Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 131026 times)

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4841
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1000 on: January 13, 2017, 04:34:44 PM »
Acts like Silvio Berlusconi + talks like Hugo Chavez?

Seems about right. Perfect formula to get morons to vote for you...

-W

You just openly insulted a decent number of forum members, not to mention about 123 million adults in the US.  Isn't this a violation of the forum rules?

No, I don't think so.  If he had said "you are a moron for not understanding the difference" then he would have violated the forum rules.  But nobody here would ever say that.

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1001 on: January 13, 2017, 04:39:18 PM »
It's ok, I do think most people are pretty stupid.

FYI, Trump got ~62 million votes, not 123 million. That would have been the greatest presidential election victory in history and indeed in line with Chavez type results! :)

-W

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1002 on: January 13, 2017, 04:39:49 PM »
Acts like Silvio Berlusconi + talks like Hugo Chavez?

Seems about right. Perfect formula to get morons to vote for you...

-W

You just openly insulted a decent number of forum members, not to mention about 123 million adults in the US.  Isn't this a violation of the forum rules?

No, I don't think so.  If he had said "you are a moron for not understanding the difference" then he would have violated the forum rules.  But nobody here would ever say that.

Of course not, because you are all a bunch of lawyers, able to dance around the room with words alone, and constantly argue about what the meaning of "is" is.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1003 on: January 13, 2017, 04:40:33 PM »
It's ok, I do think most people are pretty stupid.

FYI, Trump got ~62 million votes, not 123 million. That would have been the greatest presidential election victory in history and indeed in line with Chavez type results! :)

-W

Close enough for a moron, apparently.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1004 on: January 13, 2017, 04:47:39 PM »


It's ok, I do think most people are pretty stupid.

FYI, Trump got ~62 million votes, not 123 million. That would have been the greatest presidential election victory in history and indeed in line with Chavez type results! :)

-W

Close enough for a moron, apparently.

Glad I could help clear that up. Facts are fun.

See, I'm only half as insulting as you thought!

-W

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1005 on: January 13, 2017, 05:17:15 PM »

Perhaps you are thinking of a different swamp.  I'm pretty sure that Trump was referring to the semi-permanent bureaucracy that runs most of the federal government.
Trump campaigned on Clinton being "too cozy with wall street." - now he's hired 4 former Goldmans Sachs executives
He attacked the Clinton Foundation as a "pay to play" organization - his Small Business Cabinet choice is the largest donor to the Trump Foundation
He claimed he was the populist and anti-establishment candidate. - I count tthree congressmen, a senator, two state governors, two CEOs of fortune 100 companies, at least four billionairs...

so: what we've got is basically career politicians, wall street executives and people who donated money who now have high profile positions.
I did not care for HRC's interdependance on wall street firms and large corporations, but Trump's administration is even more heavily weighted in this direction.

While this is true enough, I don't see it the same way.  It looks to me like Trump has been choosing his cabinet based upon a mostly common way of looking at the world, a personal history of success in their own fields, and their high probability of causing the political left enough stress to stroke out.  I'm not saying I think that he will be a good president, although I'm fairly certain he will be one of the more memorable of presidents across history.  But he certainly is going to be entertaining, at least for myself.  It all reminds me of the role of the President of the Galaxy in Douglas Adam's The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, who has no other role than to create constant controversy to distract from the true rulers as they go about their business.  I just hope that the monarch isn't really an old, senile madman who lives alone on a deserted island in a run down wooden shack.

I really don't look at the world the same way most of you seem to.  I'm not even sure that I look at the world the same way anyone here does, but I know my viewpoint isn't unique by any stretch.

Many of his picks appear at least partly based on loyalty to him and his family and campaign donations. Some of his picks like Rex, seem to be abnormally qualified and intelligent. Others like Ben Carson are just kind of stupid.

I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1006 on: January 13, 2017, 05:26:58 PM »
THe concern here is less about "at will" employees, but FTE. That's been stated over and over again.
Regarding the independent federal agencies - these agencies were all created by acts of congress and signed by the President.  Each was created specifically to be independent, in no small part because COngress did want the executive branch to completely control (for example) the EPA.
While the president appoints the head of these organizations, each is governed by a board - appointments are intentionally staggered so that no one president can appoint all of the members of the board. Protection from termination has been granted to federal workers precisely to prevent the kind of political meddling this would allow.

It concerns the hell out of me that these bills could further shift power to the executive branch, and curtail the independent nature of many of many federal organizations and much of our federal workforce. Again, you are incorrect that this has always been the power of the president - and in no way is this just "formalizing" or "clarifying" the law.

Finally, telling me that my opinion doesn't matter is a pretty low blow. I accept other people's opinions even when I don't agree with them.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1007 on: January 13, 2017, 05:38:47 PM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.
again, no. You're dancing around this issue and making untrue comparisons, like how no one in the 'real world' gets severence pay, notice, labor representation, etc. That is the STANDARD for contract employees in developed countries (not just the US). We are also not talking abotu layoffs here, but actual firings.

Not what I said. I said it was "at will" employment, which is the standard for those without a labor contract.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Pretty much anyone in any of these agencies that could be considered "management" level employees do not, or should not, have labor contract protections, and can be dismissed "at will" by their higher management.  The top of that management stack is the president in most cases.  You don't have to agree, or even like, that reality; but it is the reality.  In many ways, these new bills are more of a formality.  I accept that these bills will invalidate the contract protections of a great many unionized government workers also.  As the "I'm the greatest president ever" famously said shortly after taking office, elections have consequences.  The Republicans have nearly total control of government, and they intend to put the screws to their opposition to whatever degree they can get away with. 


Quote
To state this very clearly, no administration should be able to terminate employees without cause at any time and without any labor representation. To allow for such gives too much power, promotes corruption and threatens the functioning of our government.
I fully support methods that will allow us to cut out dead wood from departments (i.e. allowing people to be domoted or fired with cause), but that's not what's being discussed here.

That has always been a power of the presidency, over most of those federal agencies.  Your opinion about whether they should be able to does not matter.  If you work in one of these agencies, perhaps you should update your resume.

If the president had all this power already then there would be no need to push changes to the current rules. Though I suspect it would take a team of lawyers to speculate on what is currently possible and what these changes would make possible.

Suffice it to say that the ability to fire people in government may be desirable, but a certain level of unilateral power over these decisions expanded for a president is dangerous.

As you note some of that power is likely already there. We have had an ongoing trend of presidents pushing the limits of their power under the law to gain leverage against the other branches of government. Every new power a president utilizes for what they think is good is just another weapon the next president has to abuse the losing side. This is one of the major gripes a lot of conservatives had with some of Obama's usage of executive orders.

There always needs to be some checks in place because a presidents first responsibility, with regards to federal agencies, should be to keep these agencies functioning efficiently. Not open the doors further to encourage intimidation of employees over non-compliance with a current administrations agenda.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1008 on: January 13, 2017, 06:25:56 PM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.
again, no. You're dancing around this issue and making untrue comparisons, like how no one in the 'real world' gets severence pay, notice, labor representation, etc. That is the STANDARD for contract employees in developed countries (not just the US). We are also not talking abotu layoffs here, but actual firings.

Not what I said. I said it was "at will" employment, which is the standard for those without a labor contract.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Pretty much anyone in any of these agencies that could be considered "management" level employees do not, or should not, have labor contract protections, and can be dismissed "at will" by their higher management.  The top of that management stack is the president in most cases.  You don't have to agree, or even like, that reality; but it is the reality.  In many ways, these new bills are more of a formality.  I accept that these bills will invalidate the contract protections of a great many unionized government workers also.  As the "I'm the greatest president ever" famously said shortly after taking office, elections have consequences.  The Republicans have nearly total control of government, and they intend to put the screws to their opposition to whatever degree they can get away with. 


Quote
To state this very clearly, no administration should be able to terminate employees without cause at any time and without any labor representation. To allow for such gives too much power, promotes corruption and threatens the functioning of our government.
I fully support methods that will allow us to cut out dead wood from departments (i.e. allowing people to be domoted or fired with cause), but that's not what's being discussed here.

That has always been a power of the presidency, over most of those federal agencies.  Your opinion about whether they should be able to does not matter.  If you work in one of these agencies, perhaps you should update your resume.

If the president had all this power already then there would be no need to push changes to the current rules. Though I suspect it would take a team of lawyers to speculate on what is currently possible and what these changes would make possible.

Suffice it to say that the ability to fire people in government may be desirable, but a certain level of unilateral power over these decisions expanded for a president is dangerous.

As you note some of that power is likely already there. We have had an ongoing trend of presidents pushing the limits of their power under the law to gain leverage against the other branches of government. Every new power a president utilizes for what they think is good is just another weapon the next president has to abuse the losing side. This is one of the major gripes a lot of conservatives had with some of Obama's usage of executive orders.

There always needs to be some checks in place because a presidents first responsibility, with regards to federal agencies, should be to keep these agencies functioning efficiently. Not open the doors further to encourage intimidation of employees over non-compliance with a current administrations agenda.

Enjoy the decline.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1009 on: January 13, 2017, 07:05:02 PM »
I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

He may not be making appointments for that reason, but his picks do seem to serve that purpose almost perfectly.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1010 on: January 13, 2017, 09:30:42 PM »
I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

He may not be making appointments for that reason, but his picks do seem to serve that purpose almost perfectly.

Maybe I'm biased by watching The Apprentice, but Trump's picks are straight out of his reality TV style - unpredictable, inconsistent, shocking, contraversial... Substitute Perry for Omarosa (oh no he didn't!), even stringing along Romney makes sense...
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1011 on: January 13, 2017, 09:39:43 PM »
I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

He may not be making appointments for that reason, but his picks do seem to serve that purpose almost perfectly.

Maybe I'm biased by watching The Apprentice, but Trump's picks are straight out of his reality TV style - unpredictable, inconsistent, shocking, contraversial... Substitute Perry for Omarosa (oh no he didn't!), even stringing along Romney makes sense...

Well hopefully our country is at least as successful as that show for the next four years.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1012 on: January 13, 2017, 10:55:29 PM »

Many of his picks appear at least partly based on loyalty to him and his family and campaign donations. Some of his picks like Rex, seem to be abnormally qualified and intelligent. Others like Ben Carson are just kind of stupid.

Why do you say that?  I thought it was a fine choice.  The man might not have a lot of experience with housing or urban development, but he is a brain surgeon, so I would suspect that he has the intelligence to handle the position.  It also sort of makes a point obvious, Carson was the only person among the entire selection of republican candidates for the nomination that didn't act like Trump didn't deserve to stand on the same stage with him.  It says to me that Trump values intelligence, character, a successful background and loyalty over experience in government, political ties or identity group.

Quote

I also don't see him picking people just to fuck with the left either, that is the kind of thing someone with a truly right wing agenda would do. Trump clearly doesn't spend much time thinking in those terms, he doesn't appear to have any strong ideological ground with regard to most political issues.

No he doesn't, but he does strike me as the kind of person that enjoys trolling those who have insulted him in the past, or otherwise have deliberately undermined his goals.  That's all of the left, most of the media and half of the Republicans; so the left still gets the brunt of his ire for the foreseeable future.  Trump has been taking his distaste of the media directly out on the media.  And Ben Carson might be an example of a pick chosen, in part, because he is not an establishment Republican; just to add the joy of sticking it to the career Republicans after 8 years out of presidential favor.  A huge waving flag that says, "screw you guys, you still get nothin".
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1013 on: January 14, 2017, 10:37:09 PM »
THe concern here is less about "at will" employees, but FTE. That's been stated over and over again.
Regarding the independent federal agencies - these agencies were all created by acts of congress and signed by the President.  Each was created specifically to be independent, in no small part because COngress did want the executive branch to completely control (for example) the EPA.
While the president appoints the head of these organizations, each is governed by a board - appointments are intentionally staggered so that no one president can appoint all of the members of the board. Protection from termination has been granted to federal workers precisely to prevent the kind of political meddling this would allow.

It concerns the hell out of me that these bills could further shift power to the executive branch, and curtail the independent nature of many of many federal organizations and much of our federal workforce. Again, you are incorrect that this has always been the power of the president - and in no way is this just "formalizing" or "clarifying" the law.

Finally, telling me that my opinion doesn't matter is a pretty low blow. I accept other people's opinions even when I don't agree with them.

I'm now waiting for the Trumpsterfire supporters to justify it when he starts firing all the people in the CIA who've been looking into his ties with Russia. Or, say, starts firing the federal employee friends and relations to the people who work at Buzzfeed and released that hilarious story*. Or some other truly egregious abuse of power. Because the people who've been arguing so strenuously on here that this is fine, it's totally in line with previous presidents, etc., aren't going to let themselves lose face by admitting, wow, we royally screwed the pooch with this one!


Quidnon? - clearly being a brain surgeon does not always equal intelligence. The man doesn't believe in evolution and he thinks that rape can make a man homosexual. And homosexuality, as we all know, also makes you a pedophile by default. Being skilled enough with your hands to do surgery does not automatically make you sane, rational, or a good choice for political appointee. I wouldn't have dreamed of voting for Jill Stein either, in part because she's so anti-vaccination as to be clearly a little stupid in some ways. They both show that it's really not always our best and brightest who apply to, and get accepted to, medical school.

You clearly think that not having experience in the areas these appointees are being put in charge of, but I'm betting that if you needed a brain surgeon you'd look around for someone with experience. You want teachers with teaching experience in charge of your kid's class room. Hell, you wouldn't hire a plumber who didn't know what end of a wrench to use. People get better at their jobs with more experience. Not having political experience does not magically make someone somehow better suited to being in politics. Stop trying to spread the, frankly, quite stupid idea that because people are "outsiders" (which, they clearly aren't if they're even being considered for these positions) they're somehow going to use rainbow unicorn powers to understand everything about their new jobs and not royally fuck things up for other people.

This might seem like a fun thing for you to watch, but there really are people's lives at stake. It turns out that when you mess with people's healthcare, some of them will die. When you mess with housing and benefits for low-income people it turns out you'll end up throwing people onto the street, cause malnutrition (particularly among children--you know, the people you need to grow up healthy and smart so that they can grow the economy when they're older so that the stock market keeps growing to fund your FIRE), and generally destabilize more of the country. But sure, grab that popcorn you keep talking about and laugh at all those people. You're clearly just such a nice guy.


*Please note: I said story. I'm not trying to claim it's true or not true, just that it is a thing which happened. And it's damn funny, mostly because it enraged a certain tiny-handed wannabe king.

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1014 on: January 14, 2017, 11:28:12 PM »
I find it amusing how many worm around and squeal because he is going into office. The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia. Seriously? We are in every country in the Middle East and now are screwing with Israel and threatened Russia for exposing the truth. And the media wants to print unverified stories about paying a hooker to piss in a bed. <---- Thats what you all think are important? Pissing in a bed, and its not verified. Pray for our country.

You know we betrayed the Soviets after World War 2 by not sending the financial assistance we said we would. We fund ISIS and bomb hospital and deny it. Damn right the CIA feels threatened by Trump because he is having none of that lunacy. Even if the Russians did do it they exposed the truth. No one is denying that. The US made an informed decision. Good
;)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1015 on: January 14, 2017, 11:37:03 PM »
I find it amusing how many worm around and squeal because he is going into office. The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia. Seriously? We are in every country in the Middle East and now are screwing with Israel and threatened Russia for exposing the truth. And the media wants to print unverified stories about paying a hooker to piss in a bed. <---- Thats what you all think are important? Pissing in a bed, and its not verified. Pray for our country.

You know we betrayed the Soviets after World War 2 by not sending the financial assistance we said we would. We fund ISIS and bomb hospital and deny it. Damn right the CIA feels threatened by Trump because he is having none of that lunacy. Even if the Russians did do it they exposed the truth. No one is denying that. The US made an informed decision. Good

You clearly have read none of the discussion on any of these topics in this forum. Please do your homework and come back when you have finished.

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1016 on: January 14, 2017, 11:49:02 PM »
I find it amusing how many worm around and squeal because he is going into office. The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia. Seriously? We are in every country in the Middle East and now are screwing with Israel and threatened Russia for exposing the truth. And the media wants to print unverified stories about paying a hooker to piss in a bed. <---- Thats what you all think are important? Pissing in a bed, and its not verified. Pray for our country.

You know we betrayed the Soviets after World War 2 by not sending the financial assistance we said we would. We fund ISIS and bomb hospital and deny it. Damn right the CIA feels threatened by Trump because he is having none of that lunacy. Even if the Russians did do it they exposed the truth. No one is denying that. The US made an informed decision. Good

You clearly have read none of the discussion on any of these topics in this forum. Please do your homework and come back when you have finished.

My bad. I read a couple of pages. Guilty
;)

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1097
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1017 on: January 15, 2017, 12:03:10 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent". Also, yes I want to talk about Russia when treason by a president-elect is involved. Why the fuck wouldn't we want to discuss that? That's really not the sort of thing that should be brushed aside. What is wrong with you, that you would want to? Seriously, that's a problem with you, not with us.

Also, I retract my earlier statement. After further research it does not appear to just be a story. Multiple European spy agencies are now reporting that Russia has blackmail against Trump. Whether he truly wanted to be pissed on, watch someone peeing on someone else, or whatever, I don't know. But the fact that they clearly helped put him in power, he's been doing everything he can to make our stance toward Russia more favorable, and multiple spy agencies are saying they have blackmail against him, that's a goddamn problem and one that we should be talking about. This is not "squealing" because "my" candidate lost.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1018 on: January 15, 2017, 12:06:20 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent". Also, yes I want to talk about Russia when treason by a president-elect is involved. Why the fuck wouldn't we want to discuss that? That's really not the sort of thing that should be brushed aside. What is wrong with you, that you would want to? Seriously, that's a problem with you, not with us.

Also, I retract my earlier statement. After further research it does not appear to just be a story. Multiple European spy agencies are now reporting that Russia has blackmail against Trump. Whether he truly wanted to be pissed on, watch someone peeing on someone else, or whatever, I don't know. But the fact that they clearly helped put him in power, he's been doing everything he can to make our stance toward Russia more favorable, and multiple spy agencies are saying they have blackmail against him, that's a goddamn problem and one that we should be talking about. This is not "squealing" because "my" candidate lost.

Much like the stories about that other candidate who lost the election, when there are charges filed, I'll believe it.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1019 on: January 15, 2017, 12:46:30 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent".

Seriously, he has T, Rex. The guy has been to more countries than UPS and he intimately knows the one commodity the US is 100% dependent on. Thats just one pick. Like it or not our nation and economy depend on oil and diplomacy.

And the election claims are bogus because actual voting was not manipulated in favor of Trump. I don't think the blackmail information is true period, and with dead people appearing in the new Star Wars video can not be 100% trusted. Especially if its low quality.

I think he is Married to a slavic. So what. He recognizes that we have too many fronts in this war already. Russia will make a better friend than enemy. What about the China hack of 25,000,000 accounts, and their advancement in the South China Sea, and our tech manufacturing in their grip, and their disregard of patients.

What about BO and Israel? Seriously? Oh sure, betray an actual ally and create massive instability with two nuclear powers-- Russia, and Israel while we are in every nation in the middle east but Iran and Arabia. Meanwhile Philippines gives us the finger and says they will go to China and Russia. Maybe we should make more friends and if we keep our emails on private servers that are not secured with classified info on them we have no right to point fingers. And BO wants to nationalize the election process why?
;)

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1020 on: January 15, 2017, 05:06:39 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent".

Seriously, he has T, Rex. The guy has been to more countries than UPS and he intimately knows the one commodity the US is 100% dependent on. Thats just one pick. Like it or not our nation and economy depend on oil and diplomacy.

And the election claims are bogus because actual voting was not manipulated in favor of Trump. I don't think the blackmail information is true period, and with dead people appearing in the new Star Wars video can not be 100% trusted. Especially if its low quality.

I think he is Married to a slavic. So what. He recognizes that we have too many fronts in this war already. Russia will make a better friend than enemy. What about the China hack of 25,000,000 accounts, and their advancement in the South China Sea, and our tech manufacturing in their grip, and their disregard of patients.

What about BO and Israel? Seriously? Oh sure, betray an actual ally and create massive instability with two nuclear powers-- Russia, and Israel while we are in every nation in the middle east but Iran and Arabia. Meanwhile Philippines gives us the finger and says they will go to China and Russia. Maybe we should make more friends and if we keep our emails on private servers that are not secured with classified info on them we have no right to point fingers. And BO wants to nationalize the election process why?

So now we have Russians posting to our forum?  At least, that's how it seems given how out of touch the posts are with the thread, and the suspicious username.  Just kidding (sort of), people are entitled to their opinions, but please frame them toward changing people's minds and sharing information, not just antagonistic.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

realDonaldTrump

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1021 on: January 15, 2017, 05:40:23 AM »
Widening gap between rich and poor. Trump voters will get what they asked for :)

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1022 on: January 15, 2017, 06:14:58 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent".

Seriously, he has T, Rex. The guy has been to more countries than UPS and he intimately knows the one commodity the US is 100% dependent on. Thats just one pick. Like it or not our nation and economy depend on oil and diplomacy.

And the election claims are bogus because actual voting was not manipulated in favor of Trump. I don't think the blackmail information is true period, and with dead people appearing in the new Star Wars video can not be 100% trusted. Especially if its low quality.

I think he is Married to a slavic. So what. He recognizes that we have too many fronts in this war already. Russia will make a better friend than enemy. What about the China hack of 25,000,000 accounts, and their advancement in the South China Sea, and our tech manufacturing in their grip, and their disregard of patients.

What about BO and Israel? Seriously? Oh sure, betray an actual ally and create massive instability with two nuclear powers-- Russia, and Israel while we are in every nation in the middle east but Iran and Arabia. Meanwhile Philippines gives us the finger and says they will go to China and Russia. Maybe we should make more friends and if we keep our emails on private servers that are not secured with classified info on them we have no right to point fingers. And BO wants to nationalize the election process why?

So now we have Russians posting to our forum?  At least, that's how it seems given how out of touch the posts are with the thread, and the suspicious username.  Just kidding (sort of), people are entitled to their opinions, but please frame them toward changing people's minds and sharing information, not just antagonistic.
Obvious troll is obvious. Do not feed.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1023 on: January 15, 2017, 09:24:25 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent".

Seriously, he has T, Rex. The guy has been to more countries than UPS and he intimately knows the one commodity the US is 100% dependent on. Thats just one pick. Like it or not our nation and economy depend on oil and diplomacy.

And the election claims are bogus because actual voting was not manipulated in favor of Trump. I don't think the blackmail information is true period, and with dead people appearing in the new Star Wars video can not be 100% trusted. Especially if its low quality.

I think he is Married to a slavic. So what. He recognizes that we have too many fronts in this war already. Russia will make a better friend than enemy. What about the China hack of 25,000,000 accounts, and their advancement in the South China Sea, and our tech manufacturing in their grip, and their disregard of patients.

What about BO and Israel? Seriously? Oh sure, betray an actual ally and create massive instability with two nuclear powers-- Russia, and Israel while we are in every nation in the middle east but Iran and Arabia. Meanwhile Philippines gives us the finger and says they will go to China and Russia. Maybe we should make more friends and if we keep our emails on private servers that are not secured with classified info on them we have no right to point fingers. And BO wants to nationalize the election process why?

So now we have Russians posting to our forum?  At least, that's how it seems given how out of touch the posts are with the thread, and the suspicious username.  Just kidding (sort of), people are entitled to their opinions, but please frame them toward changing people's minds and sharing information, not just antagonistic.

Okay. In short, I believe a Trump presidency will avoid World War 3. I think we are very close to it now. The only reason we are in Syria is we are protecting a pipeline that come from Saudi Arabia. Rex (SOS appointee) is a great pick because if anyone can balance the oil situation so we don't have to be in every country in the Middle East its him. There is no reason to try to split up Israel and provoke Russia right now. We have massive troops on their border and invading one of their allies. Using a little empathy its not hard to see why they are upset or why they would support an American who is not aggressive towards them (Trump).

My country is a war mongering nation and the obvious evidence of being at war for 15 years supports my conclusion. Here comes the rise of AFD and Brexit and Frexit and more to come. Why? Refugees from our bombings for oil. Thats why.
;)

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1024 on: January 15, 2017, 09:35:57 AM »
Yup, Russia troll. Got it now.

-W

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1025 on: January 15, 2017, 09:36:20 AM »
Quote
Why do you say that?  I thought it was a fine choice.  The man might not have a lot of experience with housing or urban development, but he is a brain surgeon, so I would suspect that he has the intelligence to handle the position.

This is exactly why I think Ben is a very poor choice.  He'd make more sense nominated as the surgeon-general (though I wouldn't support him there either.). 
Contrary to the current climate, I believe that experience for a particular job at the high federal level is a very GOOD thing.  Apparently it's now a liability.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1026 on: January 15, 2017, 10:11:17 AM »
Yup, Russia troll. Got it now.

-W

Ha! Actually no. Its Mr Percentage. So maybe Im a troll but Im definitely not Russian. By the way I FIRED. I haven't worked for 5 months and am living off of my 457. I will go back to work eventually so maybe I didn't FIRE exactly. More like an extended vacation that has saturated me with world politics. When you guys can't face facts you always yell troll. Troll, Russian, block em! All for censorship. Nothing free about that. Don't worry I don't plan on staying long. This might be my last post.
;)

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4841
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1027 on: January 15, 2017, 11:21:22 AM »
This might be my last post.

Try not to fret about the duration of our mourning, Mr.P.

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1028 on: January 15, 2017, 11:38:52 AM »
This might be my last post.

Try not to fret about the duration of our mourning, Mr.P.

I know better than that Sol. My grandfather always used to say: don't stay past your welcome. I did learn quite a bit. Especially about indexing and use of tax deferred accounts. Actually the list is quite long. For those things, Thank you.

Im unplugging in a lot of areas-- forums and social media. No more FaceCrook gestapo news. Im going to try to focus on the real world. Things are good. I wake up when Im ready and most of the stress has been removed. I give God the credit but some assistance has come from this forum. Take care.
;)

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1029 on: January 15, 2017, 12:43:48 PM »


Quidnon? - clearly being a brain surgeon does not always equal intelligence.
Not always, but it's common enough.  And yes, the man is very intelligent anyway.
Quote
The man doesn't believe in evolution and he thinks that rape can make a man homosexual. And homosexuality, as we all know, also makes you a pedophile by default.
I don't believe this stuff.  At least I believe that there is some important nuance there. But even if not, I honestly don't care about this.  I am not a politically correct person.  I don't think that homosexuals deserve special protections, whatever their history.  Whether it is nature or nurture, it's a trait that can reasonably be hidden from the view of the public, which is not so for either blacks or women, so I don't think that homosexuality rises to the same level of need.  Now, I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against, as a rule; just that if it continuously happens to them to any real degree, most would stay in the closet.  The very fact that is no longer necessary in our society is evidence enough that it's no longer a serious problem.  You don't have to agree, nor do you have to like the man for his social perspectives.  I would consider that a valid reason to oppose him, I just wouldn't agree that it's a big a deal as it is often made out to be.

Quote

You clearly think that not having experience in the areas these appointees are being put in charge of, but I'm betting that if you needed a brain surgeon you'd look around for someone with experience. You want teachers with teaching experience in charge of your kid's class room. Hell, you wouldn't hire a plumber who didn't know what end of a wrench to use. People get better at their jobs with more experience. Not having political experience does not magically make someone somehow better suited to being in politics. Stop trying to spread the, frankly, quite stupid idea that because people are "outsiders" (which, they clearly aren't if they're even being considered for these positions) they're somehow going to use rainbow unicorn powers to understand everything about their new jobs and not royally fuck things up for other people.
I agree that, most of the time, experience in a field is preferable.  Until it's shown that experience means that you have likely been corrupted.  That means more to me than experience in politics.

Quote
This might seem like a fun thing for you to watch, but there really are people's lives at stake. It turns out that when you mess with people's healthcare, some of them will die.
Some, certainly.  I have no doubt that many of these sad cases will be trotted out to show how mean and hateful whatever the Republicans come up with next is.  But people will die anyway.  Again, no one dies because they don't have insurance.  They die from disease or injuries.  I don't want people to lose their health care, I just don't want to be forced to pay for it.
Quote

 You're clearly just such a nice guy.

I never said that I cared more about millions of people I have never met than myself or those close to me.  I find it difficult to believe that you do.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1030 on: January 15, 2017, 01:07:09 PM »
Right-wing people commonly point out, in their criticism of "liberal elites," that being book smart doesn't make you actually smart.

Ben Carson seems to me like a perfect example of this.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

jrhampt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 965
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1031 on: January 15, 2017, 02:06:15 PM »
Matthew Shepard.  That's why gay people need special protection under law.  He's just one example.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1032 on: January 15, 2017, 05:52:53 PM »
Right-wing people commonly point out, in their criticism of "liberal elites," that being book smart doesn't make you actually smart.

Ben Carson seems to me like a perfect example of this.

Hmmm, maybe. We shall yet see, but I will try to keep an open mind.  I don't know what kind of harm he could do to homosexuals in the HUD anyway. Bit of an easy post, for a federal agency.  Closer to dogcatcher than county sheriff.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1033 on: January 15, 2017, 06:12:17 PM »
Right-wing people commonly point out, in their criticism of "liberal elites," that being book smart doesn't make you actually smart.

Ben Carson seems to me like a perfect example of this.

Hmmm, maybe. We shall yet see, but I will try to keep an open mind.  I don't know what kind of harm he could do to homosexuals in the HUD anyway. Bit of an easy post, for a federal agency.  Closer to dogcatcher than county sheriff.

HUD isn't Secretary of State, but a bit condescending to say it's closer to dogcatcher than county sheriff... 8,500 employees and a budget of $32B - eclipses that of almost all county sheriffs except LA and maybe one or two others.

Regardless, in a few weeks time we'll have someone running it who has no experience in that department.  Hopefully it'll go better than I anticipate (which is somewhere between poor and train-wreck).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1034 on: January 15, 2017, 06:36:16 PM »
I know there was a pledge to 'drain the swamp', and I felt that Tillerson actually brought something to this ideal, but the rest of the Cabinet appointments are looking pretty grim.  Carson literally did not want a position (let alone HUD, so far out of his wheelhouse) and then was offered to be given assistance from Steve Harvey (yeah, the Family Feud game-show host).  It's not like there aren't qualified people that would be willing to assist him.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1035 on: January 16, 2017, 05:50:04 AM »
I know there was a pledge to 'drain the swamp', and I felt that Tillerson actually brought something to this ideal, but the rest of the Cabinet appointments are looking pretty grim.  Carson literally did not want a position (let alone HUD, so far out of his wheelhouse) and then was offered to be given assistance from Steve Harvey (yeah, the Family Feud game-show host).  It's not like there aren't qualified people that would be willing to assist him.

Appointments like this make me think that Trump is less concerned with 'who will do the best job?' and more concerned with 'who will let me call the shots?''
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1036 on: January 16, 2017, 08:03:58 AM »
I know there was a pledge to 'drain the swamp', and I felt that Tillerson actually brought something to this ideal, but the rest of the Cabinet appointments are looking pretty grim.  Carson literally did not want a position (let alone HUD, so far out of his wheelhouse) and then was offered to be given assistance from Steve Harvey (yeah, the Family Feud game-show host).  It's not like there aren't qualified people that would be willing to assist him.

Appointments like this make me think that Trump is less concerned with 'who will do the best job?' and more concerned with 'who will let me call the shots?''

I think it's more like "who will express absolute adoration, immediate acquiescence and unquestioning loyalty to me"?
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1037 on: January 16, 2017, 09:04:04 AM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.

Yes, and technically "independent" just means they're not headed by a Cabinet secretary. It doesn't literally mean independent.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1038 on: January 16, 2017, 09:20:28 AM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.

Yes, and technically "independent" just means they're not headed by a Cabinet secretary. It doesn't literally mean independent.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response up-thread.
Indepenent federal agencies are so named because upon their creation Congress decided to ensure that the President would not control the agency by putting measures in place to limit the president's power over said agency.
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4841
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1039 on: January 16, 2017, 09:36:20 AM »
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

The EPA is an unusual case, which makes it more dependent on the President than most of the other federal science agencies and thus more vulnerable to political interference.

Why?  Because the head of the EPA reports directly to the President and that's not true for most of the others.  Most federal science agencies have an ultimate head in charge, who then reports to a cabinet secretary, who reports to the President.  It may sound like a small bureaucratic change, but in practice it makes a big difference in how these agencies are operated.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1040 on: January 16, 2017, 09:53:31 AM »
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

The EPA is an unusual case, which makes it more dependent on the President than most of the other federal science agencies and thus more vulnerable to political interference.

Why?  Because the head of the EPA reports directly to the President and that's not true for most of the others.  Most federal science agencies have an ultimate head in charge, who then reports to a cabinet secretary, who reports to the President.  It may sound like a small bureaucratic change, but in practice it makes a big difference in how these agencies are operated.
True 'dat.  I chose the EPA in part because it's one that everyone knows, is often vilified by GOPers and ironically was created by a GOP president and congress.
Several of the other independent federal agencies have even less influence by the president, such as the Smithsonian (not only the largest museum collection in world, but also a top-notch research institution with multiple campuses).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1041 on: January 16, 2017, 10:46:32 AM »
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

The EPA is an unusual case, which makes it more dependent on the President than most of the other federal science agencies and thus more vulnerable to political interference.

Why?  Because the head of the EPA reports directly to the President and that's not true for most of the others.  Most federal science agencies have an ultimate head in charge, who then reports to a cabinet secretary, who reports to the President.  It may sound like a small bureaucratic change, but in practice it makes a big difference in how these agencies are operated.
And this is why the forum is so interesting.  API (a quasi corporate entity) is mostly opposed to the EPA governmental regulation stuff.  I hate to see the regulations rolled back because 'humanity' can afford a little tax, but I'm enjoying the sideshow in the meantime, whatever happens.  Either way, I'ved lived a good life :)
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1042 on: January 16, 2017, 11:10:41 AM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.

Yes, and technically "independent" just means they're not headed by a Cabinet secretary. It doesn't literally mean independent.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response up-thread.
Indepenent federal agencies are so named because upon their creation Congress decided to ensure that the President would not control the agency by putting measures in place to limit the president's power over said agency.
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/the-most-dangerous-bill-y_b_14067390.html

ysette9

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1043 on: January 16, 2017, 02:34:22 PM »
This is from several posts ago, but I just can't let it stand unopposed.

Quote
I don't think that homosexuals deserve special protections, whatever their history. Whether it is nature or nurture, it's a trait that can reasonably be hidden from the view of the public, which is not so for either blacks or women, so I don't think that homosexuality rises to the same level of need. Now, I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against, as a rule; just that if it continuously happens to them to any real degree, most would stay in the closet. The very fact that is no longer necessary in our society is evidence enough that it's no longer a serious problem

This is so ignorant and so dangerous all together that it has to be called out. I'm not even LGBT myself and this strikes me as a major case of not ever having walked in someone's shoes or even spent 30 seconds trying to imagine what it is like to be another person. You are seriously saying that millions of people should spend their entire lives pretending to be something that they are not just so they don't get more obvious discrimination? For what? So you can feel slightly more comfortable? People in countries with dreadful human rights records regarding the LGBT community still face the risks of being out and advocating for better treatment because it is their fundamental human nature.

Being part of PRIDE at work, an ally, and the sister of a lesbian I can tell you that even in my little bubble I can see directly that protections are still absolutely needed, even in the liberal paradise I live in. You obviously don't see the hate-filled messages that get posted online. You obviously aren't responding to the midnight suicide watch phone calls of people who are so scared of the environment this new regime is ushering in that they can't fathom how to cope. You must have missed all the articles that got posted about hate crimes against the LGBT community. How about that little bombing down in Florida a few months back? Is that forgotten?
"It'll be great!"

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4841
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1044 on: January 16, 2017, 03:23:12 PM »
This is from several posts ago, but I just can't let it stand unopposed.

Don't let it upset you.  Moonshadow was a long time troll of the forums (banned and then reincarnated as quidnon), who made a habit of making outrageous claims like that and then backing them up with even more outrageous lies. 

It wasn't offered as anyone's honest opinion, so don't let it upset you.  It's fine to call him out for being a heartless asshole, for the benefit of other readers, but don't feel compelled to actually engage with him.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 03:27:56 PM by sol »

ysette9

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1045 on: January 16, 2017, 03:25:47 PM »
Thanks for tha perspective. I recognize some of the better-known posters (such as yourself) but for the most part don't pay attention to user names enough to recognize who is troll-ish. This is my playground and damnit, I want people to not throw sand and put their trash in the trash can!
"It'll be great!"

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2746
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1046 on: January 16, 2017, 04:20:21 PM »
Tillerson talks a good game, but his actions are often the opposite of his words. As CEO of Exxon Mobil  he said human caused global warming was real, and even advocated for a carbon tax ...  all whilst financing >$30m in climate denial 'journalism'.

That guy should have zero credibility. Be very wary of Tillerson.

I'd go so far as to say "Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 04:24:01 PM by Malaysia41 »
last one to panic wins! (confession: I am kinda freakin' out a bit right now because the GOP is a cult and most of my family are card carrying members. It sucks.)

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

Official Enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded two party system that inflicted them upon us.

ysette9

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1033
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1047 on: January 16, 2017, 04:25:28 PM »
Quote
Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
LOL.

Fuck being a lady.
(Ack, my potty mouth! Phew, that was liberating.)
"It'll be great!"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1048 on: January 16, 2017, 04:26:19 PM »
Tillerson talks a good game, but his actions are often the opposite of his words. As CEO of Exxon Mobil  he said human caused global warming was real, and even advocated for a carbon tax ...  all whilst financing >$30m in climate denial 'journalism'.

That guy should have zero credibility. Be very wary of Tillerson.

I'd go so far as to say "Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
Interesting.  Do you have a source showing his funding of climate change 'journalism'?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2746
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1049 on: January 16, 2017, 05:01:04 PM »
Tillerson talks a good game, but his actions are often the opposite of his words. As CEO of Exxon Mobil  he said human caused global warming was real, and even advocated for a carbon tax ...  all whilst financing >$30m in climate denial 'journalism'.

That guy should have zero credibility. Be very wary of Tillerson.

I'd go so far as to say "Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
Interesting.  Do you have a source showing his funding of climate change 'journalism'?

A google search yields many of my preferred  sources to choose from. Examples:

Exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

Rockefeller family calling Exxon Mobil out and divesting...

Union of Concerned Scientists

Exxon Mobil funding timeline (Greenpeace - granted - Greenpeace isn't my most trusted source, but all of the links they cite - that I've checked - have panned out (not that I've checked every single one))

detailed accounting

Many of these exxon-mobil funded organizations produce 'news' on topics apart From climate denial. However, every single one produces articles that cast doubt on climate change consensus. It's silly to believe that the exxon mobil $ is going to anything other than climate denial literature from the likes of James Delingpole or Lord Monckton.

I recommend watching the 2011 BBC show Horizon with an interview with one of the main climate denial scientists, James Delingpole. He says he hasn't time to read peer reviewed studies, but yet he sets the world back a decade in global warming action by casting doubt with 'climategate.'  >7 independent committees - some commissioned by right wing idealogues - all came to the conclusion that climategate was bunk. It's nauseating.

I could go on... do you want me to go on?

Okay. Here, read this from Scientific American. It goes way beyond Exxon Mobil.

Also, I highly recommend reading up on Donor's trust. It's a foundation that obfuscates donations and puts them to anonymous use. It's interesting to see the increase in donor's trust activity and decrease in direct sponsorship by Exxon Mobil. I wonder if there's a reason for that.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 06:37:36 PM by Malaysia41 »
last one to panic wins! (confession: I am kinda freakin' out a bit right now because the GOP is a cult and most of my family are card carrying members. It sucks.)

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

Official Enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded two party system that inflicted them upon us.