surprised that there are municipalities in this day and age that REQUIRE gun ownership. Pretty f'in stupid.

The federal government can probably require it, though. One of the first militia acts required every able-bodied man to furnish himself with a musket, powder, and shot. IANAL, though. It'd be a pretty stupid act to pass.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1105 on: February 27, 2018, 05:52:44 PM »
China is not a peer competitor in anything except in CO2 production and lead poisoning. They are relevant only in their own backyard or other places where there is no competing influence, IE, places no one cares about.
And this is an excellent example of the strategy "deny the decline." Beta Guy here would not get elected in the US, except against another candidate denying the decline.

Some people in the US are sitting around at home with no job, and no prospect of a job - but their fathers and mothers had one. They open their door into a yard with patches of grass among the clay, and debris from the overfull rubbish bins that haven't been collected. They go for a walk along a street with grass pushing through the cracks in the unmaintained pavement running along the side of a road with chunks of asphalt pushing up and potholes in it, past closed vandalised factories, abandoned houses with all their copper and aluminium torn out, maybe just a few drug addicts living in them. They walk past old closed churches and brotherhood lodges where their parents or grandparents used to socialise and find ways to help each-other, but they might not remember that.

They hit the old downtown where the trains no longer run as often, or maybe not at all, and see that many of the shops are boarded up, and many of those remaining are payday loan places. The bigger shops are all parts of chains, like McDs and Walmart, filled with goods which are cheap but which were only touched by American hands in transit.

If they get across town they start going past places with automatic sprinklers spitting across manicured lawns, the buildings are either very new, or very old but very well-preserved, and recent migrants, both legal and illegal, are tending the garden and keeping the house in good repair, or looking after the children while the parents go to secure salaried jobs in their airconditioned offices. Some of the people in these offices are right-wing, some are left-wing, some would say the walker is just idle, some would say the walker needs the help of the state, but none of them will know the walker's name, or ever meet them socially, nor would any of them think to ask the walker, "well, what do you think is the issue?" For those in the offices, there is no issue. Right-wing or left, they just don't get it. For the salaried worker in the office with cheap stuff in the shops and cheap servants to keep the house nice, there is no issue, everything's great.

This person walking through town knows there are issues, and knows America is declining. The person in the office doesn't, except maybe the janitor. Keep denying the decline, and Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and you still won't understand why.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4983
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1106 on: February 27, 2018, 07:39:16 PM »
" I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon " coming out of the same person who avoided military by coming up with some lame excuse, and now he thinks he can be the selfless hero lmao

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-he-would-have-run-florida-school-n851266

Donald just confirming that he's a dangerous nitwit again. Dangerous b/c he influences thousands of people (his STUPID speeches and Twitter messages) and controls hundreds of thousands more (presidential control).

Trump has a remarkable, well document history of lying.  It's something he does every day . . . nearly every time that he speaks.  Can anyone (even for a moment) entertain the thought of Donald Trump running into a firefight without a weapon in an attempt to selflessly sacrifice himself for others?

 . . . I'll wait for the laughter to stop.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/26/trump-said-he-would-charge-a-gunman-heres-what-hes-actually-done-in-the-face-of-danger/?utm_term=.5660c6b312b4

Quote
Trump, who has a reputation as a germaphobe, has spoken about his fear of contamination for years. He told Stern about his penchant for hand-washing and drinking through straws, saying he was concerned about glasses being dirty and the cleanliness of other people’s hands.

He also told the radio host that he was terrified of blood.

“I’m not good for medical,” he said in a 2008 interview. “In other words, if you cut your finger and there’s blood pouring out, I’m gone.”

He told Stern about an old man falling from the stage during a benefit at his Mar-a-Lago club.

“I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away,” Trump said. “I didn’t want to touch him.... He’s bleeding all over the place. I felt terrible. You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red. And you have this poor guy, 80 years old, laying on the floor unconscious, and all the rich people are turning away. ‘Oh my God! This is terrible! This is disgusting!’ And you know, they’re turning away. Nobody wants to help the guy.”

Trump said Marines at the benefit came to the aid of the fallen man, and the future president kicked into action.

“I was saying, ‘Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!’ ” said Trump. “The next day, I forgot to call to say he’s okay.”

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1107 on: February 28, 2018, 11:14:02 AM »
Blood is disgusting he says but its just one of those things that we all have to deal with at some point or another. Now if the hurt man was drunk and flinging poo at the other guests then somebody would have a right to be offended.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1108 on: February 28, 2018, 12:44:46 PM »
China is not a peer competitor in anything except in CO2 production and lead poisoning. They are relevant only in their own backyard or other places where there is no competing influence, IE, places no one cares about.
And this is an excellent example of the strategy "deny the decline." Beta Guy here would not get elected in the US, except against another candidate denying the decline.

Some people in the US are sitting around at home with no job, and no prospect of a job - but their fathers and mothers had one. They open their door into a yard with patches of grass among the clay, and debris from the overfull rubbish bins that haven't been collected. They go for a walk along a street with grass pushing through the cracks in the unmaintained pavement running along the side of a road with chunks of asphalt pushing up and potholes in it, past closed vandalised factories, abandoned houses with all their copper and aluminium torn out, maybe just a few drug addicts living in them. They walk past old closed churches and brotherhood lodges where their parents or grandparents used to socialise and find ways to help each-other, but they might not remember that.

They hit the old downtown where the trains no longer run as often, or maybe not at all, and see that many of the shops are boarded up, and many of those remaining are payday loan places. The bigger shops are all parts of chains, like McDs and Walmart, filled with goods which are cheap but which were only touched by American hands in transit.

If they get across town they start going past places with automatic sprinklers spitting across manicured lawns, the buildings are either very new, or very old but very well-preserved, and recent migrants, both legal and illegal, are tending the garden and keeping the house in good repair, or looking after the children while the parents go to secure salaried jobs in their airconditioned offices. Some of the people in these offices are right-wing, some are left-wing, some would say the walker is just idle, some would say the walker needs the help of the state, but none of them will know the walker's name, or ever meet them socially, nor would any of them think to ask the walker, "well, what do you think is the issue?" For those in the offices, there is no issue. Right-wing or left, they just don't get it. For the salaried worker in the office with cheap stuff in the shops and cheap servants to keep the house nice, there is no issue, everything's great.

This person walking through town knows there are issues, and knows America is declining. The person in the office doesn't, except maybe the janitor. Keep denying the decline, and Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and you still won't understand why.
Umm, and having spent some time in China I'd say your entire treatise describes their situation as well.  Most of the country is run down and impoverished.  Certain areas of extreme success exist, mainly in the key industrial cities.  In those cities, China is on the rise.  For everyone else, it sucks.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1109 on: February 28, 2018, 02:23:25 PM »
China is not a peer competitor in anything except in CO2 production and lead poisoning. They are relevant only in their own backyard or other places where there is no competing influence, IE, places no one cares about.
And this is an excellent example of the strategy "deny the decline." Beta Guy here would not get elected in the US, except against another candidate denying the decline.

Some people in the US are sitting around at home with no job, and no prospect of a job - but their fathers and mothers had one. They open their door into a yard with patches of grass among the clay, and debris from the overfull rubbish bins that haven't been collected. They go for a walk along a street with grass pushing through the cracks in the unmaintained pavement running along the side of a road with chunks of asphalt pushing up and potholes in it, past closed vandalised factories, abandoned houses with all their copper and aluminium torn out, maybe just a few drug addicts living in them. They walk past old closed churches and brotherhood lodges where their parents or grandparents used to socialise and find ways to help each-other, but they might not remember that.

They hit the old downtown where the trains no longer run as often, or maybe not at all, and see that many of the shops are boarded up, and many of those remaining are payday loan places. The bigger shops are all parts of chains, like McDs and Walmart, filled with goods which are cheap but which were only touched by American hands in transit.

If they get across town they start going past places with automatic sprinklers spitting across manicured lawns, the buildings are either very new, or very old but very well-preserved, and recent migrants, both legal and illegal, are tending the garden and keeping the house in good repair, or looking after the children while the parents go to secure salaried jobs in their airconditioned offices. Some of the people in these offices are right-wing, some are left-wing, some would say the walker is just idle, some would say the walker needs the help of the state, but none of them will know the walker's name, or ever meet them socially, nor would any of them think to ask the walker, "well, what do you think is the issue?" For those in the offices, there is no issue. Right-wing or left, they just don't get it. For the salaried worker in the office with cheap stuff in the shops and cheap servants to keep the house nice, there is no issue, everything's great.

This person walking through town knows there are issues, and knows America is declining. The person in the office doesn't, except maybe the janitor. Keep denying the decline, and Trump will be re-elected in 2020, and you still won't understand why.

There are a few geographic areas and groups in relative decline, that have a disproportionate voting influence. Kinda sucks for those people, I have no problem admitting that, but that doesn't mean the nation as a whole is in decline. Maybe the nation as a whole needs to stop wasting money on stupid shit like 3k square foot houses and giant cars and there'd be more money to spare elsewhere.

There's maybe one measure that shows problems, which is that median wages for white males has stagnated. But inflation is overstated and that doesn't include total compensation, so overall compensation is still up...not as much as people might like, but it's still better than the 70s. Opportunities for women and minority groups are definitely better.

I definitely wouldn't get elected, but that's probably because I'm too close to the "stop whining about this crap" camp.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1110 on: February 28, 2018, 02:39:24 PM »
I think that I may have overestimated Ben Carson as a cabinet pick.  It's nonsensical, and he has no expertise, but-wrongly-I thought that he is a decent person who would at least work hard and try his best.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/ben-carson-hud-office-furniture-costs/index.html


I mean, he doesn't make his staff fly a ceremonial flag when he's in residence (Zinke), fly first class to avoid the poors (Pruitt), and fly his wife around to see the eclipse at taxpayer expense and ask for free airfare for their honeymoon travel (Mnuchin).  However, there's definitely a pattern here. Trump has hired a bunch of people from the private sector who were used to dipping their hands in the trough with no repercussions.  For all the talk of how much more efficient businesses are, there is one area in the private sector where no expense is spared: executive perks.  These people are unprepared to comply with the ethical requirements of public service, since they are used to their businesses subsidizing their luxuries.  I'm sure all of the "drain the swamp" voters will have a great deal to say about this.  Or is their new hot take that a 31k dining room set is a reasonable expense?


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1111 on: February 28, 2018, 02:48:49 PM »
I think that I may have overestimated Ben Carson as a cabinet pick.  It's nonsensical, and he has no expertise, but-wrongly-I thought that he is a decent person who would at least work hard and try his best.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/ben-carson-hud-office-furniture-costs/index.html


I mean, he doesn't make his staff fly a ceremonial flag when he's in residence (Zinke), fly first class to avoid the poors (Pruitt), and fly his wife around to see the eclipse at taxpayer expense and ask for free airfare for their honeymoon travel (Mnuchin).  However, there's definitely a pattern here. Trump has hired a bunch of people from the private sector who were used to dipping their hands in the trough with no repercussions.  For all the talk of how much more efficient businesses are, there is one area in the private sector where no expense is spared: executive perks.  These people are unprepared to comply with the ethical requirements of public service, since they are used to their businesses subsidizing their luxuries.  I'm sure all of the "drain the swamp" voters will have a great deal to say about this.  Or is their new hot take that a 31k dining room set is a reasonable expense?

Well, when the president they voted for literally has gold-plated toilets in his home, I'm guessing it's totally A-OK with them.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1112 on: February 28, 2018, 02:53:20 PM »
I think that I may have overestimated Ben Carson as a cabinet pick.  It's nonsensical, and he has no expertise, but-wrongly-I thought that he is a decent person who would at least work hard and try his best.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/ben-carson-hud-office-furniture-costs/index.html


I mean, he doesn't make his staff fly a ceremonial flag when he's in residence (Zinke), fly first class to avoid the poors (Pruitt), and fly his wife around to see the eclipse at taxpayer expense and ask for free airfare for their honeymoon travel (Mnuchin).  However, there's definitely a pattern here. Trump has hired a bunch of people from the private sector who were used to dipping their hands in the trough with no repercussions.  For all the talk of how much more efficient businesses are, there is one area in the private sector where no expense is spared: executive perks.  These people are unprepared to comply with the ethical requirements of public service, since they are used to their businesses subsidizing their luxuries.  I'm sure all of the "drain the swamp" voters will have a great deal to say about this.  Or is their new hot take that a 31k dining room set is a reasonable expense?

Well, when the president they voted for literally has gold-plated toilets in his home, I'm guessing it's totally A-OK with them.

Sure-but you'd think they'd care (or pretend to) when this stuff is coming at the taxpayer expense. Is there a handbook or flow chart that we can use as to when it's OK that the government pays for luxuries?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1113 on: February 28, 2018, 03:23:07 PM »
I think that I may have overestimated Ben Carson as a cabinet pick.  It's nonsensical, and he has no expertise, but-wrongly-I thought that he is a decent person who would at least work hard and try his best.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/ben-carson-hud-office-furniture-costs/index.html


I mean, he doesn't make his staff fly a ceremonial flag when he's in residence (Zinke), fly first class to avoid the poors (Pruitt), and fly his wife around to see the eclipse at taxpayer expense and ask for free airfare for their honeymoon travel (Mnuchin).  However, there's definitely a pattern here. Trump has hired a bunch of people from the private sector who were used to dipping their hands in the trough with no repercussions.  For all the talk of how much more efficient businesses are, there is one area in the private sector where no expense is spared: executive perks.  These people are unprepared to comply with the ethical requirements of public service, since they are used to their businesses subsidizing their luxuries.  I'm sure all of the "drain the swamp" voters will have a great deal to say about this.  Or is their new hot take that a 31k dining room set is a reasonable expense?

Well, when the president they voted for literally has gold-plated toilets in his home, I'm guessing it's totally A-OK with them.

Sure-but you'd think they'd care (or pretend to) when this stuff is coming at the taxpayer expense. Is there a handbook or flow chart that we can use as to when it's OK that the government pays for luxuries?

Sure. It looks something like this:

Is it a Republican? --------> It's totally fine! Why are the libtards making such an issue about this? TOTAL nothingburger!
Is it a Democrat? ----------> OUTRAGEOUS! WASTEFUL GUBMINT SPENDING! DRAIN THE SWAMP!

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1114 on: February 28, 2018, 03:42:06 PM »
I think that I may have overestimated Ben Carson as a cabinet pick.  It's nonsensical, and he has no expertise, but-wrongly-I thought that he is a decent person who would at least work hard and try his best.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/ben-carson-hud-office-furniture-costs/index.html


I mean, he doesn't make his staff fly a ceremonial flag when he's in residence (Zinke), fly first class to avoid the poors (Pruitt), and fly his wife around to see the eclipse at taxpayer expense and ask for free airfare for their honeymoon travel (Mnuchin).  However, there's definitely a pattern here. Trump has hired a bunch of people from the private sector who were used to dipping their hands in the trough with no repercussions.  For all the talk of how much more efficient businesses are, there is one area in the private sector where no expense is spared: executive perks.  These people are unprepared to comply with the ethical requirements of public service, since they are used to their businesses subsidizing their luxuries.  I'm sure all of the "drain the swamp" voters will have a great deal to say about this.  Or is their new hot take that a 31k dining room set is a reasonable expense?

Well, when the president they voted for literally has gold-plated toilets in his home, I'm guessing it's totally A-OK with them.

Sure-but you'd think they'd care (or pretend to) when this stuff is coming at the taxpayer expense. Is there a handbook or flow chart that we can use as to when it's OK that the government pays for luxuries?

Sure. It looks something like this:

Is it a Republican? --------> It's totally fine! Why are the libtards making such an issue about this? TOTAL nothingburger!
Is it a Democrat? ----------> OUTRAGEOUS! WASTEFUL GUBMINT SPENDING! DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1115 on: February 28, 2018, 03:54:48 PM »
I think that I may have overestimated Ben Carson as a cabinet pick.  It's nonsensical, and he has no expertise, but-wrongly-I thought that he is a decent person who would at least work hard and try his best.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/ben-carson-hud-office-furniture-costs/index.html


I mean, he doesn't make his staff fly a ceremonial flag when he's in residence (Zinke), fly first class to avoid the poors (Pruitt), and fly his wife around to see the eclipse at taxpayer expense and ask for free airfare for their honeymoon travel (Mnuchin).  However, there's definitely a pattern here. Trump has hired a bunch of people from the private sector who were used to dipping their hands in the trough with no repercussions.  For all the talk of how much more efficient businesses are, there is one area in the private sector where no expense is spared: executive perks.  These people are unprepared to comply with the ethical requirements of public service, since they are used to their businesses subsidizing their luxuries.  I'm sure all of the "drain the swamp" voters will have a great deal to say about this.  Or is their new hot take that a 31k dining room set is a reasonable expense?

Well, when the president they voted for literally has gold-plated toilets in his home, I'm guessing it's totally A-OK with them.

Sure-but you'd think they'd care (or pretend to) when this stuff is coming at the taxpayer expense. Is there a handbook or flow chart that we can use as to when it's OK that the government pays for luxuries?

Sure. It looks something like this:

Is it a Republican? --------> It's totally fine! Why are the libtards making such an issue about this? TOTAL nothingburger!
Is it a Democrat? ----------> OUTRAGEOUS! WASTEFUL GUBMINT SPENDING! DRAIN THE SWAMP!

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7332
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1116 on: February 28, 2018, 03:57:52 PM »
I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

Lol!  Why?  Why would you possible expect any better from Carson than from any of the other corrupt plutocrat toolbags Trump has given high offices?

Trump has been very clear that he only wants rich people in charge of government agencies.  Preferably rich people who want to shut down the agencies he appoints them to lead (see Energy, EPA, Interior, etc). 

As a side note, and maybe coincidentally, these are the exact same types of people that an American adversary (say, Russia?) would want appointed.  People who will weaken and undermine the American government from within.  People who value wealth and power more than public service.  People who can be bought, but that you don't need to buy because they are already keen to destroy America in the exact same ways you want them to.

I'll be shocked if we don't eventually find emails of Trump literally asking for the Kremlin's opinion on these appointments before he makes them.  Remember that the single change to the Republican Partly platform that the Trump campaign made when he became the nominee, weeks after holding secret meetings with the Russians, was to remove the line about enforcing sanctions on Russia.  If that's not a clear-as-day sign of collusion then I don't know what is.  We have documented evidence of the Russians offering their help with the election in exchange for easing sanctions, we have documented evidence of the Trump campaign discussing the offer both internally and with the Russians, we have documented evidence of the Russians delivering on their promise of election help, and we have documented evidence of the Trump campaign making the requested change to the sanction language.  If Mueller can't legally label that collusion, then I think America is done.

At this point, the only question is how to deal with this shitshow in a way that doesn't tear down the entire US government.  He's still the US President and it looks bad if we publicly reveal that he's patently corrupt.  That reflects poorly on the country.   Like with so many other US scandals (like Nixon's treason), it wouldn't surprise me if this one gets buried for decades in the interest of continuity of government.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1117 on: February 28, 2018, 05:31:44 PM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.




Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1118 on: February 28, 2018, 05:50:42 PM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 05:53:33 PM by Kris »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4983
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1119 on: February 28, 2018, 05:59:43 PM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.
1) You couldn't find something more current than three years ago? Anyway, let's play the one for one game. I'll give you Tom Price five months ago, Bob Corker two months ago,

2) What exactly is the party with conservative economic values modulated with some progressive social values?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1120 on: February 28, 2018, 06:39:05 PM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?

Right. If we can only talk about those who 'got away with it' then we're both left to our imaginations, and can post any half-backed speculatory op ed we want... at which point you'll say mine are biased while posting the ones biased to the democrat's perspective as objective. No thanks.

Trump and co is beyond defense. I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not.
I went with kitzhaber because it came to mind immediately as a clear cut, proven case that a well know left biased paper grudgingly published.

If we're going to look at things like Corker then we have to consider any democrat who took a nickel from public employee unions... then lets them rob our students and taxpayers of quality of services as they pilfer the public coffers.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4983
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1121 on: February 28, 2018, 07:01:40 PM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?

Right. If we can only talk about those who 'got away with it' then we're both left to our imaginations, and can post any half-backed speculatory op ed we want... at which point you'll say mine are biased while posting the ones biased to the democrat's perspective as objective. No thanks.

Trump and co is beyond defense. I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not.
I went with kitzhaber because it came to mind immediately as a clear cut, proven case that a well know left biased paper grudgingly published.

If we're going to look at things like Corker then we have to consider any democrat who took a nickel from public employee unions... then lets them rob our students and taxpayers of quality of services as they pilfer the public coffers.

Corker flipped his vote for an estimated $1mil+ gain and you're talking about nickels? That's an interesting tactic.

Anyway, I'm reasonably certain that nobody here has claimed that "leftists" are "inherently beyond corruption."

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1122 on: February 28, 2018, 07:13:53 PM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?

Right. If we can only talk about those who 'got away with it' then we're both left to our imaginations, and can post any half-backed speculatory op ed we want... at which point you'll say mine are biased while posting the ones biased to the democrat's perspective as objective. No thanks.

Trump and co is beyond defense. I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not.
I went with kitzhaber because it came to mind immediately as a clear cut, proven case that a well know left biased paper grudgingly published.

If we're going to look at things like Corker then we have to consider any democrat who took a nickel from public employee unions... then lets them rob our students and taxpayers of quality of services as they pilfer the public coffers.


Let’s scratch “got away with”, then, and just say “verifiable by a credible source.”

People on the left are not beyond corruption. Obviously. But that is never what I said, of course, and I suspect you know that.

My offer stands as amended.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1123 on: March 01, 2018, 08:13:46 AM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?

Right. If we can only talk about those who 'got away with it' then we're both left to our imaginations, and can post any half-backed speculatory op ed we want... at which point you'll say mine are biased while posting the ones biased to the democrat's perspective as objective. No thanks.

Trump and co is beyond defense. I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not.
I went with kitzhaber because it came to mind immediately as a clear cut, proven case that a well know left biased paper grudgingly published.

If we're going to look at things like Corker then we have to consider any democrat who took a nickel from public employee unions... then lets them rob our students and taxpayers of quality of services as they pilfer the public coffers.


Let’s scratch “got away with”, then, and just say “verifiable by a credible source.”

People on the left are not beyond corruption. Obviously. But that is never what I said, of course, and I suspect you know that.

My offer stands as amended.



But, You're right, I pivoted to showing that democrats have things to be held accountable for, when you said, what exactly? That I was dishonest for thinking democrats have a double standard for their leaders too? Looking back I'm not sure what your point was, other than to jab republicans for something that equally jabs democrats. But whatever.

I don't have time to trade wikipedia articles on corrupt politicians. Poor choice to make an offer that I certain could fulfill, but had no intention spending that much time on.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 08:35:08 AM by ncornilsen »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1124 on: March 01, 2018, 08:29:17 AM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?

Right. If we can only talk about those who 'got away with it' then we're both left to our imaginations, and can post any half-backed speculatory op ed we want... at which point you'll say mine are biased while posting the ones biased to the democrat's perspective as objective. No thanks.

Trump and co is beyond defense. I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not.
I went with kitzhaber because it came to mind immediately as a clear cut, proven case that a well know left biased paper grudgingly published.

If we're going to look at things like Corker then we have to consider any democrat who took a nickel from public employee unions... then lets them rob our students and taxpayers of quality of services as they pilfer the public coffers.


Let’s scratch “got away with”, then, and just say “verifiable by a credible source.”

People on the left are not beyond corruption. Obviously. But that is never what I said, of course, and I suspect you know that.

My offer stands as amended.

I forgot, anyone who doesn't agree with Kris is arguing in bad faith.

But, You're right, I pivoted to showing that democrats have things to be held accountable for, when you said, what exactly? That I was dishonest for thinking democrats have a double standard for their leaders too? Looking back I'm not sure what your point was, other than to jab republicans for something that equally jabs democrats. But whatever.

I don't have time to trade wikipedia articles on corrupt politicians. Poor choice to make an offer that I certain could fulfill, but had no intention spending that much time on.

Nope.

Ncornilsen is putting words in my mouth. That's different.

You didn't say that Democrats have things to be held accountable for. I completely agree with that. You said, and I quote:

"For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat."

I disputed that.

And then you conveniently obfuscated that by tossing up a strawman:

"I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not."

But yeah. I get that you don't have time to find me a democrat enriching him- or herself for every republican. That would take a lot of time.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 08:33:04 AM by Kris »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1125 on: March 01, 2018, 08:39:49 AM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?

Right. If we can only talk about those who 'got away with it' then we're both left to our imaginations, and can post any half-backed speculatory op ed we want... at which point you'll say mine are biased while posting the ones biased to the democrat's perspective as objective. No thanks.

Trump and co is beyond defense. I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not.
I went with kitzhaber because it came to mind immediately as a clear cut, proven case that a well know left biased paper grudgingly published.

If we're going to look at things like Corker then we have to consider any democrat who took a nickel from public employee unions... then lets them rob our students and taxpayers of quality of services as they pilfer the public coffers.


Let’s scratch “got away with”, then, and just say “verifiable by a credible source.”

People on the left are not beyond corruption. Obviously. But that is never what I said, of course, and I suspect you know that.

My offer stands as amended.

I forgot, anyone who doesn't agree with Kris is arguing in bad faith.

But, You're right, I pivoted to showing that democrats have things to be held accountable for, when you said, what exactly? That I was dishonest for thinking democrats have a double standard for their leaders too? Looking back I'm not sure what your point was, other than to jab republicans for something that equally jabs democrats. But whatever.

I don't have time to trade wikipedia articles on corrupt politicians. Poor choice to make an offer that I certain could fulfill, but had no intention spending that much time on.

Nope.

Ncornilsen is putting words in my mouth. That's different.

You didn't say that Democrats have things to be held accountable for. I completely agree with that. You said, and I quote:

"For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat."

I disputed that.

And then you conveniently obfuscated that by tossing up a strawman:

"I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not."

But yeah. I get that you don't have time to find me a democrat enriching him- or herself for every republican. That would take a lot of time.

Uh, no.

You called me dishonest (and glib) right when I said that democrats hold thier elected officials to double standards as well.  Since to deny that would be so easily defeated/lacking in substance, I assumed you were obliquely saying something else and went down the path I did.

And it would take time. There are so many corrupt democrats and republicans out there, we could swap tales for weeks!


Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1126 on: March 01, 2018, 08:42:15 AM »
I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

Lol!  Why?  Why would you possible expect any better from Carson than from any of the other corrupt plutocrat toolbags Trump has given high offices?

Trump has been very clear that he only wants rich people in charge of government agencies.  Preferably rich people who want to shut down the agencies he appoints them to lead (see Energy, EPA, Interior, etc). 

As a side note, and maybe coincidentally, these are the exact same types of people that an American adversary (say, Russia?) would want appointed.  People who will weaken and undermine the American government from within.  People who value wealth and power more than public service.  People who can be bought, but that you don't need to buy because they are already keen to destroy America in the exact same ways you want them to.

I'll be shocked if we don't eventually find emails of Trump literally asking for the Kremlin's opinion on these appointments before he makes them.  Remember that the single change to the Republican Partly platform that the Trump campaign made when he became the nominee, weeks after holding secret meetings with the Russians, was to remove the line about enforcing sanctions on Russia.  If that's not a clear-as-day sign of collusion then I don't know what is.  We have documented evidence of the Russians offering their help with the election in exchange for easing sanctions, we have documented evidence of the Trump campaign discussing the offer both internally and with the Russians, we have documented evidence of the Russians delivering on their promise of election help, and we have documented evidence of the Trump campaign making the requested change to the sanction language.  If Mueller can't legally label that collusion, then I think America is done.

At this point, the only question is how to deal with this shitshow in a way that doesn't tear down the entire US government.  He's still the US President and it looks bad if we publicly reveal that he's patently corrupt.  That reflects poorly on the country.   Like with so many other US scandals (like Nixon's treason), it wouldn't surprise me if this one gets buried for decades in the interest of continuity of government.

Don't forget the corrosive effect that leadership has on employees in departments like these. They can and have been chasing away the department expertise. These departments will become less effective and creative.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1127 on: March 01, 2018, 08:42:57 AM »

Switch the parties and the applicabiity is the same.

Its unacceptable in either case... I would have expected better from Ben Carson.

This glib response was expected, but not entirely honest.

Likewise.

For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat. You have carson? I'll give you Oregon's Kitzhaber.  http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/02/oregon_ethics_watchdog_says_jo.html

Political parties are made of people, all subject to differing degrees of shitty behavior. Republicans have no monopoly on it. Your confirmation bias focuses on republican shiesters. Mine focuses on democrats. Both fuck us all.


Sol, until Carson was appointed by Trump, I didn't see much evidence of him being like that.

I'm dismayed at the evidence that's come forward thus far. I won't even try to defend Trump, but I will not stand to have the rest of the party go down with him. I beleive conservative economic values (unfortunately not identical to the GOP's practically excercised values) are the right way for this country, modulated with some progressive social values... and therefore WILL defend those who are not corrupt. Carson has apprently shown himself to be a a hipocrit at best, so don't consider any of this a defense for his actions.

Literally every single one?

How about matching federal for federal, or state for state?

How about matching dollar for dollar?

Let's start with Trump. How about you match me a modern Democratic president that has enriched himself and his family this much by this point in his presidency.

And let's keep this to office-holders that have actually gotten away with it, shall we?

After that, we can go down the line. VP, then Cabinet. Deal?

Right. If we can only talk about those who 'got away with it' then we're both left to our imaginations, and can post any half-backed speculatory op ed we want... at which point you'll say mine are biased while posting the ones biased to the democrat's perspective as objective. No thanks.

Trump and co is beyond defense. I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not.
I went with kitzhaber because it came to mind immediately as a clear cut, proven case that a well know left biased paper grudgingly published.

If we're going to look at things like Corker then we have to consider any democrat who took a nickel from public employee unions... then lets them rob our students and taxpayers of quality of services as they pilfer the public coffers.


Let’s scratch “got away with”, then, and just say “verifiable by a credible source.”

People on the left are not beyond corruption. Obviously. But that is never what I said, of course, and I suspect you know that.

My offer stands as amended.

I forgot, anyone who doesn't agree with Kris is arguing in bad faith.

But, You're right, I pivoted to showing that democrats have things to be held accountable for, when you said, what exactly? That I was dishonest for thinking democrats have a double standard for their leaders too? Looking back I'm not sure what your point was, other than to jab republicans for something that equally jabs democrats. But whatever.

I don't have time to trade wikipedia articles on corrupt politicians. Poor choice to make an offer that I certain could fulfill, but had no intention spending that much time on.

Nope.

Ncornilsen is putting words in my mouth. That's different.

You didn't say that Democrats have things to be held accountable for. I completely agree with that. You said, and I quote:

"For every republican enriching themselves at the public expense, I'll find you a democrat."

I disputed that.

And then you conveniently obfuscated that by tossing up a strawman:

"I just take exception that leftists are inherently beyond corruption when they are demonstrably not."

But yeah. I get that you don't have time to find me a democrat enriching him- or herself for every republican. That would take a lot of time.

Uh, no.

You called me dishonest (and glib) right when I said that democrats hold thier elected officials to double standards as well.  Since to deny that would be so easily defeated/lacking in substance, I assumed you were obliquely saying something else and went down the path I did.

And it would take time. There are so many corrupt democrats and republicans out there, we could swap tales for weeks!

I called you glib because the right-wing playbook you're reading from tosses out the "the left does it too, just as bad" false equivalency every time someone points out the cancerous corruption of the Republican Party.

Democrats absolutely hold their elected official to double standards as well. Which I never denied. You went down that path on your own.

You knows what happens when you assume.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1128 on: March 01, 2018, 09:05:17 AM »
But, You're right, I pivoted to showing that democrats have things to be held accountable for, when you said, what exactly? That I was dishonest for thinking democrats have a double standard for their leaders too? Looking back I'm not sure what your point was, other than to jab republicans for something that equally jabs democrats. But whatever.

I don't have time to trade wikipedia articles on corrupt politicians. Poor choice to make an offer that I certain could fulfill, but had no intention spending that much time on.

While I agree that there are certainly corrupt politicians within both parties I think you would have a hard time making the case that corruption occurs in the democratic party at the same levels (frequency/severity) that it does within the republican party.  I'm sure your just going to say that this is my liberal bias showing and that I just don't see the corruption within the democratic party, but I'm entirely open to being convinced that I'm wrong about this.  So please do lay out your case if you have one.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1129 on: March 01, 2018, 09:41:28 AM »
But, You're right, I pivoted to showing that democrats have things to be held accountable for, when you said, what exactly? That I was dishonest for thinking democrats have a double standard for their leaders too? Looking back I'm not sure what your point was, other than to jab republicans for something that equally jabs democrats. But whatever.

I don't have time to trade wikipedia articles on corrupt politicians. Poor choice to make an offer that I certain could fulfill, but had no intention spending that much time on.

While I agree that there are certainly corrupt politicians within both parties I think you would have a hard time making the case that corruption occurs in the democratic party at the same levels (frequency/severity) that it does within the republican party.  I'm sure your just going to say that this is my liberal bias showing and that I just don't see the corruption within the democratic party, but I'm entirely open to being convinced that I'm wrong about this.  So please do lay out your case if you have one.

Yes. This is what I would like to see, as well.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1130 on: March 01, 2018, 09:44:24 AM »
But, You're right, I pivoted to showing that democrats have things to be held accountable for, when you said, what exactly? That I was dishonest for thinking democrats have a double standard for their leaders too? Looking back I'm not sure what your point was, other than to jab republicans for something that equally jabs democrats. But whatever.

I don't have time to trade wikipedia articles on corrupt politicians. Poor choice to make an offer that I certain could fulfill, but had no intention spending that much time on.

While I agree that there are certainly corrupt politicians within both parties I think you would have a hard time making the case that corruption occurs in the democratic party at the same levels (frequency/severity) that it does within the republican party.  I'm sure your just going to say that this is my liberal bias showing and that I just don't see the corruption within the democratic party, but I'm entirely open to being convinced that I'm wrong about this.  So please do lay out your case if you have one.
That's well put.  As a Republican myself I find this a worthy and interesting challenge you have placed before @ncornilsen.  Sadly it appears they will not even make the simple attempt of putting up a contender on the presidential front to go against Trump.  Sad to lose the argument on the first point.  Probably, as I'd agree with your point, because they cannot because such a specimen does not exist.  But rather than agree that you and Kris make some valid points, they choose to take their ball and go home and claim they have better things to do with their time.  Sounds similar to the way Trump deals with challenges as well.  Maybe that's why there were enough people to be fooled/convinced into electing him. 

Anyway.  I would love to see at least a little rebuttal by @ncornilsen with actual people lining up against the offices as Kris asked, but alas, they chose to go hide and sulk.


Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1132 on: March 01, 2018, 11:40:45 AM »
Well, perhaps I should outsource. 

http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/when-is-a-scandal-not-a-scandal-when-theres-a-democrat-involved/

LOL -- finding a couple other guys whose opinions are the same as yours who trot out a few well-worn "scandals" beloved by the right is not really proving your point.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 11:51:47 AM by Kris »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1133 on: March 01, 2018, 01:24:04 PM »
Well, perhaps I should outsource. 

http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/when-is-a-scandal-not-a-scandal-when-theres-a-democrat-involved/

The first article falls victim to a problem I've been seeing a lot of recently.  Just because statistics can be tailored to fit a narrative and a given set of statistics happens to support a narrative that you don't like, that does not mean that the statistics are wrong.  While it would definitely make sense to include Nixon in those statistics it probably makes less sense to include all of the other individuals who were not charged with a crime.  Also, while a more holistic look at the parties would probably give you more information, the title of the chart clearly states that it is only looking at corruption in the executive branch.

The author then goes on to show that using other methodologies you could make it look like democrats are the more corrupt party, however the methodologies that he uses are clearly (to me) worse than the methodologies used by the original article.  For example, his first methodology includes convictions for crimes entirely unrelated to corruption.  His other two methodologies seem to take a much narrower look at the subject by including fewer years or only looking at "certain select corruption crimes".

Statistics may be imperfect, but that does not automatically make them wrong.  There are better and worse methodologies and showing that you can get different results using worse methodologies is not very convincing to me.

The second article (which is dripping with the same bias that it is trying to call out, btw) details a single democratic senator who the justice department has dropped all charges against and then calls out to a bunch of other scandals which I'm not even sure are actual scandals.  I may do some more research on them if I find the time, but the bias that is evident in the source material does not make me feel confident that I'll actually find anything substantial.  Either way, I'll reiterate that I'm certain that there are corrupt politicians in both parties.  What I'm looking for is evidence that the corruption that occurs within the democratic party happens with the same frequency and severity that it does within the republican party.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1134 on: March 01, 2018, 01:40:31 PM »
I'm glad the Republicans are so sharp and "on task" to go after Bernie!

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/28/bernie-sanders-australia-federal-election-commission/

(sarcasm)

sequoia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1135 on: March 01, 2018, 01:53:19 PM »
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/carson-s-hud-working-rescind-pricey-dining-set-order-agency-n852336

No more expensive furniture for the underling.... but seriously if this admin wants to save money, how about those weekly trip to Florida using Air Force One. I am sure one round trip from DC to Florida cost more than $31K.

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1136 on: March 01, 2018, 02:15:32 PM »
Looks like McMaster is following Hicks out the door.

WTF. I don't care if you are the biggest Trump supporter in the world, you have to acknowledge this is turning into a farce. The turnover rate in this administration is remarkable! The worst part is, we suffer the consequences when Trump is unable to receive the proper information through reliable channels and create a coherent strategy at any level.

Carson is prob next btw. Not that he mattered much but still.

This is turning into an absolute embarrassment.

sequoia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 548
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1137 on: March 01, 2018, 02:42:37 PM »
Looks like McMaster is following Hicks out the door.

WTF. I don't care if you are the biggest Trump supporter in the world, you have to acknowledge this is turning into a farce. The turnover rate in this administration is remarkable! The worst part is, we suffer the consequences when Trump is unable to receive the proper information through reliable channels and create a coherent strategy at any level.

Carson is prob next btw. Not that he mattered much but still.

This is turning into an absolute embarrassment.

Added bolding ^. Totally agree.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1138 on: March 01, 2018, 03:09:48 PM »
Looks like McMaster is following Hicks out the door.

WTF. I don't care if you are the biggest Trump supporter in the world, you have to acknowledge this is turning into a farce. The turnover rate in this administration is remarkable! The worst part is, we suffer the consequences when Trump is unable to receive the proper information through reliable channels and create a coherent strategy at any level.

Carson is prob next btw. Not that he mattered much but still.

This is turning into an absolute embarrassment.

Added bolding ^. Totally agree.

Yup.

Meanwhile, Putin is just oh-so-casually mentioning that he's got an unlimited range nuclear missile, and that it could hit, oh, I don't know, just as a crazy example... Florida.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/01/europe/putin-nuclear-missile-video-florida/index.html

Trump administration: "Oh, hey. That's like, not cool."

Trump supporters: BENGHAZI (or whatever they're on about this week). Apparently oblivious or indifferent to how few hands are actually running our executive branch. Our country is getting more vulnerable all the time.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 03:11:53 PM by Kris »

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1139 on: March 01, 2018, 05:34:47 PM »
Putin wants to bomb Florida? I think he might have majority support for that policy within the US.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1140 on: March 01, 2018, 06:41:07 PM »
First gun grabbing without due process, now tariffs!  Paul Ryan must be on suicide watch.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4983
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1141 on: March 01, 2018, 06:42:33 PM »
Are we tired of winning yet?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1142 on: March 01, 2018, 07:30:24 PM »
SO much winning.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/us-stocks-powell-fed-trump.html

Anyone taking bets on how much more the Dow will drop tomorrow?

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1143 on: March 01, 2018, 08:30:07 PM »
And trade war is here!

chaos is a ladder! Let's make sure T$%^p's base stays in the dungeon with less than what they started with~

I actually have a crazy (maybe not so crazy) idea about the current admin: Could it be the greatest admin ever? What if he removes poverty altogether (by burying some voters in the holes they dug in the first place, ie, electing him)? What if he manages to control the NRA (by getting other corps involved to boycott it)? What if he manages to end mass shooting (by inciting more frequent and perhaps "higher profile" shootings, say politicians or NRA heads)? What if he fixes the healthcare mess (by making it more unaffordable to some groups to the point of people just lie down and wait for the end)? What if he makes civil servants accountable again (by promoting the idea that poor Mr. Scot Peterson deserves vigilante justice) ? And so many others, the possibilities are endless; change begins with each and everyone of us!

America is sick, Trump is not merely the symptom, he is the cure.  By the time his terms are finished, oh I am so excited I can hardly finish the sentence.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3640
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1144 on: March 02, 2018, 01:36:55 AM »
I wonder whether one of the consequences of having such a dysfunctional government is that the USA might move away from having so many political posts at the top of government and replace them with permanent civil service appointments?

There are big problems with the current system pointed up by Trump: the difficulties of filling so many posts every four or eight years and the lack of continuity are two.

The biggest problem is the thinness of the numbers and seniority of staff available to stop serious wrongdoing by the President and his political appointees, particularly evident  in the day to day running of the White House and in the ability of the Attorney General's office to stop interference in legal proceedings including Mueller's investigation.

megaschnauzer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Pensacola, FL
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1145 on: March 02, 2018, 07:07:02 AM »
Putin wants to bomb Florida? I think he might have majority support for that policy within the US.
WAIT! let me get out of here first!

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1146 on: March 02, 2018, 07:20:44 AM »
Meanwhile, Putin is just oh-so-casually mentioning that he's got an unlimited range nuclear missile, and that it could hit, oh, I don't know, just as a crazy example... Florida.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/01/europe/putin-nuclear-missile-video-florida/index.html

Trump administration: "Oh, hey. That's like, not cool."

Oh I wouldn't worry about that. One of the things Putin likes to do is brag about military advances that they do not have yet. There have been many declarations of new military hardware they have developed that really haven't seen the light of day nor produced in any significant manner because they lack the funds to develop them.

Besides, what do I care about his missiles for? The US has enough nukes to kill every living thing on this planet 17 times over. 17 times. You only need 1. But just in case there is any fear of anyone surviving that one blast, we've got 16 more to ensure the job gets done.

If you want to see what a nuke will do to where you live, try this: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

You can set the nukes to past/present nukes, or even create your own! Add wind direction, air blast or ground blast, and you'll get a nice example of casualty and fallout results. Really wonderful tool to show how fucked you are should a modern ICBM hits your area. Also keep in mind it isn't the fireball that is going to kill most people, its the concussion from the blast, which goes out in a much farther area that the mushroom cloud you've seen. Same thing with ordinary bombs. Everyone looks at the firey explosion, but its the shockwave coming out from it that does most of the damage. I recommend checking out the damage from the Dong Feng-5, China's current nuke.

And Russia and China have a crazy number of nukes too. So really pointless that Putin is stating this stuff. Its just pounding his chest for his peeps because Russia is falling behind the US and China.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 07:28:00 AM by KTG »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12039
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1147 on: March 02, 2018, 07:28:00 AM »
How is Russia falling behind the US when they choose and control the leadership of the States?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3338
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1148 on: March 02, 2018, 07:31:44 AM »
Meanwhile, Putin is just oh-so-casually mentioning that he's got an unlimited range nuclear missile, and that it could hit, oh, I don't know, just as a crazy example... Florida.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/01/europe/putin-nuclear-missile-video-florida/index.html

Trump administration: "Oh, hey. That's like, not cool."

Oh I wouldn't worry about that. One of the things Putin likes to do is brag about military advances that they do not have yet. There have been many declarations of new military hardware they have developed that really haven't seen the light of day nor produced in any significant manner because they lack the funds to develop them.

Besides, what do I care about his missiles for? The US has enough nukes to kill every living thing on this planet 17 times over. 17 times. You only need 1. But just in case there is any fear of anyone surviving that one blast, we've got 16 more to ensure the job gets done.

If you want to see what a nuke will do to where you live, try this: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

You can set the nukes to past/present nukes, or even create your own! Add wind direction, air blast or ground blast, and you'll get a nice example of casualty and fallout results. Really wonderful tool to show how fucked you are should a modern ICBM hits your area. Also keep in mind it isn't the fireball that is going to kill most people, its the concussion from the blast, which goes out in a much farther area that the mushroom cloud you've seen. Same thing with ordinary bombs. Everyone looks at the firey explosion, but its the shockwave coming out from it that does most of the damage. I recommend checking out the damage from the Dong Feng-5, China's current nuke.

And Russia and China have a crazy number of nukes too. So really pointless that Putin is stating this stuff. Its just pounding his chest for his peeps because Russia is falling behind the US and China.

I'm not worried, as such. Not that Putin is going to bomb us, anyway. I see this as much more of a propaganda war on his end. And another way to show his people how weak Trump and the USA really are. In the process weakening us further, while Trump's base is all, "Yeah, Russia is our friend!" And the GOP does nothing. Not even the ones who used to see Russia as our greatest threat, and used to rail on any president who made even the slightest overture toward Russia.

#MakeRussiaGreatAgain
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 07:33:24 AM by Kris »

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #1149 on: March 02, 2018, 07:36:12 AM »
How is Russia falling behind the US when they choose and control the leadership of the States?

Militarily, yes, they are. Their little trip to Syria has severely depleted their stock of conventional bombs. Most of which were built in factories from the Soviet Union days. That military building infrastructure is no longer there. They can barely afford developing new fighters and bombers (mostly upgrading their Gen-4 stuff), tanks and so on. Yes they do come out with some nice designs every now and then, but no one really has any interest in buying it, and they alone can't afford to build anything in numbers. They don't have the capacity to really build up a blue ocean navy like they used to have too. We also smacked their ally in Syria, and killed a bunch of their mercenaries a few weeks ago. So I guess they are feeling a lack of respect lately.

So with all these problems, and a mass number of Chinese soldiers over the border, of course Putin wants to remind everyone that they have nukes. And the Chinese population is a problem too. Due to their one child policy ages ago, there are 50 million Chinese men with no hope of finding a Chinese wife. What do you to with all that extra man-power?

Well, historically, you send them off to war.

I see a conflict between China and India before a Chinese and Russian one, but the Russians and Chinese have gone at it before.